Obama’s Weirdness

The interview on faith and religion I mentioned the other day is a gold mine of weirdness.  Let's look at what Obama thinks is going on when he is speaking to crowd as a political leader:

OBAMA: IT’s interesting, the most powerful political moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth. I can feel it. When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.

GG: What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.

So, it seems clear that when Barack Obama feels strongly about something it is because he views it as touching something of the divine.  So, if you hold a different political position on one of those matters you are at best a fool and at worst evil.  Either way you are standing against the will of God, which happens to coincide with the political principles of Barack Obama.  Aren't we lucky?

Now, this I just found interesting:

GG: Who’s Jesus to you?

(He laughs nervously)

OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

So what have we got here?  Obama thinks Jesus is A) an historical figure, B) a bridge between God and man, and C) a wonderful teacher.  The truth is there is nothing particularly Christian about those views.  Muslims, for example, hold much the same view of Jesus.  It is Christians who believe Jesus is the son of God, the redeemer of our sins, the maker of a new covenant…in short the Messiah.  All of the specifically Christian views of Jesus seem to have escaped Obama's notice, or they have been rejected. 

Which is it?  I don't know, but it sure seems like Barry Obama is one weird guy.

Stuff You Can’t Make Up…

…but this sure does fit a pattern many vainly try to claim doesn't exist.  From The Dude Abides:

At 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, 2004, when I was the religion reporter (I am now its religion columnist) at the Chicago Sun-Times, I met then-State Sen. Barack Obama at Café Baci, a small coffee joint at 330 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago, to interview him exclusively about his spirituality. Our conversation took place a few days after he'd clinched the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat that he eventually won. We spoke for more than an hour. He came alone. He answered everything I asked without notes or hesitation. The profile of Obama that grew from the interview at Cafe Baci became the first in a series in the Sun-Times called "The God Factor," that eventually became my first book, The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People (FSG, March 2006.) Because of the staggering interest in now U.S. Sen. Obama's faith and spiritual predilections, I thought it might be helpful to share that interivew…

The money quote:

GG:
Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:
Yes.

GG:
What is sin?

OBAMA:
Being out of alignment with my values.

Don't share the O's values?  Welcome to sin my friends.

Department Of Redundancy Department

I fully understand where James Kirchick is coming from in a piece over at The Politico. He points out the raging double standard of the left regarding religion.

Yet the left, with its healthy skepticism toward religion, has shown itself to be cynically flexible over the past few weeks in response to the utter insanities emitted from the big mouth of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years. Suddenly, some liberals have discovered a newfound love for extremists who hide behind the cloth to justify their radical views.

The lunatic remarks made by Wright in videotaped sermons released in March — which, lest there be any doubt that these pearls of wisdom were taken “out of context,” Wright reaffirmed at the National Press Club last week — are indefensible, and it is beyond pedantry to quibble over whether a spirited defense of Louis Farrakhan is more or less offensive than blaming abortion doctors and gays for Sept. 11, 2001, as Jerry Falwell infamously did two days after the terrorist attacks.

But in the warped minds of some on the left, uttering such inanities is not only “understandable,” it’s laudable. That is, of course, if the person alleging that the government created AIDS to kill African-Americans is an aggrieved black man lashing out at the rapacious, capitalist and irredeemably racist United States. Wright, you see, is actually a “patriot” for speaking uncomfortable “truths” about his country.

Still, pointing out the hypocrisy of the left is a more or less full time occupation. This is nothing new for them. But it isn't a bad thing to keep pointing it out, either. Eventually, enough people will catch on. Or maybe they already have.

Bare Minimum Christianity

[Note:  Hello to all of you in the Crabitat!  It's been awhile since I've posted anything here, but Gaius once said "Whenever you want to post something here..." so I'm back in the clear blue water.]

It has been a little strange to see the attempts to "normalize" the ideas behind folks like Rev. Wright and Trinity Church. The left of center meme has been to act as if views of Wright and Co. are just another Christian denomination, the intellectual and moral equivalent of Methodists or Lutherans. In fact, they have no problem comparing Wright, favorably, to Martin Luther King.

