—one might almost call it a fisking—courtesy of Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. I’m not going to try to excerpt it (not only is it long, but the comments are interspersed with the text of the President’s speech, making it less friendly to excerpting), but I encourage you to go read it; Spencer exposes a lot of the West’s naïve misconceptions about Islam—misconceptions which, alas, Barack Obama seems to share. Taken all in all, having looked at the speech, I agree with Spencer, Michelle Malkin, and to a remarkable degree, even HuffPo’s Peter Daou (whose article title, “Let Women Wear the Hijab: The Emptiness of Obama’s Cairo Speech,” captures my point of agreement with him beautifully): we have good reason to be concerned.
The Gnosticism of sexual sin
In a recent ESPN Magazine article on Donald Sterling, the Clippers owner is quoted as saying—under oath, in a court of law—”When you pay a woman for sex, you are not together with her. You’re paying her for a few moments to use her body for sex. Is it clear? Is it clear?”
That’s a stunning statement, for a number of reasons. Most obviously, it’s stunning in its sheer crassness (something which, as Peter Keating shows at length in the piece, is completely characteristic of the man). More than that, though, it’s stunning for what it reveals about his attitude toward sex—an attitude which I think is characteristic of far more people than just him. In point of fact, while he puts it far more crassly than most people would, I believe the essentially Gnostic view he reveals here is in fact the default view in our culture.
Consider this in the light of a defense I’ve seen offered more than once of pornography, at least in the soft-core form: “What’s obscene about a pretty girl taking off her clothes?” I will admit to having some sympathy with the way James P. Hogan framed this in his novel Giant’s Star:
[Victor Hunt] emerged from the kitchen and walked through into the living room, wondering how a world that accepted as normal the nightly spectacle of people discussing their constipation, hemorrhoids, dandruff, and indigestion in front of an audience of a million strangers could possibly find something obscene in the sight of pretty girls taking their clothes off. “There’s now’t so strange as folk,” his grandmother from Yorkshire would have said, he thought to himself.
That, however, says more about the casual obscenity of much of our advertising than it does about pornography; both objectify the human body, if in different ways and for different reasons. This defense is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the issue. It’s not that there’s anything obscene about the human body; far from it. The human body is a beautiful thing, one of the most beautiful of God’s creations. However, a human body is not merely a thing, but rather is an integral part of something even more beautiful: a human being. The obscenity is not in the naked body; the obscenity is in the treatment of a human being as merely a naked body, as just an object of desire to be used for one’s gratification rather than as a full person to be respected and honored.
The appeal to this, I think, is that an object can be whatever one wants to imagine it to be; it’s conformable to one’s desires. Real human beings have wills and desires, integrity and dignity, of their own, and frequently are not conformable to one’s desires. Real human beings have minds and ideas of their own; objects don’t. In pornography, human bodies are effectively made available for the wish-fulfillment of others, ready to be used whenever they’re accessed by whomever would use them; they never say “no,” because they’re never sleepy, achy, sick, in a bad mood, or just plain unwilling.
If we understood the spiritual consequences of this, we would take it far more seriously than most people do; but most of us don’t, because we’ve bought the line that our bodies are separate from our spirits, and that most of what we do with our bodies doesn’t really matter spiritually because they’re temporary—they aren’t the real person, and we’re going to leave them behind when we die anyway. They’re just not that important. That’s how you get the idea that Donald Sterling expressed, that you can rent out someone’s body for sex and just be using their body, “not together with her” (or him)—which is not only the idea behind his caddish behavior, but is also in its essence the idea behind pornography.
Even people who consider themselves Christians fall into this thinking, and use it to justify departures from biblical sexual morality; the argument that God doesn’t really mean what the Bible says about premarital sex, or homosexuality, or adultery, or whatever, always seems to rest in the end on the presumption that what we do with our bodies really isn’t all that important, and so God can’t really care about it all that much. That stuff in Scripture must have been a cultural thing, or must have been put in there for some other reason, because God can’t have a good enough reason to tell us not to do what we want to do. (It’s rather funny, when you stop to think about it, how we never question why such matters shouldn’t be important to God when we obviously think they’re worth fighting over.)
The truth is, though, that our bodies aren’t merely containers for our spirits, but are intimately connected: we are our bodies just as much as our spirits, and everything that we do with one and everything that affects one affects the other. When we treat our bodies and the bodies of others as merely things to be used and deployed for our pleasure, it debases us and it debases the people we use. We can’t do that without consequences. We need to treat people as people and respect them accordingly, even if they don’t fully respect themselves.
