Sunday, December 30, 2007

Book Review: American Vulgar

If you choose to live
-- under the illusions of mass-marketing
-- or under the yoke of slavery to dishonest government
-- or in the confines of fear of this or that version of God
-- or behind the bars of your own ignorance,
then you should NOT read this book.

Only people who yearn to find broader awareness and deeper understanding of how the world works should read this.
American Vulgar
Everyone else can just stay in their own chosen confinements of the life they choose and be satisfied with their immediate gratification of ignorance.

In his new book, Robert Grudin challenges us all to reach beyond the common beliefs and the truth that power holders twist up into balls of nefarious myths in order to keep us stupid. As John Stuart Mill once wrote, “society wants to keep you stupid because the dumber you are, the easier it is to manipulate you.”

Grudin states the premise of his book clearly:

”What follows is a meditation on American vulgarity: its components, its causes, and its possible cures. I realize that Americans tend to be uneasy with the V-word, usually linking it to the snotty tastes of some ancient regime. My response to this is that only the word vulgarity can describe the particular combination of gullibility, ignorance, and self-indulgence that characterizes the American marketplace, and only the word vulgarizing can describe the various hucksters who manipulate public choice.”



This concept could not be more blatant than in the dark days of American history when our own elected White House Administration had led us to war based on lies. Then, to add insult to injury, our political leaders lied to us, the American public, again just to keep us at war.

Grudin lays it out in a cool, concise vision. First, in Part I of this book, he breaks down the sham that spreads a veil over our culture. He parses out the various flavors of ”vulgar” and reminds us that we have to make an effort to keep ourselves free from the traps of ignorance.

America is all about freedom. But, unless we question and freely doubt the tenants of such big claims, we are tethered down to living on the surface. We become bitter, cynical, and miserable when we let ourselves follow the easiest paths, the common beliefs. Each of us, as individuals, is responsible for our own freedom. As many say, freedom comes at a price.

Critical Thinking

We cannot rely on government to protect us. We have to be self-reliant, self-governing as voters, as consumers, and as individuals. This holds especially when government seems to work much like a subsidiary of the corporations who buy into politicians through campaign donations, otherwise known as bribes.

As Grudin acknowledges, this insight offers neither originality nor novelty; the ancients of Greece and elsewhere recognized that political discourse operates by varying degrees of deceit. Even the ancient Greek gods often misled mortals and other gods alike. Deities of this nature served to help keep people on guard and constantly thinking critically in terms of the ulterior motives others might intend to impose through deceit for self-interests.

Grudin points out that the American educational system offers its students little protection against deceit. Most college graduates are fully certified degree holders of gullibility and credulity. The bureaucrats who carefully shape college curricula fall dreadfully short in training students in critical thinking. And we need not mention what skills citizens gain from public high schools. What's more painful is a citizenry that voted for it and a congress who gave the President a blank check for a war without doubting its justifications. Symptoms of a culture gone haywire.

So, our culture breeds vulgarity at its nurturing core where the young suckle on the tit of would-be enlightenment. Once graduated, certificate in hand, they go forth into the world gullible enough to reelect a president who lied to justify a war based on extremist ideology. We know our society is falling deep into a pit when our political leaders concoct a war by a small group of men, mostly from the petroleum industry, and not for the benefit of the public.

Vulgarity and Economics

We must make an effort to find our liberty and enjoy it. This is a daily task because everywhere we find advertisers, politicians, and holy-rollers seeking to persuade us on one issue or another. Unless we develop our own sense of critical thinking, we become the victims of someone else’s version of truth.

Some want us to believe in this or that God. Others want us to eat this or that food. Still others want us to follow their political ideology. What's a person to think?

In an ideal world, everyone would understand that vulgar deception of customers leads to waste of valuable resources. This brings up the tobacco industry, the fast food business, and almost any other industry. American corporations often use their vulgar power of advertising persuasion to coax people into buying their products regardless of their harmful effects. A wiser marketplace, one where consumers know the benefits and possible hazards, would vote with their wallet for or against products. Can we count on government to restrain corporate greed?

Complacency

The entire American public prefers most often to stroll through life complacent. Complacency rides on the back of vulgarity like the parasitical fungus on the back of the Arabian camel. Complacency is the attitude that ignores problems, even whole sectors of problems, on the pretext that they are “comparatively minor and will go away.”

Grudin uses the Clinton impeachment case to illustrate this particular species of vulgarity :

”This emotional muddle, this disregard for the important in favor of the trivial, this typically American deflation of meaning and attention, reached its climax in early 1998, when the press learned of President Clinton’s erotic relationship with a White House intern. For many weeks world news was hung out to dry in favor of one of the most banal, most predictable, and least disturbing of interactions: a young woman’s fling with a middle-aged power monger…The media knew that they could do a land office business in American vulgarity. True the affair might be of no real importance at all,…just the sort of thing that the American public would lap up.”



Complacency and Depression

The author shows a convincing link between complacency and depression. Complacent people are not happy. They become cynical and bitter because they have lost purpose of life. Instead, they simply drift along in the flow of conformity and common, preconceived values. When people are complacent, they wall themselves off from solving problems or from controversial topics and interactions. They lose touch with one of the basic aspects of happiness – engaging life and taking responsibility.

Grudin writes, “You could actually call depression Bartleby Syndrome, after Herman Melville’s fictional scribe who worked on Wall Street and whose office window opened onto a brick wall.”

In Part I, of this book, Gurdin covers the details of these topics I’ve touched upon. He finally makes an astute observation about the link between crime and vulgarity.

White collar crimes are slightly more subtle, less immediately lethal, less bloody, but nonetheless equally deadly as violent street crimes. Well educated, church going, socially adjusted and conforming professionals commit white collar crimes. They are devised in the plush executive offices of tobacco, fast food and other industries where products are deliberately designed to addict consumers to harmful habits.

On the other hand, violent street crimes are committed in blatantly vulgar terms. Grudin considers the case of the Columbine High School shootings.

He places Michael Moore’s documentary on this subject in the category of vulgar along with most of the trendy and fashionable products issued from American culture:

Moore’s film has been parised as an act of liberalism, when instead we may ask whether Bowling is not a form of liberal vulgarity: the tendency to brainstorm rather than observe, the choice of a sexy quick-fix explanation (the “culture of fear”) over the challenging process of social analysis.



Awareness

In Part II, of his book, Grudin goes beyond an analysis of what is going dreadfully wrong with American culture. He elucidates a solution and thus becomes more than an armchair observer and commentator of our society. He becomes a healing shaman for our times.

What is the medicine we prescribe to ourselves to dig our culture out of the pit it’s falling into?

I could tell you…but then, I’d have to summarize Grudin’s book which is already too short, too concise. And in summarizing such insightful writing, I, too, then would fall into that pit among the vulgar. Giving you the cliff-notes version of this book would not do it or your intelligence justice.

You’ll just have to read it for yourself. It’s a short and extremely well written book that touches on the edges of “self-help.” Yet, it’s a higher level of self-help than you’ll find anywhere else because it’s a healing remedy for an ailing culture.

Read it and find some light in an otherwise dim world littered with the bright neon lights of glitz and gold.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Essay: Loony Cafe

Laguna Beach, CA -- I admit my thinking becomes intense at times. It’s not my fault. The coffee they serve here at Laguna Beach works wonders. Just the right formula…transforms a regular, stable guy like me into a psychic mess.


I come here to write my next novel. The cafĂ©’s patrons are an eclectic community. Surfers hardly dressed, listening to iPod songs. Bikers stop here too on their hog rides from beach to beach. College co-eds hang out here, wearing their pants below the top of their beautifully tanned bottoms clad in colorful thongs. Even the eternal mermaids come to sip the Nicaraguan Nectar, singing each to each.

You can order up any kind of beverage here so long as it’s the thought twisting brews from dried plants ground up into magical powders. The triple shot Cappuccino enables me to connect with my characters in unusual ways. But I especially like the Raging Rwanda Roast. It kicks my optic nerves into high gear. It crawls up my nerve fibers and opens my chakra channels. It persuades me of my methods. Then the angel carries me away in the Spirit. Yes, now I see a biker ride off, a woman sitting on a scarlet beast covered with blasphemous tattoos; it has seven heads and ten horns.

I see my characters in my book, hear them talk to me, we argue. They persuade me. Sometimes their behavior scares me. They carry out the story and I am merely their interpreter on this side of their remote spiritual realm.

I see so clearly from this high ridge of Rwanda Roast Revelations. Virgil guides me through the dark forests of Purgatory, through Hell and back to Heaven. I must get back to my novel. It’s what’s real. Life is not.

I’m sorry. I slipped up. I used a couple of metaphors, poetic images. It’s that Psychedelic Seattle brew that the bikers sip at the next table; a mere whiff of it opens up my spiritual portals to channel more closely with my characters on the far side. Just its aroma affects my writing. It persuades me to use symbols, beasts with seven heads. I drink the concoctions as easily as pouring out the seven bowls of God’s wrath on earth. Don’t take the metaphors literally. God, Evil, Heaven, mean different things to different people. And for me the meaning changes at different times.

Through history, religious authority figures, fundamentalists, have succeeded in using these images to frighten people into believing a particular moral code, dogma. It’s one of the oldest, most effective methods to persuade people, to control their behavior. Fear! Until the Age of Enlightenment, this method, although arbitrary and corrupt, was part of government, effective in maintaining social order. For the most part, this means of persuasion still works well in the Muslim world, especially the Middle East. But then, when watching the TV evangelicals, members of the infamous 700 Club, one wonders how well our own society is free from these archaic ploys for persuasion.

TV evangelical Pat Robertson used this type of persuasion recently in one of his fire’n brimstone lectures. He told people in a Pennsylvania town that God will not help them if a disaster strikes because they voted against teaching intelligent design during science classes on evolution. He writes persuasive sermons like a raging pope from the Dark Ages. He and I, we probably share the same Psychedelic Seattle visions, maybe even connect to the Spirit through the same spooky channels.

I believe that all writing intends to persuade…to an opinion or at least a point of view. It’s a tradition that comes to us through thousands of years of refinement, since before Aristotle’s classical rhetoric.

Consider modern novels. John Updike’s rabbit, run establishes its argument in the first pages. If a novel, movie or essay doesn’t do this in its earliest part, it’s bound to fail. In Updike’s novel, the premise: if you’re not doing what you really want in life, you’ll be miserable. Rabbit hears this wisdom from TV cartoons that his wife watches.