In a sense, it could be argued that this is simply an expression of the liberal adherence to the principle of religious freedom embodied by the First Amendment. In such a view, we are a country populated by a plethora of religious creeds, and as a nation our strength is measured more by our diversity than our uniformity. Thus, if some version of faith strikes you as outlandish, well that is simply the price of admission. Such a view makes some sense until you note the left of center penchant for trashing various forms of evangelicalism at the drop of a hat. So, I don't really think the pass Rev. Wright is getting could be explained away as simple reticence to criticize anyone's religion.

So, what exactly is going on? I would argue that there seems to be modicum of religious ignorance and a lack of theological sophistication on the part of many on the left. Many of the commentariat seem to hold some variation of Christopher Hitchens' belief that all religions are basically a legitimized form of organized crime. They are all frauds, so says this belief system, so how can you make any meaningful distinction between them? After all, there is no such thing as a more sincere con job.

The big problem with this view is the overwhelming majority of Americans believe there is a big difference between being a Catholic or a Lutheran, and being a Branch Davidian or a Ralien. Once you go down the road of saying there are indeed distinctions and judgements that can be legitimately made about different religious groups, it demands a greater basis of knowledge and a certain level of theological sophistication in order to make such judgements.

Now, obviously, Wright's Trinity Church or the Raliens or the Episcopalians, all enjoy equivalent legal protections under the Constitution, but that is not the same as saying they are all morally equivalent. Additionally, one's commitment to the legal protections of the Constitution does not preclude our being able to make moral distinctions between belief systems. As a result, blanket assertions that it is "un-American" to examine or take into account a person's religious thinking are simple nonsense. To undertake such judgements in no way alters the legal protections religious faiths enjoy, which is all that is demanded of us under our system of law. It is un-American to force someone to espouse Lutheran theology. It is in no way un-American to determine the Raliens are a bunch of nutjobs.

So, what kind of judgements can we draw about Rev. Wright and his church built upon the "black liberation theology" of James Cone? For starters, it doesn't seem to be a particularly Christian church. By that, I mean its motivating principles seem to derive less from the life and teaching of Jesus Christ than they do from the writings of Vladimir Lenin and Mao Tse-tung. The language of Wright's church is not that of grace and the love of God for his children on Earth. Instead, a vision of a politicized church built upon a rather clumsy and simplistic transposition of Lenin's essay on "Imperialism" (itself not a model of intellectual brilliance) is put forward in place of the Christian gospel. Where Lenin railed against the exploitation of the un-industrialized nations by the industrialized nations in a statist version of the Marxist idea of class struggle, Wright/Cone offer a vision of racial exploitation that can only be overcome by the "destruction" of the criminal race (i.e. whites.)

If this is what this perspective is politically, what can we say about it as a religion? From a religious perspective the question becomes what sort of claim such a view could have to being called "Christian" at all. (This is assuming that something being "Christian" is not merely a question of self-identification. For example, whatever variation there might be in the definition of "Vegan," you cannot legitimately claim to be a Vegan if you wear leather and eat veal four times a week.)

In my opinion, it seems unlikely that the political goals advocated by the Wright/Cone ideology can be squared with the bare minimum requirements of religious Christianity. In fact, the Wright/Cone vision requires the direct repudiation of the teachings of Christ. For example, whatever Christianity is it must allow for "Christians" of any race or ethnicity. For Wright/Cone only blacks can be "true" Christians. Christianity has always been built around the idea that Jesus Christ came not as a political revolutionary promising liberation for a specific people only, as many messianic Jews had been expecting for generations, but was instead sent for all mankind. But for Wright/Cone the only legitimate work of God is for the benefit of blacks and blacks alone. Such a view represents not just an "unusual interpretation" of Christianity, but a direct repudiation of it.

