Did You Know?: A Christian Nation

Did You Know? America, a Christian Nation

The other day a friend sent me an email entitled “Did You Know,“ that included a list of prominent individuals who had assisted in the founding of our country. The mailer’s intent was to show proof of our nation's Christian origins. And I understood the mailing to be a pitch from the Christian “right” for bolstering the Bush Administration. It was an impressive list of Founding Fathers, but it failed to have the intended effect upon me, for two reasons.

First it was classic prooftexting. Now prooftexting (argumentation by selective quoting) is good at initiating discussion, but it is always inadequate to settle the point. As a debating device it has strategic weaknesses. It usually leaves out things that others can't help but notice; it leaves its flanks exposed. And it doesn't address the whole issue; it fails to win the opponents over. Prooftexting works best on those already convinced of the premise.

Then, too, prooftexting loses the respect of the debate judges by its attitude of triumphalism. It believes it has played the trump card, which presumes all other cards are irrelevant if not discredited. The holder of a trump card moves as if there is no need to consider what cards the others are holding. Such pyschologizing only works on weak opponents. Self-congratulation risks looking silly when the defense attorney has not yet spoken. Or to use a different image, a President dressed in combat suit on an aircraft carrier with a banner announcing “mission accomplished.”

I have no quarrel with the presence and profundity of Christian influence in our nation's founding years. This doesn't need to be argued. But it can not be extracted from the historical context and made the single or overwhelming factor without ignoring a lot of history. To confound the issue, this particular list of "did you knows" spoils its case by trying too hard. It jarringly included a name that spoils its point, namely Thomas Jefferson, a non- Christian and, to some, an infidel. (He apparently gets included because he referred to our “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence.)

There really is no need to hang yourself out there in the wind with Thomas Jefferson stitched loosely onto the Christian flag. Good history does not deny the strength of the influence of Christianity. There is no need to profess that other historical influences were pale or even inimical to Christianity. America has a rich heritage--Christian and otherwise. All elements have been subject to challenge and corruption--the Christian part no less than the other parts. A "return" to Christian principles is as honorable as (not "more" honorable than) a "return" to other principles--such as tolerance, appreciation of diversity, bowing to freedom of speech, criticism of authority, distrust of the privileged, honoring individual rights, celebrating personal integrity, including mercy with justice, and a multiple of others with roots in English radicalism and the Enlightenment. The collaboration of influences informing our Founding Fathers was serendipitous, which is more wondrous than just evangelical.

In truth, the did-you-know list may be more helpful than at first glance. By including Jefferson, the samples thus embrace many of the "other" sources of our heritage. Jefferson was a "radical" philosopher and a true Enlightenment man. He can't be left off an honest list.

It is possible that the compiler of the list, by adding Jefferson’s name, meant to show how these sources of our heritage coordinated with the Christian environment to edify our founding leaders, but I doubt it. The only reason why today we have trouble seeing how these “other” elements cooperated with the Christian contribution and were uniquely brewed together at the Philadelphia Convention is because we prefer to "use" history for our current political agenda and dip back into the “Founding Fathers” pot to prove whatever we are championing at the moment. It is a technique to make our opponents seem less than true Americans.

If the list is inadequate as history, it is equally deficient as propaganda for our current President’s brand of Christianity. It tries too hard. I understand that George W. Bush considers himself an evangelical Christian, which theologically places him with a “subdivision” of the broad Christian community, and historically places him in connection with a “periodized” development. “Evangelicalism” as the term is used today is mostly a post-17th century development. (Who is a “true” Christian is for another discussion.)

Observers have noted that many of George W. Bush’s political stands line up with those of his supporters on the religious right-wing. When the President speaks of his “conservative program,” his supporters, as he intends, know him to mean “evangelical” program. If Bush’s program for Iraq is Christian, it is Old Testament. Is it any wonder that many of those who object to his approach, do so as Christians?

Now for some old-fashioned free speech (criticism). I do not doubt George Bush's personal piety, but the urge to trump those who challenge Bush’s vision for America , as a means to discredit them for not understanding Bush’s God-ordained leadership, demonstrates a simplified, hence distorted, picture of what is going on around us. How can we expect Bush, as a Christian, to restore our past when he epitomizes a narrow understanding of our heritage. When his vision for America was challenged by John Kerry, Bush could only respond by saying that Kerry was too complicated to understand--meaning that Kerry could not "lead" America with his mushy thinking. Half (plus 1%) of voters agreed in November, 2004 (though many had changed their minds by November, 2006). But we all look through the same wet windshield. The difference is that Kerry saw the images as "complicated," while Bush claimed to see things clearly and prefers to continue driving down the road with the wipers off, scoffing at Kerry's inconsistencies.