The fringe is not the mainstream
I have to echo Robert Stacy McCain in expressing great gratitude and respect to The New Republic‘s James Kirchick. Kirchick, an assistant editor at TNR who is also a contributing writer for The Advocate, is a liberal Democrat and practicing homosexual who had the integrity to write an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal declaring, “The Religious Right Didn’t Kill George Tiller,” and calling out his fellow liberals for their mendacious and invidious comparison of pro-life evangelicals to Islamic jihadists:
But if the reactions to the death of Tiller mean anything, the “Christian Taliban,” as conservative religious figures are often called, isn’t living up to its namesake. If “Christianists” were anything like actual religious fascists they would applaud Tiller’s murder as a “heroic martyrdom operation” and suborn further mayhem.
Radical Islamists revel in death. Just witness the videos that suicide bombers record before they carry out their murderous task or listen to the homicidal exhortations of extremist imams. Murder—particularly of the unarmed and innocent—is a righteous deed for these people. The manifestos of Islamic militant groups are replete with paeans to killing infidels. When a suicide bomb goes off in Israel, Palestinian terrorist factions compete to claim responsibility for the carnage.
There is no appreciable number of people in this country, religious Christians or otherwise, who support the murder of abortion doctors. The same cannot be said of Muslims who support suicide bombings in the name of their religion.
I greatly appreciate his willingness to come out and make this point. For all that Kirchick doesn’t much care for us conservative evangelicals (understandably, I will admit), he clearly has a sense of perspective on the matter that most of his colleagues in the media willfully do not have:
I hold no brief for the religious right, and its views on homosexuality in particular offend (and affect) me personally. But it’s precisely because of my identity that I consider comparisons between so-called Christianists (who seek to limit my rights via the ballot box) and Islamic fundamentalists (who seek to limit my rights via decapitation) to be fatuous.
Read the whole thing—it’s an excellent piece. Yes, there are those who attach themselves to the pro-life cause as a way of justifying their destructive, nihilistic desires and providing a channel for their anger and hatred; but then, there are those who join the animal-rights movement or write for Playboy for the same reason. You can’t judge a movement by the most extreme folks who claim to be acting on its behalf, or else I’d be justified in arguing (on the basis of the now-pulled Playboy piece referenced in that link) that all liberal men want to rape conservative women, something which is clearly false.
The truth is, there is no room in the pro-life movement for people who believe in killing abortionists, and there never has been; but those of us who are pro-life cannot thereby stop would-be murderers from claiming hatred of abortion justifies their actions and choice of victims. All we can say is that anyone who does so hasn’t been listening to what we’re actually saying.
Nor is this an empty statement on my part; pro-life leaders have long recognized that there are those who would use the cause to justify violence, and have long been working to prevent that and explain the evil of it. (That might explain why, overall, there have been so few cases of violence against the abortion industry, relatively speaking.) For instance, almost fifteen years ago, Paul J. Hill, who had been defrocked and excommunicated by two different (conservative) Presbyterian denominations for his extremism, shot and killed a Florida abortionist and his security guard, wounding the guard’s wife; he was sentenced to death, a sentence which was carried out nine years later. In justifying himself, he argued that “Whatever force is legitimate in defending a born child is legitimate in defending an unborn child.”
First Things took his actions and his argument seriously enough to publish a symposium that December in which sixteen pro-life leaders and theologians laid out in detail the reasons why killing abortionists only compounds the evil of abortion. (Robert George, who made his position on this matter crystal clear this week, took that opportunity to write a satirical paragraph on the issue instead.) Anyone in any doubt as to whether Scott Roeder is in any way representative of the pro-life movement should take the time to read it and be disabused of their false perception.
(My thanks to Presbyterians Pro-Life for their statement on the Tiller murder which reminded me of the First Things piece.)
Sarah Palin on the murder of Pvt. William Long
Here’s Gov. Palin’s statement (HT: Mel):
The stories of two very different lives with similar fates crossed through the media’s hands yesterday—both equally important but one lacked the proper attention. The death of 67-year old George Tiller was unacceptable, but equally disgusting was another death that police believe was politically and religiously motivated as well.
William Long died yesterday. The 23-year old Army Recruiter was gunned down by a fanatic; another fellow soldier was wounded in the ambush. The soldiers had just completed their basic training and were talking to potential recruits, just as my son, Track, once did.
Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.
She’s right on all counts. Contrary to my initial expectation, the killer here wasn’t a fringe anti-war activist, but rather an American Muslim convert and Yemen-trained Islamic terrorist. My point still holds, though: will the media and leftist pundits (but I repeat myself) treat Long’s murder as a terrorist act and go after those whose hateful rhetoric encourages such acts? So far, nope. (Go on, tell me you’re surprised.)