There are a lot of differences between Christian denominations concerning the idea of the sacraments, the nature and role of clergy, the importance of church authority, the nature of grace, the nature of sin, the status of Mary, the teaching role of the Bible, and hundreds of others subjects. However, such differences do not touch upon the most basic and fundamental roots of what it means to be a Christian. Christ asked us to recognize that whenever two are more are gathered in his name he is there as well. He did not say he would only be present when two or more of the "correct" ethnicity were gathered. Any church that implies this is so will have a hard time upholding any claim to Christian-ness.

For the non-Christian all of this must seem like much ado about nothing. But even an ardent agnostic can legitimately look at the dodgy political ideology masquerading as religious belief in Barrack Obama's church and ask probing questions about it. If we are not allowed to ask the difficult questions including those touching upon the intersection of faith and politics, in a mistaken belief that it is "bad form,"  how can we ever know what Obama believes about anything?

Cross Posted at my home blog, The Iconic Midwest

Rowan Williams Does The Backstroke

The Archbishop of Canterbury is attempting to back away from the controversy he started with his comments that Sharia law in Britain seemed "unavoidable." At this point, he appears to be trying to head off the people who are demanding he resign - or be removed from his position.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has hit back at calls for his resignation over his comments on sharia law.

Dr Rowan Williams insisted he "certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law".

In a statement on his website, the Archbishop said he made no proposals for sharia but was simply "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".

He said his aim was to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state, using "sharia as an example".

His statement comes after he faced calls for his resignation from members of the General Synod, the Church of England's "parliament". 

Unfortunately for Williams, those calls are becoming increasingly strident:

One of those calling for the Archbishop's resignation, Colonel Edward Armitstead, a Synod member from the diocese of Bath and Wells, said: "I don't think he is the man for the job. One wants to be charitable, but I sense that he would be far happier in a university where he can kick around these sorts of ideas."

Alison Ruoff, a Synod member from London, said: "He is a disaster for the Church of England. He vacillates, he is a weak leader and he does not stand up for the Church."

At this point, I am not at all sure how this will play out. Williams is completely in over his head in the job and is not provoking dialog or "teasing issues out." He is infuriating people and damaging the Church of England.

Bishops Calling For Resignation Of Rowan Williams

Anglican Bishops - and quite a lot of other people - are demanding that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams resign his post over his call to implement Sharia law in Britain. The people denouncing Williams include a fairly large number of Muslim politicians, apparently. Rowan is reported to not understand what the row is all about.

The Archbishop of Canterbury was facing demands to quit last night as the row over sharia law intensified.

Leading bishops publicly contradicted Dr Rowan Williams's call for Islamic law to be brought into the British legal system.

With the Church of England plunged into crisis, senior figures were said to be discussing the archbishop's future.

One member of the church's "Cabinet", the Archbishop's Council, was reported as saying: "There have been a lot of calls for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but, yes, he should resign."

Officials at Lambeth Palace told the BBC Dr Williams was in a "state of shock" and "completely overwhelmed" by the scale of the row.

It was said that he could not believe the fury of the reaction. The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.

He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity".

Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

"This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy."

The church's second most senior leader, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, refused to discuss the matter. But he has said sharia law "would never happen" in Britain.

Politicians joined the chorus of condemnation, with Downing Street saying British law should be based on British values. Tory and LibDem leaders also voiced strong criticism.

Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: "I haven't experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country.

"If there are people who prefer sharia law there are always countries where they could go and live."

Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, rejected the idea that British law forces Muslims to choose between their religion and their society.

He said: "This will alienate people from other communities because they will think it is what Muslims want - and it is not."

Nice to see that backlash coming from Muslims. Williams is, quite obviously, completely unable to handle the job and is botching pretty much everything he touches at this point. The Church of England is going to have to either get rid of him or suffer even further damage. I am quite sure that Williams means well. He just is in  completely over his head and is obviously clueless as to how badly he is.

Gordon Brown Slaps Sharia Law In Britain

Contrary to the views of Rowan Williams, Gordon Brown has slapped rather hard at the idea of Sharia law being installed in Britain. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday by calling for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.

This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.

His comments in a BBC interview and a lecture to lawyers were condemned at a time when government ministers are striving to encourage integration and stop the nation from "sleepwalking to segregation".