Bukowski’s novel, Post Office, establishes its premise in the first page…a philosophical principle about living life for the moment’s pleasures; find whatever means it takes to obtain immediate gratification. Working as a mailman, it’s a great means to meet lonely women ready for playing the rolling double backed beast.

If a published piece of writing or film, poetry or whatever doesn’t aim at persuasion…then what’s the point? That’s what I look for. As a consumer, I demand it!

Okay. The coffee here at Laguna Beach is far too much for me, makes me imbalanced...too much blood rushing the brain...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary…objective? Yes and highly persuasive because it piles up evidence in a clear and logical manner. One is bound to draw a clean and clear conclusion. The most successful non-persuasive book in the world is the phonebook. It’s a database of information…of that fact it’s entirely irrefutable.

Fox News Channel is persuasive, always pumping out that particular neocon rhetoric in a gushing force of a fireman’s hose. Repeating the same ol’ party line about how the W Admin is the most American thing since, well, the KKK.

Anyway, back to my novel writing…the caffeine buzz is still there…making huge progress…gotta take advantage of this inspiring Raging Rwanda Roast high.

Mark Biskeborn is a writer.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Book Review: The Templars and the Assassins

The Militia of Heaven
By James Wasserman
Inner Traditions, Rochester, VT; 318 pp.; 2001

Reviewed by Mark Biskeborn

On 9/11 our sense of national security crumbled. On TV Americans watched one of the most terrifying attacks on U.S. soil and ever since then we’ve been trying to understand the motives behind a motley crew of 19 Muslim terrorists, 15 of which were born, raised, and educated in Saudi Arabia, one of our closest petroleum suppliers. Now we wonder about the history and current circumstances that led to these horrible events. The Templars and the Assassins

Over the years since 9/11/2001, the W Bush Administration continues to react to these attacks by misleading the public about the “clash of civilizations,” “the axes of evil,” or “terrorist regimes which harbor WMD’s and leaders of Al-Queda organizations.”

History now reveals that the W Administration used the attacks as a means to their own long since planned political agenda to invade Iraq. The neo-cons jumped at the opportunity as their casus belli, not unlike the 1964 attack on the USS Maddox in the Tonkin River in North Vietnam, or the 1846 attack on U.S. patrol, the Thronton Affair, which President Polk deemed a casus belli in the Mexican American War, or the 1898 explosion (later found to be caused by a design error in the ship) of the USS Maine in the port of Havana which President McKinley deemed a reason for Spanish American War.

It’s a well-established fact that U.S. Presidents gain enormous power and a guaranteed re-election once a war is declared.

Five years later, the wide American public has become aware of how W’s administration misled the people. Despite public opinion and awareness, W’s policies and speeches “hold the course” in twisting reality to suit their purposes.

Reports and official documents have shown that the CIA assessed a the series of attacks (USS Cole, Kobar Towers, World Trade center basement bombing, etc.) and had already forewarned both the Clinton and the W administrations of increased aggression. Attacks were predicted in numerous presidential briefings. Yet they were somehow ignored after transfer of powers between the Clinton and the W administrations.

New Relevance of Islamic History

Wasserman wrote his now relevant book, The Templars and the Assassins—The Militia of Heaven, before the 9/11 attacks, a fascinating, succinct study of how Islam evolved from two main medieval sects. By some extrapolation, we may find the influences and trends to the current conflicts between extremist Islam against the West as well as against the established, corrupt and tyrannical regimes in the Middle East.

It can be too easy and superficial to assume that the ancient attitudes, conflicts, resentments represent just a centuries’ long war “between civilizations.” Differing groups of people, whether by race, religion, or by social class have almost always fed the flames of resentments, jealousies, and, at times, a burning desire to destroy the other group. History books are filled with the stories about raging wars between groups of Christians fighting each other, Jews killing each other, Muslims…not to mention each of these groups and others at war against the other groups.

In the history of Islam, the conflicts often seem complex between the various sects as well as between some radical groups and established governments, such as the Saudi regime or the United States. Yet when looked at in terms of simple human motivations and political objectives, the complexity often boils down to conflicts of inequalities, tyranny over the oppressed, resentments between the haves and the have-nots.

Wasserman’s book reflects an astute portrait of Islamic and European history, its details and human saga. His understanding of these histories seems to have prepared him to answer questions about how tensions inside an oppressive theocratic regime, such as Saudi Arabia, could erupt into the terrorism we now witness in the West.

When asked in interviews about the motives that explain why 15 Saudis (along with 4 other Muslims from neighboring countries) attacked the U.S., Wasserman responded:

While uncounted trillions of dollars have flown into the coffers of the oil-producing lands, the extremists scream colonial oppression. Yet, their greatest grievance is against fellow Muslims. Some Middle Eastern Islamic states are ruled by corrupt oligarchies. The rulers of many Muslim countries that became independent of Western colonial rulership after World War II embraced failed political systems such as socialism in their attempt to modernize. This created central economic planning and bloated bureaucracies that maintained poverty and reliance on the Soviet empire. More recently, the disparity between the ruling classes and masses has motivated governments like the Saudi to encourage the spread of extremism. The purpose of their support is twofold. One is as a form of hush money to mitigate against anti-government rhetoric. The second is a practical program to export domestic troublemakers. Muslim governments are often hard-pressed to crack down on violence, afraid to be perceived as enemies of Islam. Finally, the use of the terrorist groups by states seeking to avoid international consequences is an effective ruse by which they pursue agendas. Thus states like Iran, Libya, Syria and Iraq gladly employ the type of plausible deniability provided by someone like bin Laden.


Written and published before the recent attacks, the book illuminates some of the history leading up to W’s so-called “war on terrorism.” It reveals some similarities between the modern terrorists and the medieval Islamic warriors. The book sheds light on the societies and their great conflicts.

Centuries of War over the Same God, Same Prophets

This book chronicles the Christian brotherhood, the Knights Templar, prominent during the 200 years of the Crusades (1095–1292), and the Assassins, an esoteric faction of Islam, the underdog, extremist Ismailis, vying for power in the Middle East who began their activities mainly under the leadership of Hsan-i Sabbah decades before the Knights Templar. One can see that the aggressive resistance against the status quo of the Sunnis began with the Qarmatians, an Ismaili sect, which revolted against the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate and caused major disruptions and turmoil, particularly with their seizure of the Black Stone from the sacred Kaaba in Mecca and desecrating the Well of Zamzam with Muslim corpses during the Hajj season of 930 CE.

The first section deals with the history of the Roman adoption of Christianity into a theocracy. “The Council of Nicaea celebrated the marriage of church and state, whose child would become the Dark Ages.”

In the second section, Wasserman jumps straight into the history of Islam, giving us the necessary background. He traces quickly through the first six Caliphs.

“As the caliph is both the religious and secular leader of Islam, the schism between supporters of the caliphate of Abu Bakr and those of the bloodline of Ali was both a political and a religious battle. The ideal form of the Islamic state is a theocracy whose sovereignty is derived from God. The ruler manifests the will of Allah and so directs society as a reflection of the heavenly kingdom. Church and state are one. In a theocratic state, political opposition is apostasy.”


The Islamic theocracy was similar to the monarchies in medieval Europe. Kings ruled by “divine right” as if they held some special connection to God. Fortunately for Europe, the Renaissance opened the minds of people to new forms of politics and religion. By the Enlightenment, a European middle and upper middle class (bourgeoisie) had formed with large numbers of educated and wealthy citizens who pushed for more democratic forums in government, including, eventually separation of church and state. Islam never experienced any such evolution—perhaps a main reason for overall slow social development.

In the beginning, after the death of the Prophet, two branches emerged, each believing in different rights of succession. The Sunnis alleged that Muhammad had chosen as his successor, or Caliph (prince of the faithful), his father-in-law, Abu Bakr. The Shiites believed the Sunnis were abandoning the true teachings in their efforts to build an Islamic empire, and that leadership should be derived through bloodline. They chose Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, as their leader.

The power grab between the battling factions was so fierce that four of the first six caliphs were murdered. By European standards, these raging battles were common between groups struggling to establish more power and territory.
“Ali was succeeded by his profligate son Hasan, who resigned in favor of Muawiya in exchange for a large amount of money. (Hasan was murdered in 669 by one of his wives.) Muawiya made Damascus his capital and succeeded in establishing the Omayyad dynasty that would rule Islam for nearly a century. Muawiya instituted the practices of cursing Ali from the pulpit during the Friday prayers, the first official anti-Shiite policy of the Sunnis.”


The Sunnis increased their domination over the Shiites. When Muawiay died in 680, his son Yazid took over his caliphate. Shortly thereafter, Husayn came to reclaim the caliphate as Ali’s rightful successor. Yazid took four thousand troops and attacked Husayn and his devotees in Karbala. Husayn was slain, mutilated, and desecrated.

This murder of Husayn marked a pivotal point in the establishment of an official birth of Schiism as a separate faith and dogma. The death of Husayn added the themes of suffering, expiation, and martyrdom to Schiism. The author says, “Passion plays of the death of Husayn take place to this day and involve the mass self-flagellation familiar to incredulous Western television viewers. Karbala is still considered a holy city of Schiism.”

The Rise of Schiism as a Reform against the Status Quo

Husyn’s followers grouped under a new leader, Muktar, who called the new group the Army of Penitents. Muktar defeated Yasid’s Omayyad forces, but then died a year later. Despite his short career, Muktar changed Islam forever, by imbuing Shiites with an invincible faith in the power of the Imam and the advent of the Mahdi, savior – two figures unique to Shiism. Muktar also took advantage of the alienated Persians by converting them readily into the Shiite congregation thus expanding its numbers.

A key aspect arose to distinguish Shiism: because it included themes of expiation, suffering, and martyrdom, it attracted many of the poor and Arabs and Persians whom the Sunnis often treated as outcasts or second class citizens. Thus the Shiites carried an attractive benefit to its growing number of members; disaffected Arabs and Persians were attracted to the spiritual and political reformist and revolutionary messages. As Wasserman says, “Shiism thus became a haven for many forms of political and spiritual dissent.”

Because Shiism grew from so many converts from other religions and creeds, its new members enriched its theological principles. People from Christian, Jewish, Persian theologies joined the Shiites. Shiism absorbed concepts from pre-Islamic beliefs of Persian and Babylonian mysticism, Greek religion and philosophy, Manichaean dualism, Gnosticism, and Sufism.