I grew up in “fundamentalist” circles, where I was led to believe that Catholics were not real Christians. And I am sure many voted against Kerry for that reason. Mixing religion and politics is risky business. But “cooking” history to bond the mix endangers ones integrity. Packing all references to God and the Ten Commandments together in a did-you-know list, along with the anomalous inclusion of Jefferson, makes the “Christian list” suspect. Simplification and hazy comparisons too easily lead to bad conclusions.

President Bush is not God’s vicegerent anymore than King George III was, so in that sense his Christianity should not be part of the political argument. But when he epitomizes a version of Christianity that since has been “adjusted” by the New Testament, and which is off-center with America’s heritage, his supporters really ought to find some more convincing grounds on which to defend him.

Christianity undeniably is a deep-seated part of America’s heritage, but we would be wise to study how the Founders handled their Christianity. Today liberals often make the same mistake the “did-you-know” conservatives do. One group wants “separation.“ The other wants “conjoining.“ Our founding leaders both joined, and separated religion and politics. They were superb multitaskers. They honored both arenas the way one admires a juggler, who does not throw his balls into the air to get rid of them but to create a performance that utilizes all of them. Historically, when Christianity hogs the show, it loses its wholesomeness. The democracy our ancestors stitched together gave place for multicolored balls. Our founding leaders (including the many Christians) would be greatly disappointed in us, I fear, if they saw us reverting to throwing one ball of one color in the air all the time. Have we lost the “genius” of those years?

Doug Good

Insult-Proof Your Intelligence: Rhetorical Nonsense on Iraq

Insult-proof Your Intelligence: Rhetorical Nonsense on Iraq

Regarding the recent Congressional bill for further funding of the war with its stipulation that a time-table be followed to bring the troops home, the President argues that it gives the enemy a critical advantage. Knowing that we will be winding down our effort sends them the wrong message. It tells them we have accepted eventual failure and all they have to do is wait us out and they have the victory. Strategically you don’t tell your opponent what your plans are, particularly if they are wrapped in the psychology of defeat.

As an argument this sounds good. How could the Congress think they know better than the generals how to fight a war?

However, this argument is fatally flawed. As with any bad logic, it makes an assumption, actually two assumptions, that are embarrassingly brainless.

First, the President wants us to believe that we possess a winning advantage now, an advantage that the insurgents are aware of. In reality, we hold no such advantage, and the insurgents know they have us against the ropes. The American public’s disaffection with the war is not the reason for our troubles; it is the result. The troubles came first. News of the American public’s disapproval is gravy to the insurgents who gained their advantage “in the field” without the help of any psychological deficit in the American public mind. The suggestion that talk of withdrawal gives comfort to the enemy is the argument of a poser.

Second, if we are to believe the President, he wants to bring the troops home. He just doesn’t want the insurgents to know when. Well, the President either decides to end the war and withdraw troops or he doesn’t. (Or, if we follow the Constitution, Congress would play its assigned role and decide for him.) There is no in between withdrawing or not withdrawing.. Without a time-table, we can assume we are not pre-planning a withdrawal. The President is trying to have it both ways, but it can’t be done. To be for an eventual withdrawal ahead of time is flatulence (empty, windy speech--literally, passing gas). Withdrawal is what a commander does after victory. Even without a timetable, the very first soldier that is “brought home” would be the announcement Bush does not want to send. For the President even to discuss our troubles in Iraq is a prelude to such an announcement. But the reality is the insurgents don’t need any announcement. Bush has already shown his cards. His “surge strategy” has its own built-in timetable. He has said, if it isn’t working by six months he will consider withdrawal. He portrays this as a way to avoid premature withdrawal. The only thing it gains us is that instead of allowing the insurgents to sit back and wait out a specified time-table, they only have to keep doing for another six months (five now) what they have been so effectively doing until now. They don’t need our generals to admit that the U.S. is not winning. They already know it.