The Prime Minister rapidly distanced himself from Dr Williams's view. Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Dr Williams's words opened a chasm over Islam between senior leaders of the Church of England, who are already trying to deal with an Anglican war over gay rights which broke out after he was appointed archbishop.

Williams, who I have referred to as the Archbishop of Culture Buried,  will be remembered as the most misguided person ever to have held the office. He appears to be determined to shatter the entire religious community he is supposedly leading. He appears to be succeeding. 

I'm not familiar with Anglican rules, but is the Queen, as head of the Church of England able to remove an Archbishop? Because this guy is a piece of work. But he is one cruddy Archbishop. 

Nightfall In Britain

Here's a news item coming out of Britain that should shock and appall everyone, regardless of political affiliation. The Archbishop of Canterbury is calling the imposition of Sharia law on Britain "unavoidable ." His "reasoning", such as it is should outrage you.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody… I think that's a bit of a danger".

The concept that one law applies to everyone is dangerous? A concept that people have campaigned for for centuries needs to be thrown away and a religious law imposed?  That quaint little ideal of equal treatment is now outmoded?

Only to the likes of the Archbishop of Culture Buried. Williams has been a source of major stupidity before, but this takes some sort of prize.  Not a good prize, either.

UPDATE: Others: Samizdata.net, Biased BBC, Wake up America, Bookworm Room, Hot Air, JammieWearingFool, Tim Blair, Neptunus Lex, Cold Fury, Poligazette, Black Shards, Opinionator,

Many thanks to all who linked this post. 

Bucking The Offensively Inoffensive

Mark Steyn looks at the Christmas ads that the presidential candidates have suddenly begun putting out. He pronounces the trend, led by Mike Huckabee, a revolt against the liberal's offensively inoffensive pseudo-religion. He also has an enormous amount of fun with the various ads.

In Sen. Clinton's Christmas message, Hillary is bundling up presents for all of us. They're beautifully wrapped, but oddly, instead of putting the name of the intended recipient on the gift tag, she's written out what's in them: "Universal Health Care," "Alternative Energy," "Middle-Class Tax Cuts." Strange. "Where did I put 'Universal Pre-K'?" she says. "Ah, there it is." If you thought Christmas at the mall was too materialistic, this is bonanza time. Message: It Takes A Santa's Village Staffed By Unionized Government Elves To Raise A Child, and I'm Santa and you're gonna need a much bigger chimney for all the federal entitlements I'll be tossing down there. Your stocking's gonna be packed tighter than Monica in fishnets.

And yet it's a strangely cheerless message. Less Santa than Frosty the Snowqueen.

John McCain's message is about the Christmas he spent being tortured. By having Hillary's Christmas message played to him over and over? No, silly. This was back in Vietnam.

John Edwards' message is the usual Dickensian affair about the two Americas. I forget the details, but the upshot is that one America is a land of spindly emaciated Tiny Tims with barely three farthings to rub together for their next cup of gruel, while the other's a marshmallow world where Dick Cheney, high on wassail, shoots a brace of turducken out of season, and then chows down as the Radio City Rockettes pop up out of his figgy pudding and come kicking across the dining table, singing "Santa Baby." You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by Edwards' poignant vignette of a divided America, tastefully lit with the warm glow of Christmas candles, unless it's the glare from his styling mousse.

He cheerfully savages the lot for the most part. One presumes he put this column to bed before Thompson's ad aired, since that one is not mentioned. His point about the revolt against the pseudo-religion of the First Church of Political Correctness is pretty well spot on (including Clinton's continued adherence to that faithless faith). He gives all the credit for the uprising to Huckabee's ad, which led the parade. So go read it all, it is Steyn, after all. So you know the wordplay alone would make it worth reading.

The End Of “The Gods In The Closet”?