The Abbasid caliphate grew by obtaining support from the Shiites. However, once established as a ruling group, it turned its back on the Shiites in favor of a Sunni caliphate. This betrayal only fueled the Shiite frustration, making them withdraw from the Islamic mainstream.

This led to a period when the Shiites became more extremist as well as when they developed more spiritual self-examination. The cult in the holy man intensified—the Madhi—as well as the Imams and dais (the Imams’ direct representatives). The Abbasid betrayal caused a desire among the Shiites to set standards for a unifying Imamate. Shiites looked for a rule of thumb to determine who their Imam should be. Some believed the Imam should follow the lineage of the Prophet’s own tribal clan, the Banu Hashim. The majority of Shiites settled with Ali’s lineage.

Wasserman runs quickly through a line of Imams to the fifth, Muhammad al-Baquir, who distinguished himself for his “charismatic role of authoritative and inspired teacher” as Wasserman puts it. “He introduced the important Shiite survival skill known as taqiyya, the dissimulation, concealment of one’s true inner beliefs without entering into a state of sin, thus preventing martyrdom at the hands of hostile authorities,” such as the oppressive Sunnis.

Al-Baquir’s son, Jafar al-Sadiq, became the sixth Imam and expanded many of the theological concepts of his father such as the nass or spiritual designation of an Imam’s successor, and the concept of quiescent political stance which freed the Shiite Imam from taking a political stance vis a vis the Sunni authorities, thus avoiding the need for a constant revolt. When al-Sadiq died, the Isaimli sect arose from a dispute over succession and the seventh Imam.

Al-Sadiq had two sons: Ismail who leaned toward the extremist line of Shiism, and Musa al-Kazim, who was more moderate and recognized as the seventh Imam by most Shiites.
Musa’s line of Imams continued through to the twelfth, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who disappeared in 873. The majority Shiites still await the reappearance of the twelfth Imam at the end of the world, in triumph as the Mahdi. This moderate branch of Shiites has been the official religion of Iran and Iraq since the sixteenth century.

“Those who supported the Imamate of Ismail and his son Muhammad became known as Ismailis, also referred to as the Severner Shiites.

Ismailis – the Rebels with a Mission


“The Ismaili Imams, working in relative secrecy and isolation for over a century, had developed a coherent body of theological teachings that resonated with intellectual and emotional appeal. …after the middle of th ninth century, they began to emerge from their obscurity with an energetic preaching. The Ismaili mission is known as the dawa, or “summons” to allegiance to the Imam. …the dai, or “summoner,” who spreads the teachings of the faith through his propagandizing and missionary efforts.”


The Ismailis intensified the Shiite theme of well-organized opposition movement that attracted more of the politically disaffected. Peasant revolts arose among the poor who were attracted to the Ismaili movement through its promise of universal justice under Mahdi.

“In Iraq, the leadership of the Ismaili dawa had been in the hands of Hamdan Qarmat since 870. His followers were known as “Qarmatis.” …Hamdan’s dawa spread through Iraq, Persia, Transoxiana, Syria, Bahrain, yemen, Sind, and North Africa. …His revolutionary political teachings attracted many who were disaffected with Abbasid rule and the lack of any organized opposition among the more numerous Twelver Shiites.”


The Fatimid Caliphate –another Betrayal

In 909, the Ismailis achieved what seemed at the time to be their greatest success, when the Hidden Imam Ubayd Allah proclaimed the Fatimid caliphate in North Africa, mainly Egypt, asserting the Alid lineage, validating the Ismaili sect.

Then Ubayd Allah decided that he to announce himself as the living Imam and proceeded to trace his lineage back through the Hidden Imams of the last one hundred and fifty years to Jafar al-Sadiq and, thus, he rejected the Mahdiship of Muhammad ibn Ismail.

Hamdan Qarmat’s reaction to this betrayal was to refuse to acknowledge Ubayd Allah and his revision of the Imamate. Soon afterward Hamdan Qarmat disappeared from history.

Wasserman tells us that, “No overall leader of Hamdan’s abilities arose to lead the disaffected anti-Fatimid Ismailis, yet dissident groups remained throughout Ismaili territories.”

The Qarmatis continued to await the reappearance of Muhammad ibn Ismail. During this time members of the Abbasid court continued to persecute Shiites, especially the rebellious Qarmatis and Ismailis. They arrested one celebrated mystic Mansur al-Hallaj, a Qarmati. He was martyred as a heretic, and his disciples founded a number of mystical Sufi orders.

Hasan i-Sabah and the Assassins

A further schism in 1094 led to the emergence of the Nizari Ismailis, popularly known as the Assassins. The Ismailis were a group of revolutionaries, mystics, and political visionaries who abjured the organized state religion, such as the Abbasid and the later the Fatimid caliphs. Hasan i-Sabbah led the Persian Nizari Ismaili resistance against the Fatimid caliphate, believing the status quo caliphates to be irredeemably corrupt.

The mystic and political visionary Hasan-i-Sabah became leader of the Nizaris until his death in 1124. His rise to power was marked by an ironic mixture of astute spiritual leadership as well as trickery, political strategy, and assassination.

As the Fatimid caliphate was “shattered from within,” a reinvigoration of the Sunni Abbasids took place. Wasserman writes that the Ismails loathed both the Fatimids and the Abbasids as corrupt political and spiritual authorities.

“In fact, changing circumstances during the period from 765 to 900 brought a general weakening to both Sunni and Shiite political and cultural power. From the mid-ninth-century onward, the Turkish palace guards in Baghdad had become the de facto leaders of the Abbasid government. Wine, lechery, pederasty, and love of luxury so weakened the Abbasid dynasty that the empire dwindled, as region after region seceded from their authority. Oppression became common as renegade leaders usurped the power of appointed Abbasid administrators. So severe was Abbasid neglect that the elaborate irrigation systems throughout the Near East –the lifeblood of its food supply—ceased to be maintained.”


Sufis

Wasserman’s coverage of the Sufis, (like that of Bernard Lewis in The Assassins) exposes an embarrassing dearth on the subject. Contrary to Idries Shah’s studies that the Sufis arose from pre-Islamic philosophical and mystical groups, Wasserman seems only vaguely to cover the Sufis and does so by implying that they were somehow innately Islamic and even more erroneously that the Abbasids embraced their way of thinking.

“The Sufis were allowed to pursue their religious explorations by the Abbasids. While the tolerance they extended to the Sufis helped to strengthen the Sunni revival, Sufi emphasis on spirituality could only have served to highlight Abbasid spiritual bankruptcy. The fervor with which the Ismailis approached their religious goals, on the other hand, compared favorably to the spiritual characteristics of the Sufi movement.”


Four pages earlier in his text, Wasserman writes about how the followers of the celebrated Ismaili mystic, Mansur al-Hallaj, founded “a number of mystical Sufi orders.”

Wasserman’s coverage of the Sufis begs for clarification. The author fails to explain that the Sufis were a group of free thinking mystical philosophers who had little use of organized religion and used it merely as a shield, a disguise of conformity in some social settings allowing them to pass as law abiding, complacent citizens. It was simply a means of survival in oppressive theocratic regimes, as Idries Shah explains in many of his books on Sufis. Meanwhile the Sufis privately enjoyed their more refined, enlightened ways of thinking that stressed individual freedom against the backdrop of constrained, conformed organized religion.

It’s a shame that Wasserman and Lewis pass over with a slight of hand this fascinating subject of the Sufis and their occasional relationships with the Ismailis. But we can perhaps forgive these authors since Sufism is not the focused subject in their books.

When Wasserman describes in detail the teachings of the Ismailis, he seems to echo the theological and philosophical line of thinking which the Sufis had long since developed. Wasserman never suggests or sheds any light on any connections between the Islmailis (or the Qarmatis) and the Sufis.

“The Islmailis carried the doctrine of the Imam to the greatest heights of any Shiite sect. The Imam alone can guide the seeker through the practices necessary to attain the knowledge of God and provide him with the means to reach salvation. The Imam enjoys the highest form of ilm or gnosis, direct spiritual wisdom bestowed by Allah…


Take away the formal, hierarchical structure of the Ismaili religion, and we would find parallels between the descriptions of the Ismailis compared to the Sufis.

According to Shah, the Sufis also believed that any individual could be inspired to attain the high level of enlightened, spiritual wisdom as the Islmailis seem to want to reserve for the Imam (much like the special, authoritative divinity of a Catholic Priest – give or take his sexual perversions.).

“The medieval Ismaili doctrine included an eclectic mix: it combined advanced philosophical speculation with Persian, Jewish, Christian esotericism; Gnostic, Neoplatonic, and Hindu mysticism; and elements of Sufi and Islmaic occultism. It included kabbalistic techniques for the investigation of creation through the analysis of words and numbers.”


Again, Wasserman’s description of the Ismailis doctrine echoes that of Shah’s coverage of the Sufis, except the Sufis, according to Shah, held no formal doctrine, no formal religion. The similarities between Wasserman’s Ismaili doctrine and Shah’s Sufi guidelines for individual enlightenment, are striking. Meanwhile, Wasserman seems to place the Sufis in a much smaller pigeon hole of “Islamic occultism.” Shah would probably shake his finger at this gross misconception.

Only at the end of Part Two, after cataloguing the long line of Ismaili Imams as far as the fifteenth and on into the twentieth century, many of them extremely colorful characters, Wasserman concludes this chapter on the Assassins by comparing the “common elements shared by Sufism and Ismailism—mysticism, Gnosticism, speculative philosophy, techniques of self-development, and loyalty to a central teacher, pir, or shaykh—encouraged mutual interaction.”

Wasserman moves closer to a description of the Sufis that resembles Shah’s (the specialist on the subject) and provides a tiny peek at the relationship with the Ismailis and the Sufis.

War in the Name of God’s Love

In Part Three of his book, Wasserman follows the history of the Knights Templar and describes them as the European reflection of the Ismaili Assassins. “The Templars were similarly hierarchically structured. Their raison d’etre also involved armed struggle in the name of the highest religious aspirations. A rich tradition of historical supposition maintains that contact with the sophisticated religious teachings of the Assassin Order was a primary influence in the development of the secret Templar heresy that is said to have led the Knights Templar far afield from their Christian roots.”

One of the strengths in Wasserman’s book lies in the connections between the groups which otherwise seem unrelated: the Ismialis (Assassins) and the Sufis, the Ismailis and the Qarmatis, and to some extent the Assassins and the Knights Templar.