Update: The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg has noticed, as has Toby Harnden of the Telegraph.
Good books help rough days
Down with a gut bug today; have I mentioned I have a wonderful wife? She swung by the library while she was out and about at one point and brought back a whole pile of books, including the first three of Jim Butcher‘s Harry Dresden novels, which a good friend of ours had strongly recommended a while back; I finished the first one, Storm Front, today, and am about 2/3 of the way through the second one, Fool Moon, and have enjoyed both a great deal. For those not familiar with the series, think classic hardboiled detective fiction in contemporary Chicago but with the addition of magic and magical creatures such as vampires and werewolves; the protagonist, Harry Dresden, is a wizard and a detective.
The books tend toward the bleaker side of fantasy (not surprising, since the big blurb on Storm Front comes from the redoubtably dark Glen Cook), but not without hope, and Butcher does some things very well as a writer. I wouldn’t call him a great stylist, but he has a core of interesting characters, writes some very nice scenes, and so far at least, is telling good stories of their kind; the books feel real. Not much is original, but he’s given the standards his own twist, which counts for a fair bit. For urban fantasy, it’s not a match for Neverwhere, but it’s an enjoyable read, and it has this advantage: there’s a lot more of it. It’s certainly brightened my day.
Clearing out the links drawer
Here are a few things I’ve been meaning to get around to posting on (for quite a while—I think I ran across all of these back in March) that just aren’t likely to get their own posts at this point; so I’ll toss them out for your interest, and if I ever do get around to putting up a longer post on any of them, well, the duplication won’t hurt anything.
Beryllium 10 and climate
The science in this is not immediately transparent to the non-specialist, but it’s interesting evidence that climate change is far more about what the sun does than about CO2.
A Dozen Sayings of Jesus That Will Change the World—If Christians Ever Believe Them
Dan Edelen’s always challenging—sometimes problematically so; this is a post that ought to make Christians in this country uncomfortable.
Generational Disconnect
Chaille Brindley has put his finger on a real need in the American church.
Anatomy of an Internet Joke
I think this post by James Wallace Harris fits very well with Brindley’s comments.
“Darkness has a hunger that’s insatiable”
“and lightness has a call that’s hard to hear.” I’ve always loved this song; it strikes me as deeply confused in its conclusion but insightful in its observations, and I’m a sucker for a great folk-rock hook. I hadn’t thought of it in I don’t know how long until it popped into my head this morning, and I’ve watched the video several times today already.
As it happened, after I watched it the first time, I flipped over to my Facebook account to find Sarah Palin’s official statement on the murder of George Tiller, about which I’ve blogged here and here. I think the conjunction was appropriate. I don’t know what Saliers was focusing on when she wrote those lines, and I’m reasonably sure that neither she nor Amy Ray share my position on abortion (or much of anything else, except maybe folk music), but I couldn’t help thinking about them as I reflected on the case of Scott Roeder, the man who shot Tiller. If this is who the authorities think he is, he’s been involved in anti-government activities and anti-abortion protests for a couple decades now; it sounds like he started out motivated by a real desire to do something about some of the evil and injustice in the world, and along the way, got twisted into fighting evil with evil.
That happens all too easily, if we’re not careful. It’s all too easy to start accommodating evil, just a little, on the theory that the end justifies the means; but each act of accommodation makes the next just a little bit easier, and makes it seem just a little bit more necessary—and over time, the pace of accommodation increases, until finally it isn’t really even accommodation anymore, because we’re being transformed into the very thing we once despised. It happens all too easily, because it’s always easier to roll down the slope than to climb up it, always easier to destroy than to create, always easier to justify our actions than to repent of them . . . except by the Spirit of God, this is the immutable truth about our souls:
Darkness has a hunger that’s insatiable, and lightness has a call that’s hard to hear.
Left to our own devices, we lose the call, wander off the path, and are ultimately devoured by the darkness. We may not all do so as dramatically as Scott Roeder—or, for that matter, George Tiller—but there but for the grace of God go we all.
Since the Left is throwing the word “terrorism” around
when it comes to the Tiller assassination, as Michelle Malkin points out, let’s see if they apply it to this guy, too; let’s see if they have the intellectual honesty, consistency and integrity to paint the anti-war movement with the same brush they want to use on the pro-life movement. On the facts, it’s certainly every bit as warranted; somehow, though, I’m betting not.