I remember reading about Japan's Kakure Kirishitan, or Hidden Christians, years ago. They are descended from converts to Christianity made by Portuguese missionaries in the 1500s. Christianity was outlawed by Japan in 1614 and many of the converts were suppressed and even martyred. A few held out, practicing a distorted Christianity that evolved into something that no longer really resembles the religion that was originally taught to them. The faithful kept their religion an secret, hiding their religious symbols, called Nando-Gami or Gods in the Closet, in secret cupboards, only bringing them out when conducting their secret services. Now, there are fewer and fewer of the Kakure Kirishitan each year and the few remaining fear the religion will die out.

IKITSUKI ISLAND, Japan (Reuters) - One by one, the sacred relics — a medal of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix and other revered objects — are taken from a cupboard and placed on an altar for a Christmas Eve rite passed down through centuries from Japan's earliest Christians.

Then, kneeling in the simple hall built where martyrs are said to have been burned on this tiny, remote island 400 years ago, five elders murmur chants as they bow and make the sign of the cross.

The kimono-clad deacons are descendants of "Kakure Kirishitan," or Hidden Christians, who kept their religion alive on Ikitsuki and in other isolated pockets of Japan during 250 years of suppression, adapting their rites to the demands of secrecy and blending them with local beliefs.

These days, the religion faces a modern threat of extinction as young people, like those elsewhere in rural Japan, leave their homes in search of jobs, drifting away from their gods and the rituals that honor them.

"It's sad. The tradition of our ancestors is disappearing," said Ayuzo Matsuyama, one of those gathered to observe "Osanmachi" and "Gotanjo" — Christmas Eve and Christmas — last weekend, the last Saturday and Sunday before the winter solstice.

"We inherited this 'old Christianity' from our ancestors and we wanted to continue it forever, but young people don't feel that way," added the 79-year-old former maker of sake, or rice wine…..

…..Rites such as confession and communion that could be conducted only by priests were lost. Others took on elements of Buddhist ancestor worship, indigenous Shinto with its focus on purification, and folk practices such as prayers for good crops.

Medals or hanging scrolls depicting saints and martyrs, often with Japanese features, were hidden in cupboards as "nando-gami" ("gods in the closet") and only taken out on special days.

In an apparent echo of the bread and wine of the Eucharist, elders still share sashimi and sake as part of the Christmas Eve and other ceremonies. Huge "mochi" rice cakes adorn the alter.

Transmitted orally and in secret, Latin "oratio" chants, "orasho" in Japanese, lost all but symbolic meaning.

Now, the younger generation has moved away, seeking jobs or a different life and the number of adherents to the old religion is declining rapidly. There is much more on the Kakure Kirishitan here and here.

Magi Mythbusting

The Washington Post has an interesting little article about the myths that have grown up about three kings visiting the Christ child. Not only is there no mention of kings in the scriptures, there isn't even a head count.

The scene ingrained in the public imagination — a stately procession of three kings in turbans, crowns, elaborate capes and fancy slippers, with an entourage of servants and camels trailing behind — is a common image in books and films, but it isn't from Scripture.

In fact, there's no evidence in the Gospels that the Magi were kings, or even that there were three, much less that they sidled up to a manger on dromedaries exactly 12 days after Jesus's birth.

"Legends pop up when people begin to look closely at historical events," said Christopher Bellitto, assistant professor of history at New Jersey's Kean University. "They want to fill in the blanks."

Only the Gospel of Matthew mentions "wise men from the East" who follow a star to Bethlehem. In the original Greek, they were called magoi (in Latin, magi), from the same root that gives us the word magic. It's been posited that they were astrologers or members of a Persian priestly caste.

The myths sprang up and were fleshed out many years after the events actually mentioned in Matthew. The third century Christian writer Tertullian called them 'almost kings'. In the sixth century, they acquired names, Gaspar (or Caspar), Melchior and Balthazar and they - whoever or however many of them there were - became important figures. (By the way, none of this is new information, I actually found a sermon plan online discussing these points and others.) It is interesting tracing the way these kinds of embellishments develop over time, though.

None of which changes the fact that We Three Kings is still one of best known and best-loved Christmas carols. It's one of my favorites.