Contrary to the European legends, Wasserman shows that during the heyday of their organization, the Assassins killed only about fifty men, all of them “high value targets.” In other words the Assassins used “smart kills,” a sort of corollary to the modern “smart bombs,” which avoid inhumane massive deaths. Instead, the Assassins killed “high value targets” who were the decision makers, the puppeteers, the rulers who otherwise send the lower class soldiers into to do the dirty and dangerous work of war.

The massive killings during the Crusades were incurred during clashes mainly between Saladin’s armies and the Knights Templar. For both sides, the Christians and the Sunni Muslims were fighting in the name of the same God and the same Prophets, give or take one or two. Mostly they fought for territory and the seemingly eternal conflict over the small piece of real-estate in Jerusalem: the Dome of the Rock which sits on Herod’s Temple which sits on Solomon’s Temple.


Mark Biskeborn is a writer. You can email him mbiskeborn@hotmail.com

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Book Review: Inside the Kingdom

My Life in Saudi Arabia
By Carmen bin Laden
Time Warner Book Group, New York, NY; 206 pp., 2004

Reviewed by Mark Biskeborn

In her memoire, Carmen bin Laden reveals her private trials and tribulations of life among the bin Laden family during the 70’s and 80’s. From her story we learn much of a woman’s life among the elite class of Saudi Arabia, including the Royal Family of Saud. She recounts her life as a young naĂŻve woman, falling in love with an extremely wealthy Saudi, college days in Santa Monica California, and family life in Saudi Arabia.
Inside the Kingdom
Coming from an aristocratic Swiss mother and a high class Persian father, Carmen seems to have lived most of her youth under the protective bubble of wealth. When she marries into the wealthiest Saudi family, outside the Royalty, she knows and enjoys the life she’s accustomed to: wealth, carefree life, and freedom from worrying about petty things like how to pay a mortgage.

Unfortunately her aristocratic childhood did not prepare her for the real world. She married into one of the wealthiest families in the world, but she gradually learns that Saudi Arabia is neither carefree nor liberal in life-style—in fact, an extreme opposite.

For these reasons and more, it’s a little difficult to sympathize with a young, wealthy woman who is seduced by a tall, dark handsome young man who, oops, by the way, is a member of an extremely wealthy family and, oops, in one of the world’s most notoriously conservative theocratic countries.

Reality Check

At one point into Carmen’s story, it seems that any reader would ask: what planet did she come from? Okay, sure, the wealth may have lured her to her fiancĂ©, Yeslam bin Laden—not easily attracted to, say, a lowly Swiss lawyer, much less a mechanic—but how could she possibly ignore that Saudi Arabia is one of the fiercest theocratic regimes?

How did she forget that it’s infamous for treating women on par with camels? To wit: her husband being the 10th son of Mohamed bin Laden who procreated over fifty-four children from some twenty-odd wives, not counting concubines (but who’s counting? – Osama being one of the fold).

Like the master of Gonzo Journalism, H.S. Thompson once said, “you buy the ticket; you have to take the ride.”

Carmen bought it big time. She slowly got herself into the pickle of a lifetime. Although told from the point of view of a princess mentality, one of an aristocratic beauty queen doting over her offspring, her story shows us many of the mores, customs, and attitudes in Saudi Arabia—contrasted with countries like the USA or Switzerland .

Unfortunately, she seldom, if ever, dips her pen into descriptions about the poor, the ordinary men and women who must suffer in this tyrannical theocracy. In fact, at one point, at an adult age of over twenty, her reaction to first seeing poor people is that of a shocked Barbie-doll who’d never stepped out of her gingerbread palace:

”When Yeslam took me to the carpet bazaar in Tehran to buy a Persian carpet, I saw terrible misery. Small boys and old men were doubled over under bales of carpets. They should have been in school, or at home—they seemed far too fragile to be working. Instead they were laden like donkeys. My life had been so sheltered. I had never seen such a thing I started crying.
Yeslam took me back to the car. Our driver tried to console me. He said, “You think those people are poor? They’re lucky—they have work. I can take you to where families live in holes dug out of the earth.” It made it worse: I was inconsolable.”



Nor does she delve into any descriptions of the resentment that the little people harbor for these extremely wealthy bin Laden heirs, or worse yet for the Royal Saud family. She occasionally mentions the political tensions that the Saud Royalty tries desperately to hide from the rest of the world:

”One March morning in 1975, Yeslam woke me with the news that King Faisal had been assassinated—shot by one of his own nephews. I could feel his sense of panic and urgency. Saudi Arabia was in an uproar, Yeslam told me. It was claimed that the assassin was deranged, but most likely it was a revenge killing. Yeslam said: the murderer’s brother had been executed [beheaded] ten years previously for participating in a Islamic fundamentalist revolt against the King’s decision to authorize televisions in the Kingdom.”



The patriarch of the bin Ladens family, Sheik Mohamed bin Laden was a hard working Bedouin who rose from obscure poverty to become the construction entrepreneur. The Royal family gave all contracts Sheik bin Laden to build Saudi Arabia up from a donkey cross roads that now boasts of large palaces, modern roads and sky-scrapers.

She barely touches on how Saudi Arabia, with the military protection of the U.S., became a petro-wealthy, theocratic monarchy in which the Royalty hoards the wealth.

She does touch upon the general politics, but as an insider, she could have explained how the regime uses the mutawa, religious police, to keep the population under control despite their occasional attempts to overthrow the monarchy which supports the strict fundamentalism. Meanwhile the Saud Royalty enjoys a life of opulent luxury.

Yet she tells anecdotes even from her childhood that should have awaken her to the grim realities of theocratic regimes:

“When I was about seven, my grandmother’s household went into terrible turmoil when a cousin of my mother’s, Abbas, was arrested and tortured by the Shah’s fearsome SAVAK secret police. They claimed he was a member of the Communist Tudeh Party.”



Perhaps she needed to leave Switzerland and live in the gloomy land of Saudi Arabia to learn her lessons first hand.

A Country of Contradictions

Rarely, she tells only in implicit subtext how the Saudi Royalty walks a fine line between
• luxurious, decadent life abroad while supporting Wahhabism in their country (a theocratic conservatism—a dream come true for our own neoconservatives like Bush & co.?)

• Royalty indulges in lavish lifestyles while enforcing tight restrictions on the ordinary people

• obtaining military support from the U.S. in exchange for a reliable flow of oil, while its Wahhabi brand of Islam condemns the West, especially the U.S. for its decadence

• wanting to modernize with high technology while imposing ancient Islamic law (shariah)

• imposing an extreme theocratic conservatism while hoping for a vibrant, diversified economy

• restrained or restricted relationships between men and women has caused increases in homosexual activities normally forbidden in Islam but tolerated nevertheless

Yet never does she delve openly into this subject. Perhaps it will be the subject of her next book.
She seems to beg for acceptance into the American way of life by apologizing for her affiliation with the bin Laden family.

”I issued a statement saying that my three girls and I had had no connection whatsoever with this evil, barbaric attack on America, a country we loved and whose values we shared and admired. ”


Her memoire focuses rather on the experiences of a woman, falling in love, and doing what Islamic women seemed programmed to do most –much like the Catholics in places like South America: they have babies. It’s their goal in life? Their ultimate achievement?

In this sense, Carmen’s memoire resembles that of Princess by Jean Sasson, but even in Sasson’s memoire (as told to her by a direct descendant of King Abdul Aziz), we find a woman who, despite larger aspirations, was condemned to accomplish but one goal: breed sons for the patriarchy.

And this is what Inside the Kingdom does best. It boldly displays the plight of women who live under the restrictions of Islam, although it goes no farther than the abuse of extremely wealthy women in Islam.

Carmen delivers a stark and unrelenting portrayal of her own life in her perfectly smooth gold fish bowl in the Saudi kingdom. Though readers must wade through some of her pet peeves about her in-laws — their bad taste in furniture, their cattiness and their unwillingness to accept her because she was a foreigner — we are given a painful picture of what it is like for a woman raised in the West to spend nine years living under the strict rules of Saudi tradition and Islam.

Granted, she lived in luxury and took regular trips to Europe, where she bought designer clothing, furs and jewelry, books and magazines. But when she was in Saudi Arabia, she wore a black abaya over her couture when she went out in public. She was often not allowed to dine with her husband when there were other men at the table.

Carmen now divorced and living in her native Switzerland, says she spent nearly a decade in Saudi Arabia because she believed that the surging economy and Western influences would eventually make life easier for Saudi women.

How to survive in a Theocracy: Escape

Instead, Carmen watched as political events such as the Saudi support of Afghan Muslims against the Soviet invasion beginning in 1979 turned the country backward to more conservative neo-conservatism. Ultimately, it was her husband's infidelity and a fear that her three daughters would become religious fanatics forced to live the incarcerated lives of typical Saudi women that pushed her to break her ties with the Bin Laden family.

Carmen's story is a courageous one. To stand up as a woman and share her personal experiences and feelings about the Bin Laden family's daily life in Saudi Arabia is a bold act. Her dissent showed a rare and dangerous defiance from an intolerant theocracy.