Update: Robert Stacy McCain has a great comment on this over at Hot Air‘s “Green Room”:
The Left always wishes to distance its own utopian idealists from the injustices perpetrated in pursuit of those ideals, while the Right is forever compelled to apologize for crimes that no conservative ever advocated or endorsed. It ought not be necessary to insist on the point that free speech and political activism are different things than the murder of Dr. Tiller, a crime that Michelle Malkin rightly denounces as terrorism.
Update II: My initial expectation that the killer was an American anti-war activist was incorrect—he was, rather, an American convert to jihadist Islam. See above.
Sarah Palin weighs in
A couple hours ago, Gov. Palin released the following statement on the murder of Wichita abortionist George Tiller:
I feel sorrow for the Tiller family. I respect the sanctity of life and the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life. This murder also damages the positive message of life, for the unborn, and for those living. Ask yourself, “What will those who have not yet decided personally where they stand on this issue take away from today’s event in Kansas?”
Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller’s abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message.
For my thoughts and comments on this, see my post this morning on Conservatives4Palin.
George Tiller assassinated; may God have mercy on his soul
For those unfamiliar with Tiller, he was an abortionist in Wichita who had become over the years, as the New York Times put it, “a focal point for those around the country who opposed [abortion],” largely because his clinic “is one of just three in the nation where abortions are performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.” He was shot in his church, where he was serving as an usher.
I’d missed this story earlier today, and I expect I’ll be processing this for a while, but I’ve seen several reactions with which I agree wholeheartedly. Most basically, Princeton’s Robert George was right to say,
Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. . . . By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller’s life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.
Robert Stacy McCain had some equally wise and true words:
One reason I so despise such criminal idiocy is that, as a student of history, I cannot think of a single instance in which assassination has produced anything good, no matter how evil or misguided the victim, nor how well-intentioned or malevolent the assassin. . . .
Those who slew Caesar did not save the Roman republic. Marat’s death only incited the Jacobins to greater terror. Booth’s pistol conjured up a spirit of vengeance against the South more terrible than war itself. Assassination is an act of nihilism. Whatever the motive of the crime, the horror it evokes always inspires a draconian response, and involves other consequences never intended by the criminal.
He also notes,
Sometimes, when the stubborn wickedness of a people offends God, the Almighty witholds His divine protection, permitting those sinners to have their own way, following the road to destruction so that they are subjected to evil rulers and unjust laws. Never, however, does the wise and faithful Christian resort to the kind of lawlessness practiced with such cruelty today in Kansas.
Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom has some excellent comments as well:
This was an act of terrorism, as well as of murder. It was no more or less an act of political assassination than any of the bombings advocated by Bill Ayers. It was no more or less a violation of civil rights than the New Black Panther polling intimidation that the Obama Justice Department decided to drop ex post facto. There is either one justice for all, or there is justice for none.
Let’s ask ourselves whether there’s been a hate crime committed here. Has there? If so, aren’t Islamists guilty of hate crimes? Should the fact that they commit such crimes largely against minority believers in their own countries be cause for more stringent sanctions and severer punishments? Do the continuous legal assaults on Sarah Palin constitute a hate crime?
Donald Douglas is right to complain about Andrew Sullivan’s selective outrage. . . . This sorry episode should be an example of how absolute is the sanctity of life; unfortunately, that’s not what people will teach, and that’s not what people will learn.
The president, of course, has weighed in with a condemnation of the assassination; that’s part of his job, and it’s unquestionably warranted. That said, I have to agree with the folks at Stop the ACLU about this:
On one hand, Obama is correct. We cannot solve the abortion issue, or others, through murder. We are a Nation of Law, not a Nation of Men. On the other hand, Obama never seems to work up much shock and outrage at the murder of over 2 million babies every year, many of them during the 3rd trimester. I wonder why?
Finally, go read Sister Toldjah’s superb post, which I’m not going to try to excerpt.
I’m not going to try to match these folks for profundity (not at the moment, anyway), or repeat what they’ve written, except to say that I agree with them; what Tiller did was evil, and what his killer did was evil. Those who argue for this sort of violence claim to be agents of justice, but that cannot be—it’s a response to injustice that is itself unjust, and an action that denies its own premises; you cannot kill abortionists without undermining your argument that abortion is wrong. It’s ultimately, inherently, necessarily self-defeating—which is characteristic of nihilism, one reason I think R. S. McCain’s diagnosis is spot-on. It’s also not the way of Christ, who defeated evil by surrendering to it, not by leading a paramilitary team to assassinate Herod.
And so, for whatever it may be worth, I do categorically and unreservedly reject and abhor the assassination of George Tiller; and though as a Protestant I don’t believe in praying for the dead, I do honestly commit myself to hope that God will have mercy on his soul. No, he doesn’t deserve it—but then, neither do any of the rest of us.