Freedom To Believe

The daughter of a British imam has been in hiding from her family for 15 long years, chased from home to home as they tried to track her down. He offense: converting to Christianity. The penalty her family wants to exact:

Death.

The daughter of a British imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity.

The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her.

The British-born university graduate, who uses the pseudonym Hannah for her own safety, said she renounced the Muslim faith to escape being forced into an arranged marriage when she was 16.

She has been in hiding for more than a decade but called in police only a few months ago after receiving a text message from her brother.

In it, he said he would not be held responsible for his actions if she failed to return to Islam.

Officers have agreed to offer her protection in case of an attempt on her life.

Last night the woman said: "I'm determined to live my life the way I want to because I should have that freedom in this country.

"If you make the choice to come to this country, as my parents did from Pakistan, you have to abide by the laws of this country and that means respecting the freedoms of other people.

The woman is British, born, raised and educated. And she is in fear for her life. For daring to practice her religion. The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, warned yesterday that the very freedom to believe is under attack by things like this. He's right. Until political correctness reared its ugly, ugly head, this thing would have been stomped on, quite firmly. No longer. Now, they give the victim of 15 years of torment a special phone number to call if she feels threatened. Maybe the police will show up in time to stop it - but what are the odds?

The west is the birthplace of freedom of religion. Don't let it become the graveyard of it.

Just As Problematic

“To me, ignoring religion in general is just as problematic as endorsing any one religion.”

Those are the words of Rabbi Yitzhak Miller discussing a ban by the National Cemetery Administration of the words spoken during the Flag Folding ceremony at funerals in National Cemeteries. The volunteer honor guards have recited what each of the thirteen folds of the flag represents as they fold the flag that draped the coffin for the last time. But the NCA says they are not permitted to do so any longer. Because, apparently, one person lodged a complaint.

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Flag-folding recitations by Memorial Honor Detail volunteers are now banned at the nation’s 125 veterans graveyards because of a complaint about the ceremony at Riverside National Cemetery.

During thousands of military burials, the volunteers have folded the American flag 13 times and recited the significance of every fold to survivors.

The first fold represents life, the second a belief in eternal life, and so on.

The complaint revolved around the narration in the 11th fold, which celebrates Jewish war veterans and “glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

The National Cemetery Administration then decided to ban the entire recital at all national cemeteries. Details of the complaint weren’t disclosed.

Administration spokesman Mike Nacincik said the new policy outlined in a Sept. 27 memorandum is aimed at creating uniform services throughout the military graveyard system.

He said the 13-fold recital is not part of the U.S. Flag Code and is not government-approved.

The words can be found here. Veteran's organizations are furious. Many plan on defying the ban outright. I have mentioned before that my family name is highly unusual and that all of us are descended from a single ancestor as a result of a misspelling on an official record. I checked this morning while I was thinking about how to post about this. There are more than 80 people from my family buried in National Cemeteries. There are seven more buried overseas in cemeteries administered by the American Battle Monuments Commission.

My own father is buried in the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego, California.

And I cannot begin to explain how this ban makes me feel. Could it be so hard to simply ask the families if the flag folding words should or should not be recited? Is it so very difficult? If the establishment clause is meant to keep government from imposing one religion, why is imposing a secular religion acceptable?

Cohesion At A Real Cost

Rasmussen Reports has a poll result up about the electablity of a possible third party candidate if one is backed by Christian conservative leaders. Bottom line: no chance at all and hand the win to the Democrat. It is 1992 all over again.

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%. In head-to-head match-ups with Clinton, Giuliani is much more competitive.

One of the reasons I cite Rasmussen fairly regularly is that they do provide some thoughtful perspective on their results rather than pure spin the way a lot of news organizations do.

The latest poll highlights the potential challenges for Giuliani, but the numbers must be considered in context. A generic third-party candidate may attract 14% of the vote in the abstract at this time. However, if a specific candidate is chosen, that person would likely attract less support due to a variety of factors. Almost all third party candidates poll higher earlier in a campaign and their numbers diminish as election day approaches. Ultimately, of course, some Republicans would have to face the question of whether to vote for Giuliani or help elect a Democrat.