Rules to Live by in a Theocracy

The memoire offers many compelling facts about life in Saudi Arabia:

• Saudi Arabia is still run by the aging sons of the original King Aziz who united the vast wasteland of desert under fundamentalist teachings of a seventeenth century cleric who founded the Wahhabi movement

• Wahhabi is one of the most fundamental interpretations of Islam and its religious police, mutawa, apply it in part to maintain control of the ordinary people who typically resent the monarchy and its support of theocracy

• The Koran is practically the only source of culture and learning for a vast majority of ordinary people (not unlike the Bible in South America) where cinemas and bookstore don’t exist and where books are banned and censured in the mail (except for the prominent families)

• Royalty and wealthy families, like the bin Ladens, live several steps above the law

• Wealthy Saudi's typically live dual lives. One inside strict Saudi Arabia where they play up appearances of piety, and another overseas where all their pent-up desires overflow in extravagance and decadence

• The Saudi royal family was terrified to see what happened to the Shah of Iran and immediately overcompensated by placating the Wahhabi with even more money and power than ever to prevent a similar problem

• The bin Laden family members were most likely complicit in the fundamentalist take-over of Mecca and especially the most sacred Islamic shrine, the Kaaba, since company trucks were used to get the fighters in there and the bin Laden organization had the only detailed maps of the place

• The family clan unit (all the sons and daughters of one powerful father) is an ironclad bond when faced with threats from outsiders. By virtue of this, despite public statements, the bin Laden family has NOT disowned Osama

• Osama bin Laden is an overwhelming hero in Saudi Arabia. If an election were held today, he would probably win. This mainly because few of the ordinary people respect the hypocritical regime of the Royal Saud family and many common people outside the el Nadj region resist the Wahhabi Puritanism even though Osama also follows a strict fundamentalism

• Saudi family life retains customs from pre-Islamic tribal days as well as the rules of behavior laid out in the Koran. The sexes have separate houses. Men can be married to up to four wives at once and any number over a life time

• To divorce a woman a man must simply recite "I divorce thee" three times and it is done. The divorcing husband can take possession of the children by simple personal choice

• A woman has virtually no rights at all. She must obtain permission from her male guardian to take most any of the simple liberties such as eating at the table, going to the market, when to speak…and written permission from her male guardian to travel abroad

• The appearance of devotion to religion is very important along with the ancient tribal virtue of honor. Keeping appearances is vital for social respect and reputation…more important than telling the truth

• Ruthlessness is a positive value in the desert. Honor comes not from compassion or good deeds; it arises from an absolute power over women

• Despite the Royal family’s attempts to maintain an appearance to the rest of the world that the country lives in peaceful harmony, many internal rivalries brood between the heirs of the huge fortunes. Indeed, the various regions of the country include people from different tribes, clans, and religious affiliations who occasionally attempt to revolt or to overthrow the Royalty’s authority

• Men exercise absolute power of women. The eldest patriarch of a family, a husband, father, older brother can impose life or death punishment over “their” women who are never legally considered adults

• Islam is a way of life, with detailed rules of conduct; not just a general guide of theological beliefs





Mark Biskeborn is a writer. You can email him

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Book Review: Secrets of the Kingdom

Secrets of the Kingdom:
The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection
By Gerald L. Posner
Random House, Incorporated, 272pp, May 2005

Reviewed by Mark Biskeborn

In Gerald Posner’s brilliant new book, Secrets of the Kingdom, he clearly states the main thesis: “The 9/11 Commission” he writes, “gave the Saudis a free pass. This book shows why.”

Secrets of the KingdomIf you’re looking for a short history that covers the last few decades of U.S. relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, you’ve come to one of the best sources. Posner weaves together rich, fascinating threads of details, anecdotes, and newly disclosed secrets that reveal how Saudi Arabia keeps the U.S. bent over an oil barrel.

To readers knowledgeable about Saudi Arabia’s rise from a sandy desert backwater of nomadic tribes to a powerful political negotiator, Posner provides an excellent review of the key events that other writers have already covered on this topic. However, Posner’s insightful, brisk narrative weaves together so many compelling details that it delivers a view both insightful and fresh.

To readers new to this subject, this book delivers an in-depth analysis of how countries and other non-state factions gain and wield influence on the stage of world politics. Many of the main stakeholders in the Middle East come to life in Posner’s book: the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Muslim groups such as al-Qaeda.

Intriguing stories unfold about powerful kings and princes, successions of royal power, the extremist Wahhabi community and their connection with Saudi Royalty as well as to political factions like al-Qaeda. Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan comes to life as the charismatic wheeler-dealer whose mission focuses on Saudi interests through close friendships with the likes of both Bush administrations.

Arms merchant and financier Adnan Khashoggi takes the heat for involvement in Irangate through the scandalous BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International). Other stories explain the evolution of the Saudi royalty through generations of kings and princes. Stories also reveal the political power that Saudi Arabia creates by playing huge arms manufacturers – such as France, Britain, Russia, and the U.S. -- down the middle.

In a chapter entitled, “A Mad Spender,” Posner describes how some Saudi princes live in obscene opulence, such as Prince Mohammad bin Fahd bin Abdul Aziz. “Friends of his, as a London Sunday Times investigation discovered, estimated Mohammad had burned through a billion dollars on personal expenses in a little over a decade.”

In contrast to the decadent life-style of these petro-dollar princes, Posner discusses in a later chapter how the rest of the country is falling into poverty. This iniquitous distribution of wealth, Posner shows, is causing social tension, if not increased radicalism. “The country’s youth population has more than doubled in two decades, and the standard of living has dropped precipitously.”

In Chapter 10, Posner drops a highly explosive story on the reader. Drawing sources from Israeli intelligence as well as from a file that the National Security Agency (NSA) called the “Petroleum Scorched Earth,” Posner reports that Saudi officials have wired all their major oil facilities with a network of Semtex explosives that some Saudi king or designated prince can detonate from a single control point. As if this news does not shock us, Posner adds that this network of explosive charges includes several extremely toxic, radioactive materials. It’s a huge dirty bomb that would contaminate the world’s richest oil fields and thus prohibit oil extraction.

Posner explains that the Saudi Royalty installed these explosives in order to make certain that nobody could benefit from taking down the Saud regime. If internal or external forces bring down the House of Saud, Posner writes, the new world order, as we know it, goes with it because all the oil on which the Western military industrial complex depends disappears forever.

So, if you were still wondering about the initial purpose of Posner’s book -- to show why “the 9/11 Commission gave the Saudis a free pass” – the answer becomes clear. America depends on Middle East oil, and Posner shows how America’s addiction to oil motivates U.S. officials to tread lightly on Saudi issues. Moreover, if this oil dependency were not enough, add to it the possibility that the Saudi royal family can erase the largest source of energy from the face of the earth at the push of a button. You can understand that U.S. officials might have good reason to treat the Saudis like Royalty, even at the expense of national security and justice.

Therefore, as long as the Western military industrial complex remains dependent on petroleum, the sand-dunes in the Persian Gulf remain the sacred center of the world. This magnitude of geo-political power can transform projects like the 9/11 Commission into mere puppet shows.



Mark Biskeborn is a writer. You can email him mbiskeborn@hotmail.com

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Book Review: God's Politics

God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It

By Jim Wallis

HarperCollins Publishers, 416pp, 2005

Reviewed by Mark Biskeborn

Although Christ’s teachings focus almost entirely on moral questions, great spiritual and philosophical leaders have considered the questions of good and bad (or evil, depending on the belief system) long before Christianity. The Roman state condemned Christ to death as an insurrectionist, an unconventional thinker who taught, among other ethical principles, peace, charity, equality, and love. His sermons frightened the status quo who thrived on inequality, elitism, graft, and military force.


Wallis is a voice of hope in our wilderness. In the fervor of America’s revival of fundamentalism, Wallis includes a strong dose of reasonable, sober thinking with his deep faith in God. His voice delivers hope where the ragtag merchants of war rattle their extremely expensive sabers in the name of God as they pursue a witch hunt for “evil dictators bent of the destruction of Western Civilization and the American way of life,” as G. W. Bush stated in a 2001 speech to rally support of his blind invasion of Iraq. Wallis’s voice calms the nerves when the neo-conservative, zealot Reverend Pat Robertson calls for the assassination and regime change for Venezuelan President Chavez, while babbling on about “the uninterrupted flow of oil.”

Wallis takes a clear look at the ethical principles that Christ taught and challenges all Americans to reconsider the priorities.

Jim Wallis, an evangelical, is a leading figure at the crossroads of religion and politics in America. A theologian, renowned preacher, and faith-based activist, Wallis founded Sojourners Magazine, associated with a nationwide network of progressive Christians working for justice and peace.

In his much touted book, Wallis exposes how American politics has slipped down a slope of embarrassing confusion. He shows how American culture and religious understanding has lost its grip on reality.

“With the Republicans offering war oversees and corporate dominance at home, and the Democrats failing to offer any real alternatives, who will raise a prophetic voice for social and economic justice and for peace? Never has there been a clearer role for the churches and religious community. We can push both parties toward moral consistency and their best-stated values and away from the unprincipled pragmatism and negative campaigning that both sides too often engaged in during the recent election.”

The Founding Fathers clearly and wisely called for a separation between church and state. Nevertheless, certain demagogues, like G. W. Bush, mix the two and do so all too often for personal political power and support for policies that contradict moral principles of most any religion. If we credulously listened to some of our political leaders, we might believe many strange notions:
• We are a chosen nation by God.
• Our calling is to judge who in the world is evil.
• With God’s blessings, we must use unilateral military force against evil dictators even when they pose no threat to us.
• Abortion -- pro-life -- is the most important ethical issue in our society (even though we might wage highly questionable wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people).
• Gay rights is the second most important moral question we face.

Wallis provides a more rational way for religious Americans to reevaluate their ethical priorities in light of what Jesus Christ teaches and contrary to what a politician might use in a speech to sway the credulous masses.

The author speaks as a Christian and thus assumes that everyone has read the teaching of Christ. Although he speaks from his Christian point of view, he at least does so in a way to show that ethics, religious or otherwise, does not begin and end with the issues neo-conservatives kindle into smoke screens to blur priorities and to cloud real social problems.

In a refreshing and reasonable voice in America’s cultural wilderness, Wallis characterizes the “Religious Right-wing” as “pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American.” In the hands of the extremely right-wing neo-conservatives, politicians misuse Christian ethics in order to mislead many Americans to believe that the notions listed above represent the essence of religious morality.

In his book, the author shows that nothing could degrade our culture and institutions more. The Founding Fathers knew about the dangers of devious politicians who might use religion for dishonest purposes. That’s why they pushed to reduce the presence of religious dogma and demagoguery in state affaires.

Wallis takes jabs at the right-wing and the Bush administration, but he also argues that the left fails by allowing the right to hold a monologue about religious issues. He also attacks the superficial, consumerist culture in America for its self-indulgent ignorance of anything beyond esthetic surgery and luxury foreign cars.

“Rather than suggesting that we not talk about ‘God,’ Democrats should be arguing -- on moral and even religious grounds -- that all Americans should have economic security, health care, and educational opportunities and that faith results in a compassionate concern for those on the margins.”

In this vacuous consumer culture that twists religious ethics to fit with political and big-money agendas, one that prefers to worship the Golden Cow, Wallis lights a lantern at our feet by showing us how to reevaluate our directions and priorities in a way that benefits the greatest welfare of the nation. Ironically, the solutions Wallis advocates resemble those Christ taught millennia ago before the elitists Pharisees and the Roman state sent him back to his maker.