So, with the first flaw in logic, the President’s argument assumes we have the edge, which we don’t. To believe in this fiction also requires us to think the insurgents agree. This double state of denial is a bad basis for an argument.

Then, with the second flaw in logic, to believe that we could catch the insurgents by surprise with a “withdrawal in the offing” that doesn’t have a prescribed time-table is to persuade ourselves that a withdrawal decision would be a precipitating factor when it is not. “Withdrawal” is a non-issue. If you are winning, of course you look forward to withdrawal. If you are losing and are perceived as looking forward to withdrawal, the ascendant enemy already has the message. You win or you lose; withdrawal is an after effect. A commander who promises withdrawal while initiating a strategy he describes as a last chance effort does not fool anyone except those who depend on wishful thinking, which, again, does not serve as sound logic.

If you are going to borrow the emperor’s clothes (his argument), you best look in the mirror before stepping outside.

Doug Good

How To Parse Bush-Speak

How To Parse Bush-Speak

I don’t know if young people today have ever heard of Pig Latin, but when I was a kid we played around with this coded version of English. We would take the first letter or sound of a word and put it at the end of the word and tack on the sound of “ay.” For example the word “Latin” would become “atin-lay.” The sentence, “Please speak clearly,” would become, “lease-pay peak-say learly-cay.”

You may have noticed that sometimes politicians seem to speak similar nonsense. The difference is that the words they speak are common English words, but the meaning may be hidden by flawed logic or disinformation. Whether it be due to simplemindedness or innocent ignorance, or some other motive more nefarious, the result is the same--we are misled.

The current President of the United States has developed this political art to an exquisite level. I will leave it to others to judge this gentleman’s integrity and moral intentions. I just want to know how to read him when he speaks to us. I believe I have stumbled upon a simple formula for decoding the President’s messages to us. It is a matter of parsing. Technically, parsing means sorting through the grammatical use of words in a sentence. But I intend it here as a means of parsing our Chief Articulator’s phrases or key statements to see how he uses them in his speeches. He speaks clearly enough and without complication. Indeed, as criticism mounts, his tendency to stand his ground makes his phrases almost sound like mantras. This makes it easier to see patterns. Once the code is broken, we wonder why we didn’t see it sooner.

Here is the key. In six years of listening I have learned that all you need to do is reverse the meaning the President’s words seem to convey, and he suddenly makes consistent (non)sense.
Here are some examples, and you will see the pattern.

Weapons of mass destruction.
- Based on what information we now know the President had when he first spoke of these,
what he meant was that the weapons he had no knowledge of are the ones that he was telling
us he knew of.

Saddam Hussein had connections with Al Qaeda.
- Because it was no secret that any connections were tenuous to nonexistent, what he meant
was Al Qaeda attacked us, so we must attack Hussein, who had connections to what he had
nothing to do with.

Torturing prisoners.
- Because pictures of torturing were available on the internet of all places, not to mention the
evening TV news, the President had trouble with this one. This came out before he could
pronounce on it. The best he could do was say, we did it but we don’t do it, which is a kind of
double reversal--acknowledging that we did what we don’t do before denying we do it.

Secret foreign prisons.
- Responding to charges that these surrogate torture locations existed, what the President
meant--as it turned out-- was, right now they don‘t exist because I haven’t decided to tell
you about their existence yet.

Outing of a CIA agent’s identity.
- The President said he would fire any Administration personnel found to be involved in the
leak of Valerie Plame’s identity. What he meant was he would do this theoretically, but he
wouldn’t actually have to because Chief-of-Staff-type scapegoats are available (Libby). (I
guess Carl Rove exists only in my imagination.)

Cooperation.
- When he says his people will cooperate with Congressional investigations, he means over his
(politically) dead body, a political demise which is effectively in progress.

Honesty.
- When he insists that Alberto Gonzales is honest, he actually means honesty as defined by how
good ones memory is, which is an antonym.

So breaking the code and understanding Bush’s grammar turns out to be surprisingly
simple. Just take the reverse of what he says. Give it the necessary twist, and you can
understand what is going on in the administration before the investigative reporters and the
prosecuting attorneys have done their work. You don’t need cutting edge technology, insider
reports, retired generals, or even disillusioned Republicans. It’s right out there in front of us.

Now that we have reduced Bush-speak to plain language, the President might want to polish up on his Pig Latin.

Doug Good