What this means is that a doomed third party run would hand the election to the Democratic nominee. Which is what James Dobson appears to be quite happy to do:

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged…..

…..If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.

I pointed out that I thought this was a bad idea here.

That is the looming disaster: losing the courts. We already see the Democrats blocking judicial nominees. You know they are balking so that they can pack the courts if they win the White House. And activist, leftist courts are already a problem. Conservatives watched all of this play out before. They watched as the courts leaned farther and farther to the left. They watched as third party candidates split the votes at a crucial time.

Dobson appears to be willing to lose the courts and cheerfully lead the march over the cliff. Because no matter how you slice this one, it is political suicide. One that many people are going to regret on their way to the bottom.

Losing The Courts

The Anchoress has a post up that was picked up as a feature on Real Clear Politics (congratulations, my friend!). As always, it is beautifully written, sculpted, layer by layer into a towering edifice of reasonable discourse. And she blasts the people who are thinking of forming a third party challenge if the Republican candidate is not quite Christian enough. As she points out, running a third party candidate would be political suicide for the Christian right. We have seen all of this before.

Had Ross Perot not run in 1992 it is unlikely Bill Clinton would have been president. I suspect the Democrats would like nothing better than to see a third party of conservative Christians siphon just enough votes away from the GOP to do the same for Hillary.

We’re already watching the Clintons re-run all their moves from the ‘92 playbook. Triangulation Kitty is again being served up to feed the masses, this time with Bill as the Hard Left Outside and Hillary as the Softer, Chewy and Yummy Center. We’re already watching the press do what it can to bury any negative perspectives on the Clintons and their team. (Notice that Hillary said she gave the Hsu money back to the donors and the press said, “oh, fine…no story here anymore!” Next that money will be re-donated to her campaign). We’ve seen the reemergence of Sandy “Pants” Berger as a trusted advisor, and Harold Ickes as himself. The Clintons have no reason not to believe that what worked before will not work again. All that is needed now, is the “third party” mindset that brought Bill Clinton his presidency on a buckled platter.

And here it comes.

I’m going to hate watching Mrs. Clinton assume the presidency with 42% of the vote, like her husband did, and I’m going to hate watching her get sworn in in January ‘09, while her husband holds the big bible and bites his lip, and I’m going to really hate everything that comes after it. So will you.

The third-party pipe-dreamers will once again make the Clinton tag team victorious. And with a Supreme Court likely to need three quick replacements in ‘09, the third party folks will watch as the court becomes a permanent 5-4 liberal majority activist court - for decades. Decades, folks. The America you think you’re going to “preserve” with your third party candidate may become unrecognizable in a very short time. The Roe v Wade you think you’re going to reverse with your unelectable third candidate will seem almost quaint when compared with the “compassionate” euthanasia and the “practical, community-serving, environment saving” limitations on life you’ll be watching get handed down as law by an activist court determined to see the Constitution as a “living” and flexible document.

That is the looming disaster: losing the courts. We already see the Democrats blocking judicial nominees. You know they are balking so that they can pack the courts if they win the White House. And activist, leftist courts are already a problem. Conservatives watched all of this play out before. They watched as the courts leaned farther and farther to the left. They watched as third party candidates split the votes at a crucial time.

And they have lost the courts. I was appalled at the people who sat out the last election because their single issue - illegal immigration - was not solved to their liking. Hey, guess what? It was not solved to my liking, either. But I voted. Because I knew how very important it was. The opposition sat out the legislative elections in Venezuela, too. Those who boycotted gave Hugo Chavez a free hand and a compliant rubber stamp to give him whatever he wanted. And he wanted the opposition's freedom.

In this case, sitting the election out or running a third party candidate gives the election to someone who will pack the courts and have a powerful effect for decades. Go ye and read what Anchoress wrote. She is more lyrical than I am.

But if you support a third party run because your single issue trumps everything else, then I submit it would be a really good idea to take a look at the beam in your eye rather than looking at the speck in someone else's.