Mark Biskeborn is a writer.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Essay: Raging Religion

Fear drives people to dogma, dogma drives people to stop thinking, both deliver people to leaders who promise to protect and to do good but will most likely do neither.

By Mark Biskeborn
First Published: October 2006

“Abortion is the most important issue on the table.” Fred explains to his group. He is a Bible study class leader at a local Catholic church.

“But, Fred," I interject, "you know this war in Iraq is killing thousands of people, innocent civilians and U.S. soldiers.”

“We must stomp out abortion and our President Bush – well, he’s pro-life.” Fred goes on.

“But Fred," I repeat, "all those people in the war, they’re losing their lives. And abortion’s been around since before King Tut. The Bible doesn’t say a word about it, talks about the value of life. And, Jesus, wasn’t he the Prince of Peace?”

“Yeah,” says Fred, raising his voice. “They’re brave men and women, fighting for a good cause.

They volunteered and when they pay the ultimate price, it’s God’s will. It’s a holy war, you know? The righteousness of God against the evil of those heathens. ‘He that is not with me is against me.’ That’s what Jesus said in Mathew 12:30.

“Well what about in his Sermon on the Mount, Christ saying that his main mission aims to help the poor, heal the sick, and teach peace?” I ask, curious to understand the priorities of Christ’s teachings.

“Your line of thinking…uh…esoteric.” Fred says in a loud authoritarian voice. “You’re a newcomer here, you’ll catch on. You’ll learn how to think, you follow along here. You learn the dogma or you’ll be left behind. Left behind as in the Rapture, you know? The Second Coming.”

“Church dogma?” I ask. “Sounds like rules to live by. Who made those? I don’t know. I have to follow my own conscience.”

“If you sin, if you don’t obey,” Fred shouts across the discussion table, the veins in his forehead and throat stood out of his skin like blue electrical cords. “…if…if you’re not humble, obedient…then your soul goes straight to hell.”

Looking for Religion in all the….

That exchange represents a true to life conversation I had a few months ago. The general consensus of Catholic doctrine, as well as many evangelicals, stands by this line of thought. I was interested in learning more about the Church, seriously considering joining. Their methods of indoctrination frightened me as they resembled those used in the new Jesus Camps that have cropped up in the Dakota prairies lately.

They aim to control the indelible minds of children into medieval beliefs such as the age of the earth or the veneration of G.W. Bush. These methods echo those used in the madrassas, religious schools of Islamic fundamentalists. Fortunately for me, I’m an adult less vulnerable. My recent experiences with churches have made me become wary of any religious institutions altogether.

For over six months, I attended the indoctrination and Bible classes. Catholicism attracted me because of its lineage all the way back to Peter and Paul. The Church carries a lot of history and tradition, but then, the age of an institution doesn’t make it more holy, more moral. It can weigh it down, as heavy as, well, the Pope's belly. In light of the conversations, I balanced the great architecture and art against the barbarous beheadings and burnings of great men that the Vatican carried out over the ages.

Over the centuries, the Church spilt its lion’s share of blood in the name of God. In the 16th century, it burned poor Tyndale at the stake, then beheaded him, then mutilated him and all this because he translated the Bible into English.

Eventually, it occurred to me that I would have to leave my own sense of rationality in the parking lot. That is, if I ever wanted to participate in a class discussion without leaping head first into boiling cauldron of debate.

For several months, I submitted myself to group thought, ethical contortions, and tunnel vision. I listened carefully to inerrant and absolute truthful readings of scripture. I was outnumbered. They proved me wrong. I folded my cards including my King of Hearts – the heart felt sense of what Christ says about peace, love, and charity to others, especially the poor.

I picked up my spirituality from the asphalt in the parking lot and never returned.

Fundamentalism

NaĂŻve, I did not realize that, as a non-believer in their dogma, my soul already carried a one-way ticket to hell. In the Bible you’ll not find an exclusive doctrine that gives the righteous a first-class passage to the Kingdom of God. No, you’ll have to join that particular group to learn the special rules. Good luck in finding the right one.

I used to think that the term “fundamentalism” belonged only to the Waco Branch Davidians or the terrorists like Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh who, inspired by the Christian Identity group, bombed the P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City…or the Whacko Islamic terrorists.

Fundamentalism, a form of religious belief, comes in many degrees of extremes. During my brief tenure in the Catholic Church, I met a few people who shouted feverishly about God’s wrath – these folks seemed to bleed on the edge between fervent righteousness and downright blood-red head splitting. However, a majority seemed to fit into a group of regular, law-abiding extremists.

Fundamentalists know that people, especially children, who think on their own, tend to stray from their indoctrination. So, keeping an authoritarian control over their children offers a sure way to grow their flock.

Whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or Whacko, regardless of their religion, fundamentalists share common practices, like bovine communities that follow common herding patterns although the breeds vary. Their literal reading of sacred texts calls on them to dominate the general society and to set its political path.

Fundamentalists work to support leaders and followers whose politics reflect their narrow understandings of ancient scriptures. They want to recreate the world in their own image and rule by the ideology drawn from literal readings of texts. This approach strays far from democratic government, as we see in the Davidians community or in the Islamic Wahhabi or Taliban communities. Likewise, the Patriot Act smells of the same authoritarian control as the fundamentalist’s Shepard staff.

Some fundamentalists take their educational program a step further by raising or training followers who are willing to kill and die for their cause like Mohammed Atta, one of the lead 9/11 hijackers or like certain members of the Army of God group who killed doctors in the name of pro-life. Did I already mention the Jesus Camps that brainwash children?

War on Terror in Fear

Under the auspices of Bush Jr., America declared an all out war on terror in the wake of the 9/11 catastrophe. Fear led to hysteria. People bought more gas guzzling SUV’s than ever to protect themselves. People allowed their government to invade a country that looked like it just might threaten America. Bush Jr. took advantage of the people’s fear and invaded Iraq, the oil soaked lands of Babylon.

Anyone who threatens our lives and security and anyone who harbors terrorists will be destroyed – so long as they are not Christians or Americans. Iraq did not harbor terrorists or, for that matter, any real threat to America, at least, until its U.S. occupation.

Has America, in its hysterical fear, set a double standard in the way it deals with fundamentalists?

The Bush administration’s war on terrorism abroad ignores the threat from fundamentalists from within our own borders. Ironically, as Bush Jr. calls for more religion in government, he invites more of the same type of ideology that fueled the terrorist attacks in the first place. Likewise, his invasion of Iraq motivated regular Iraqis to bomb U.S. soldiers where no terrorist groups operated before.

Persistence

Still longing to be part of a fun loving, cultural community, I visited an Evangelical church nearby. After several warm receptions and discussions, I opened up to my political views regarding the war in Iraq. I chatted with the head preacher who looked like a hulking NFL player, over six feet tall wearing corporate casual attire and round thick glasses to help him read all the Biblical footnotes.

“As far as Jesus teachings, I probably would have a different slant on them.” The head preacher explained to me. “For instance, Jesus said, ‘Do not think that I came to bring peace, but a sword.’ Mathew. 10:34."

"This," the head preacher continues, "is not talking about regional war, but God was involved in quite a few wars. Does that mean I think we should be in Iraq? Again, my slant would be very different than your own. Mainly because I don’t believe that you can tame the hatred between Isaac and Ishmael. There will always be a fight between them. I think that is a major problem for any who thinks they will bring peace to the region. According to the Bible, it isn’t going to happen except under the reign of the anti-Christ.”

Still dizzy from the shock of his view, I wondered for a second, does he mean that Bush Jr. is the anti-Christ? We are under his reign, and, in some ways, he seems like America’s own worst terrorist threat. No, he can’t seriously mean that.

So, I asked, “Don’t you think you’re reading the Bible too literally? Isn’t this war all about oil? It has nothing to do with those guys, Isaac and Ishmael. If Iraq weren't soaked in oil, would America spend billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives to control it?"

“The peace that Jesus talked about was inner peace – not outer.” The head preacher continued.

“You can’t control the outer, but you can the inner peace that passes our understanding. God is at war this very moment and we should rejoice that He is. ‘The Kingdom of God is forcefully advancing and forceful man lay hold of it.’ Matthew 11:12b. His fight is spiritual, in the spirit realm, and so is ours. If we are like Jesus, then what we see Him do, we must do. Which means fight!”

At this point, I stood dumbfounded for a moment. “It seems the fight is more than spiritual. Thousands of U.S. middle class folks are losing their lives, their bodies blown apart by IED’s. What’s so spiritual about Bush’s lies to justify a war for oil?”

“There are quite a few things that we would disagree on,” the preacher said, “but all of that doesn’t matter much to me as long as we agree on how people have access to relationship with God. Jesus Christ right? That is the only way according to Jesus’ own words in John 14:7.
"When we agree on that," said the head preacher, "we can disagree on many social and political views and still be related in Jesus. I am sure that it would be an interesting dinner conversation though.”

It seems the preacher found a way to justify war by calling this a spiritual, a holy war in the name of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. What other skull-splitting, blood-spilling violence would he call for next with his brilliant readings of the Holy Scriptures?

He says if we agree on how we relate to Christ then everything else becomes less relevant. So, if he relates to Christ like I do and, nevertheless, throws a bomb or a knife at me during dinner, this behavior would be acceptable? After all, isn’t that what we’re doing in Iraq? I didn’t bother to ask this last question.

I made it to the parking lot and never looked back.

A Rich Spirituality

Regardless of whatever church or group you find yourself in, reading the Bible can be an enjoyable way to cultivate your mind. When we read beyond its many literal messages and historical accounts, it offers a deep wealth of wisdom, and spiritual philosophy relevant to modern situations. The Bible offers insights to inner life and outer politics today. Full of metaphors and allegorical images, the Bible, like the Koran or the Torah, or other ancient texts, enables readers to connect otherwise unrelated ideas to form new insights.

In Christ’s parables, he is talking about more issues than the common objects like water, wine, or mustard seeds. He used parables, metaphors, and allegories in order to keep his thinking fluid, flexible, imaginative and, thus, to avoid dogma. Christ never delivered a doctrine, only church groups do that.

Christ’s many stories offer a moral, or tropoligical, meaning. Take, for example, the entire mission of Christ on earth. As the Son of God, he could have wiped out the entire Roman Empire with a mere eyewink, but he allowed the oppressors to crucify him as they had done to thousands of other poor and rebellious people. Christ sided with the poor, the downtroden, and sick in order to show the world that life can offer more wealth and purpose through charity, love, and forgiveness.

Some might prefer to read the Bible strictly in a literal way. But this limits its full potential. Those who read it literally, like an accounting procedure, might also look to live their lives in the same manner. Fear and insecurity can drive some people to cling to simple, fixed ideas in an otherwise flowing and dynamic world. Yet, Christ advises his followers often, “be not afraid.” As a nation completely engulfed in fear, we are twisting up Christ’s own words.

Mark Biskeborn is a writer.
You can email him:
mailto:mark@markbiskeborn.com

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Book Review: Catch 22

A Novel
By Joseph Heller
Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, New York, NY; 463 pp., 1961

Reviewed by Mark Biskeborn

Catch-22
An unconventional novel arose from the hand of an unknown author to the stature of a world classic and its messages remain relevant, nay, prophetic for all ages. For the most part, the many characters carry out their tasks without questioning their own activities or their leaders; they seem happy simply to occupy their time.

“Group Headquarters was alarmed, for there was no telling what people might find out once they felt free to ask whatever questions they wanted to. Colonel Cathcart sent Colonel Korn to stop it, and Colonel Korn succeeded with a rule governing the asking of questions. Colonel Korn’s rule was a stroke of genius, Colonel Korn explained in his report to Colonel Cathcart. Under Colonel Korn’s rule, the only people permitted to ask questions were those who never did….The corporal and Colonel Korn agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.”



Youssarian stands out of this crowd because he asks many questions. He wants control of his life, he wants to live, he “was willing to be victim to anything but circumstances.” Wanting to escape the bureaucratic machinery, makes Youssarian look like a coward to most people around him. For this reason, he is the protagonist, but not exactly a hero in the traditional or conformist sense – he is the anti-hero.

“But Youssarian couldn’t be happy, even though the Texan didn’t want him to be, because outside the hospital there was still nothing funny going on. The only thing going on was a war, and no one seemed to notice but Yossarian and Dunbar. And when Yossarian tried to remind people, they drew away from him and thought he was crazy. Even Clevinger, who should have known better but didn’t, had told him he was crazy the last time they had seen each other, which was just before Yossarian had fled into the hospital.”



This novel’s world flourishes with characters moving about as an army of ants, running in circular logic from which they cannot step free, nor do many of them seem to care even if they were aware. Yossarian and Dunbar stand out almost as villains. Youssarian flows against the social current as the anti-hero; he recognizes the absurd logical loops in which others around him consider their lives perfectly normal.

“In a way the C.I.D. man was pretty lucky, because outside the hospital the war was still going on. Men went mad and were rewarded with medals. All over the world, boys on every side of the bomb line were laying down their lives for what they had been told was their country, and no one seemed to mind, least of all the boys who were laying down their young lives. There was no end in sight. The only end in sight was doomsday had it not been for that had it not been for that patriotic Texan with his infundibuliform jowls and his lumpy, rumple headed, indestructible smile cracked forever across the front of his face like the brim of a black ten-gallon hat.”



No, surprisingly, in the above passage, the narrator is not describing our Texan, the 43rd President. Catch 22 first appeared in bookstores in 1961, when the Vietnam War was moving into high gear. But the story takes place near the end of World War II on a small island, Pianosa, off the coast of Italy. Although most people might view WW II as a highly justified war, it nevertheless played out with all the graft, corruption, and big-money contracts as any other. WW II ushered America into the world theater as a superpower with the moral credibility that would feed the ego-centric hubris of a sleeping giant with an unmatched thirst for power.

Every decade that followed WW II showed America how to become an empire at the cost of the republic, how to garner an emperor’s war power for the President, at the cost of Congressional restraint. Catch 22 captures the essence of the credulous, poorly educated, and uncritical citizens who follow mindlessly the Pipe Piper of bureaucratic institutions from government, military, and big business.

Heller began writing this novel in the late 1950’s to see it first published in 1961. This period saw the rise of the Truman Doctrine and the Cold War era during which the U.S. fought to ward off any spread of communism in places like Korea. In order to uphold the Truman Doctrine, the U.S. military budget began its exponential growth into what now fattens into the largest military spending in world history. Heller’s novel satirizes this transformation of America from a republic into an empire that runs on a bloating bureaucratic military-industrial complex, the dangers of which Eisenhower warned.

Given this background, Catch 22 reflects a larger transformation of America than simply a reaction to the Vietnam War. In fact, by 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred and the U.S. was just beginning to escalate toward an official and publicly recognized conflict in Vietnam. The anti-war protests against the draft began after Operation Rolling Thunder in 1965 when the U.S. government committed soldiers to the conflict which peaked in the late 1960’s to early 1970’s. The antiwar movement and the political awareness that grew from it, created an unexpectedly huge audience for Catch 22.

The novel reveals the logical loops in which the citizens run about in their daily occupations. All people need is a logic, an ideology, a belief system to guide them, and they’ll do whatever the program requires for the sake of fitting-in and getting along in life. Catch 22 is a law structured in mindless, uncritical circles.

“There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy… Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch 22 and let out a respectful whistle.”



This circular and absurd logic pervades throughout this story, in almost every conversation between the characters, in their actions and thoughts. It creates an eerie Kafkaesque atmosphere that continues through the real world. This looping logic could not be more obvious than in America’s present war in Iraq. As a timeless classic, one can now read Catch 22 as if it were written today. Bush Jr.’s initial justifications for his blind invasion of Iraq were based on lies, now obvious and abundantly proven, about imminent threats of WMD’s and later of terrorism.

When these reasons were proven as valueless as the large quantities of chocolate covered cotton that Heller’s seemingly innocent entrepreneurial character, Milo Minderbinder, sells, Bush Jr. explained that the war was necessary because terrorists overran Iraq. Of course, this statement spins in its own circle because regular Iraqi citizens as well as foreign intruders appeared on the scene as insurrectionists only after the U.S. occupation.

When this reason for war no longer sufficed, Bush Jr. told Americans that we must continue fighting in order to honor the soldiers already killed in battle. Obviously this logic, too, loops on itself into an absurd infinity. If Americans were silly enough to follow this logic, soldiers would go to war endlessly in search of honor of those who died before them regardless of whatever the initial reasons were at the war’s beginning. We know about the lemmings, the small rodents who run over the cliff only because their companions did so before them.

Once the program is put into place, no American is really silly enough to run in step like a mindless hamster on its exercise wheel. Americans are much smarter than that. But then, sometimes reality plays out more phantasmagorical than the most wildly imagined satirical fiction. Sometimes reality is less believable, less verisimilar, than fantasy.

In Catch 22, Milo Minderbinder’s commercial operations reveal the only realistic reasons for the war despite the double talk of ideological calls to freedom, liberty, and democracy. Economic power drives men to many places, to many endeavors.
Milo Minderbinder represents the small time entrepreneur working the black-market. He claims that his growing enterprise offers benefits. “Every man will have a share.”

Compared to Colonel Carthcart, who sends his men to death only for the sake of his own promotions, Minderbinder’s profiteering seems moral, at least until he does a deal with the Germans to bomb his own squadron. Then his syndicate takes on the power of a multinational that no state laws or national loyalty can restrain. Again, reality proves more surreal than the fictional satire.

In today’s cavalier cowboy gunfight in Iraq, one wonders where the $9 billion of tax money disappeared?

How did Halliburton obtain noncompetitive government contracts whose profits exceed any other?

The bureaucracy marches in circles that few, if any, dare to criticize as in the spinning world of Catch 22.

------
Mark Biskeborn is a writer. You can email him mark@markbiskeborn.com

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Essay: Bush Brothers Trample on American Values

Not even a retarded woman raped and in medical danger stops the Bush Brothers assault on decency.

by Mark Biskeborn

First Published: 28 December 2005

Regardless of their religion, most Americans agree with the teachings of Christ. All main religions and even most secular philosophies reflect these principles: to seek out good, charity, tolerance, peace, and love. Christ drew his teachings from the Jewish Torah as did Mohammed when he founded Islam in the seventh century.

Blasphemous fundamentalists, however, are twisting such teachings into a knot, distorting and exploiting the meanings.

Most Americans agree –- at a rate of well over 75 percent according to most polls -- that abortion should be legal in most circumstances, but especially in cases of the mother’s health or rape. Most Americans believe that when a woman has been raped, or if she’s likely to die as a result of giving birth, terminating pregnancy should be an option. Not Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush is pushing his neoconservative agenda while playing abortion politics. He's using a severely disabled 22-year old woman’s life for his own goals.

As in other areas, the Neo-Con Brotherhood stomps on American values. Jeb has stepped in to interfere with this rape victim’s best interests.

The woman is severely retarded and now five months pregnant. Experts say she operates at a one-year-old’s level, emotionally and mentally. Living in a special care home in Orlando, Florida, she was raped many times.

She suffers from cerebral palsy and autism; violent seizures often overcome her. These conditions make having a baby very dangerous for this young woman. She could die if she tries to deliver the baby.

The Neocon Brotherhood Takes Over

The Florida Social Services moved to appoint a guardian for her. State law requires a guardian to grant permission for the woman to receive a thorough medical evaluation. That’s when Jeb jumped in to push the neocon agenda. He fails to mention the problem of sexual predators in care centers for the handicapped.

Although the woman is severely disabled, has been raped, and might die during birthing, Governor Bush felt that the appointment of a guardian for her was not appropriate. Bush stopped the appointment of the woman’s guardian until Social Services appointed a second guardian -- specifically, a guardian for the fetus.

A Florida judge has refused to rule on Bush’s action based on legal technicalities. As a result, the unfortunate young woman, who suffers many medical problems, may not obtain proper medical care. Even if she does not die while birthing, the experience is bound to devastate her.

Time is running out. Someone must be appointed to protect this abused woman. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush occupies his time playing out the neocon fundamentalist’s policies that have nothing to do with the moral principles of most Americans.

Someone should step in and overrule Jeb Bush’s distorted sense of ethics and abuse of power. The balance of power in the political system should allow the judiciary to determine the facts in this case and decide the best course for this woman, already victimized by rapists.

We cannot allow the Neocon Fundamentalists, now the leading element in the Republican Party, to abuse this woman any further, least of all a governor who wants to play politics at the expense of a handicapped rape victim’s life. Bush is not thinking about the disabled woman. He focuses solely on his own narrow view of religious understanding. He obsesses with the fetus. In this regard, he is simply wrong and irrational.

The Rape of a Nation’s Values

America became acquainted with Jeb as governor of Florida during the 2000 election scandals over the voting that skewed mysteriously in favor of his brother, George W.

Jeb and G.W. are members of the Neo-Con Fundamentalist Brotherhood.

Jeb Bush governs Florida with an extremely twisted sense of ethics, with a blasphemous misuse of Christian morality, and with abuse of his political power. Although people have practiced abortion long before King Tut, the Bible never mentions it, doesn't even allude to it. The Bible does value life.

The Neocon Fundamentalist Brotherhood (NFB) often justifies its bizarre morality by citing the Holy Bible. However, most Americans are moderate in their religious beliefs. Not Jeb or George W. Bush.

They believe they have some special connection to God. God has chosen the Neocon Brotherhood to do HIS work. "God speaks through me," says G.W. Bush.

With God behind them, the neocons can walk all over American values even at the expense of handicapped rape victims.


Mark Biskeborn is a writer. You can email him at:
mark@markbiskeborn.com

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Essay: Demagoguery and Christian Ethics


George Bush uses the Christian faith and its symbols to work miracles for winning political battles.


First Published: 3 May 2004

by Mark Biskeborn

While talking with my acquaintances at a local church, I realized many people probably voted for G.W. Bush simply because he talked about God. In this regard, Bush has become a master of modern politics, so let’s give him credit for that.

But then, alas, the questions came to me. Does the local church reflect the nation’s way of thinking? Is a man who talks of God necessarily a follower of Christ’s teachings? Does God-talk make a man more moral?

By reviewing history, I recalled how Machiavelli set down one of the most explicit doctrines for modern politics while advising a sixteenth-century prince, counseling him to do whatever was practical for the sake of power, and that it was highly effective to use moral principles and especially religion to achieve success. Today’s politician often operates on Machiavelli’s counsel by appealing to the general public’s feelings about ethics as a rhetorical means to obtain popular support.

Machiavelli also advised the use of fear as a means to establish power, believing that a man’s flexibility in morality and religion enables him to gain political success as fortune (social attitudes) changes over time. “Thus, it is not necessary for a prince to have all the above-mentioned virtues in fact, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them.”


"The Bush Tapes" and Machiavelli

G.W. Bush seems to follow Machiavelli’s advice, although, as revealed in the “Bush Tapes,” during his personal struggle against drugs and alcohol, he made a deeply personal and sincere conversion to religious faith. It just so happens that his conversion also plays an opportune role in his political rhetoric.

Bush has found that the use of popular Christian faith and symbols works miracles to gain public support for his policies. Indeed, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2000, 15 million evangelical Protestants voted with 23 percent of the electorate, and 71 percent of them voted for Bush.

In 2004, Protestants again accounted for about 23 percent of the electorate. But overall turnout was much higher, and 78 percent of the evangelicals who voted, voted for Bush. That represents roughly 3.5 million extra votes for him. Bush's total vote rose by 9 million, so evangelical Protestants alone accounted for more than a third of his increased vote.

The recent release of the “Bush Tapes” reveals Bush as less driven by his religious beliefs than many people might have previously assumed. In the tapes, he refers to religious images as the right buttons to push when looking for public support. While preparing to meet Christian leaders in 1998, Bush said: "There are some code words. There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways. I am going to say that I've accepted Christ into my life.” (New York Times, 19 Feb. 05)


Bush and God


Bush referred to God 10 times in his first inaugural in 2000, including this claim: “I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image.” In his three State of the Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times.

No other president has used God so often in his State of the Unions or inaugurations. The closest to Bush’s average of six references to God in each of his addresses is Ronald Reagan with an average 4 in his comparable speeches. Jimmy Carter, considered one of the most pious of presidents, mentioned God only twice in four addresses. Further back in history, others to talk of God were Franklin Roosevelt at 1.5 and Johnson at 1.5 per inaugurals and State of the Unions.

These former presidents spoke as humble petitioners asking for divine guidance, unlike Bush’s claim in 2003 that “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.” Unlike his predecessors, Bush declares some divine understanding of God’s intensions. Is this prophecy? If not prophecy, at least it can make people feel like they are closer to God because they happen to live in a particular country. People like to hear this and feel good about themselves.


This change in White House rhetoric is apparent in how presidents have spoken about God and the values of freedom and liberty, two ideas central to American identity that strum the emotional heartstrings of folks in the heartlands.


Do Bush's Policies Reflect Christian Principles?



Bush uses Christian references as an effective means to sway the American public to his policies. At a White House press conference, Bush responded to questions: “Freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman…we have been called to do…” As a demagogue, Bush uses the cultural trend of increasing religious fervor in America, perhaps a reaction to Islamic movements, as a means to garner middle class popularity for his bold policies which often do not serve middle-class interests. Indeed, many of his policies seem to ignore the basic ethical principles Christ taught. His reduction in inheritance tax for huge fortunes only continues the trend to concentrate the distribution of wealth back to the rich. This does not spread opportunity democratically down to the middle classes. On the contrary, it intensifies the concentration of wealth among the rich. Didn’t Christ teach charity repeatedly?

Or, for example, his international free-trade agreements reduce production costs for the wealthy ownership class while they pit the working poor of third-world countries against American middle-class workers. Didn’t Christ teach justice and fairness repeatedly? Do these policies reflect the ethical principles that Christ taught such as charity and justice? Since Bush makes more references to Christian faith than any of his modern predecessors at least since the last century, should we expect him to apply Christian moral principles? Bush’s Christian talk does not seem to reflect his policies. One conclusion we might draw here is that many Americans vote not based on political policies, but on how uplifting the candidate makes them feel.


Justifying the Invasion of Iraq


To his credit, Bush does occasionally use other, non-religious reasons for his policies, such as for invading Iraq. Eventually, he came to use genocide and violations of international law and of human rights as justifications. Yet, if Bush did seriously place any priority on these criteria, he would take action in countries where these problems are rampant such as in China, Sudan, or Rwanda among others. He has done nothing in any such countries.


Despite Bush’s references to some greater prophetic Christian calling, he does focus his attention on Iraq, and not on Sudan, China, or any other tyrannical regime, because his priority does not lie with moral principles, but rather with the goal to re-establish Iraq as the U.S. client state it once was because of its rich petroleum reserves, 15 percent of the world supplies. This preemptive war in Iraq aims at benefiting America’s political and economic interests. Although since the American occupation of Iraq, terrorism arose and now flourishes there at the cost so far of over 1,700 U.S. soldiers’ lives and more than $300 billion in our taxes. However, instead of telling the crass truth about the oil motives to occupy Iraq, however acceptable they may or may not be, Bush chose a more effective approach. He eventually came to use God as a justification.

For the preemptive invasion of Iraq, Bush has given us many justifications. He seemed to be groping and grasping for the right buttons to push that would garner public support. First, he told us he wanted to control the WMD’s, but nobody found any before or after the invasion. Bush also claimed he wanted to bring justice to terrorists, but then evidence proved that Saddam Hussein and his regime were secular enemies to the likes of Al Qaeda. In fact, Osama bin Laden pleaded with Saudi Royalty to invade Iraq in place of the U.S. military. Bush said he wanted to capture the evil tyrant, but then many Iraqi insurgents continue to fight against the occupation. Finally, Bush told us it’s America’s calling by God to spread freedom and democracy.

Was Bush groping for a believable justification in order to gain support for his war? If so, doesn’t this mean he takes lessons from Machiavelli?

He represents an ideology that mixes his own peculiar understanding of Christian ethics with capitalist goals where church, state and commerce intermix. Capitalist goals such as amassing wealth for the few and supporting the interests of large corporations somehow represent for Bush a Christian ethic and way of life. Many of the large corporations that benefit from invading and then rebuilding Iraq, the war contractors, such as Carlyle Group, Vought Aircraft, Halliburton and others, contribute to the campaign coffers that got him elected, not to mention that the families of Bush and of some of his cabinet members own large portions of stock in them.

Contrary to Bush’s Christian rhetoric, Saint Paul and other founding fathers of Christianity, including Christ himself, were pacifists. Tertuallian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria agreed that a Christian could not be a soldier. This ethical view changed only after 312 A.D. when the Roman Emperor, Constantine, chose to become baptized, and did so partly in order to unify an otherwise crumbling empire. At that time, Christian thinkers like Saint Augustine began to develop the notion of a ‘just war’ in the name of God.

Christianity became part of mainstream culture and power structure. Christianity and political ideology were merged at this time of empire building and maintenance. This revised version of Christian ethics made solid political sense at the time because without allowing for war,
Christianity would have taken a very different path in history. But this revision of Christian ethics runs clearly against the teachings of Christ and Paul. Didn’t Christ go to the cross, along with thousands of other Jews, because the ruling Pharisees at the time were expecting a political, even militant king as opposed to the ‘Prince of Peace’ while under Roman oppression?


Christianity as a Marketing Tool


Bush uses Christian talk and symbols to build support for his political position. In a word, he does what professional marketers do; he leverages the current cultural ethos to gain popular support, as Machiavelli advised centuries ago. Bush does, after all have an MBA and he probably did attend his marketing classes. In this regard, he has become a master of modern politics. As Bush exploits Christianity as a means to spread capitalist interests, the resulting ideology appears as a perverse blasphemy of the original Christian ethics taught by Christ.

Bush works from a peculiar revision of Christian ethics to create a new form of capitalist fundamentalism not completely unlike Islamic fundamentalists, such as sects like Wahhabi. In so doing Bush stands Christ’s ethical teachings in its head. Corporate profits, industrial petroleum requirements, and the concentration of wealth seem to be some of the values that motivate Bush in many of his policies, not the prevention of human rights violations, tyranny, or genocide which arise daily in the world and to which Bush’s administration remains mostly oblivious.

Bush has gone to unusual efforts to accommodate the ruling elite in the Middle East, such as the Royal family of Saud, many of which are members of the Islamic fundamentalism and some of whom contribute to other fundamentalist groups such as Al Qaeda.

Peace, charity, justice, equality, generosity are all moral principles Christ taught repeatedly through sermons, parables, and plain talk. Bush’s policies do not clearly reflect these principles despite his Christian talk. Industry and military run on oil. The Bush administration’s actions indicate that, at least for them, economic interests outweigh Christian ethics or the ideals of democracy and human rights, despite all the clever use of Christian talk.


Mark Biskeborn is a writer. You can email him mark@markbiskeborn.com