As the Last Birdsong Fades
Heart gladdened with wine, I caress
a sanctuary of stone, its frieze half-hidden in shadow.
See Mary carved from that stone, her child cruciform in her lap.
There also his suppliant saints and apostles press,
barely eroded these many years:
here’s a garden of stone and green trees, growing
shadow, coming night, beyond time to find at last my way home
as the last birdsong fades.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
on the other hand...
I don't know what to make of this story of US backing of a pro-democracy movement in Egypt. It bears more scrutiny, and, if true, more thought...
austere beauty...
Getting this picture of Lake Michigan took ten years off my life, but it was worth it. revolution whether we like it or not...
I hesitate to write anything about the political upheavals in Tunisia and Egypt - my ignorance prevents me from waxing confidently about the future. It does seem to me however that we are witnessing something on the scale of the collapse of Communist power in eastern Europe. Just one more slight push, and the Egyptian regime will fall, to be replaced by who knows what...that's the great unknown. All is contingent; no empire, no system is flawless and permanent. For thirty years, Mubarak's regime has seemed a fixed point in our dream of a stable - that is, America friendly - Middle East. That is now revealed as an illusion. Even if this revolution fails, it will have so destabilized Egypt that it's fall will come sooner rather than later, and what passes for our Grand Strategy in the region will fall with it.
Of course, our Grand Strategy is no strategy at all. We go with the wind, supporting any strongman who will promise 'stability' in the region, until, at the last, they outlive their usefulness. Our only point of principle is support for Israel, which also allows us to use whatever leverage we have at any moment to reign them in when they want to unleash their air force. [Yes, I think Israel would be far more aggressive and expansionist without our involvement.] Beyond 'Support Israel', based too often on dubious reasons having more to do with apocalyptic fantasies than realistic policy, we really have no carefully thought out approach to the region. Hence our panic in the face of Mubarak's possible fall. We just don't know what the hell to do with such contingency; such, well, history right in our faces.
Now I for one fear that certain more utopian factions might take over the rather inchoate uprisings. That's never good for the real people who tend to get mowed under as necessary sacrifices for the Great Utopia That Is Coming. If that happens, it's likely that the Copts and other Christians in the country will be in grave danger; but, then again, so will just about everyone else.
Then again, my fears could be unfounded. This could lead to a freer Egypt, though just what the particulars of that would be is anybody's guess. That's the point - we just don't know what's going on, let alone what will happen.
What I do know is that this is one more blow to our dreams of hegemony. I also wouldn't be surprised if this results in even greater crackdowns here in the US on air and rail travel as well as subversive speech. We are a terrified people, you see, and so obsessed with security that the chaos and contingency erupting out of the Mediterranean could finally scare us into embracing a fully formed soft fascism. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I'm not really that hopeful about our future as a civil nation.
Last night I had a fascinating conversation with a fellow from Northern Ireland who said he felt that State power was greater, and more threatening, than at any time he's known. He said that we should start worrying when we hear folks say, 'If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of', as a justification for the ever-tightening security net in this country. Well, I hear that all the time. Pay no never mind to the fact that more and more we're criminalizing basic human behavior, and allowing ourselves to be monitored and searched as though we were all suspects and not citizens - as long as you do no wrong, you don't have anything to worry about, until, that is, we decide that what you're doing is wrong.
So you see, the revolutionary unrest in Egypt and other far away lands could have serious, and subtle, effects on our daily lives. We wring our hands over the price of oil - 'What about the Suez canal?' - and fail to see all around us the tightening noose of a Security State. Again, I worry that this process will only accelerate as we panic over the spectre of uncontrollable contingency - i.e., history - spilling over once again into our happy kingdom of order and prosperity. This horror at history accounts for our dull-witted policy in the Middle East, and thus our muddled response to the revolution unfolding before us. We are, it would seem, about to lose our innocence once again, as we learn, perhaps for the last time, that history has not in fact come to an end.
Of course, our Grand Strategy is no strategy at all. We go with the wind, supporting any strongman who will promise 'stability' in the region, until, at the last, they outlive their usefulness. Our only point of principle is support for Israel, which also allows us to use whatever leverage we have at any moment to reign them in when they want to unleash their air force. [Yes, I think Israel would be far more aggressive and expansionist without our involvement.] Beyond 'Support Israel', based too often on dubious reasons having more to do with apocalyptic fantasies than realistic policy, we really have no carefully thought out approach to the region. Hence our panic in the face of Mubarak's possible fall. We just don't know what the hell to do with such contingency; such, well, history right in our faces.
Now I for one fear that certain more utopian factions might take over the rather inchoate uprisings. That's never good for the real people who tend to get mowed under as necessary sacrifices for the Great Utopia That Is Coming. If that happens, it's likely that the Copts and other Christians in the country will be in grave danger; but, then again, so will just about everyone else.
Then again, my fears could be unfounded. This could lead to a freer Egypt, though just what the particulars of that would be is anybody's guess. That's the point - we just don't know what's going on, let alone what will happen.
What I do know is that this is one more blow to our dreams of hegemony. I also wouldn't be surprised if this results in even greater crackdowns here in the US on air and rail travel as well as subversive speech. We are a terrified people, you see, and so obsessed with security that the chaos and contingency erupting out of the Mediterranean could finally scare us into embracing a fully formed soft fascism. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I'm not really that hopeful about our future as a civil nation.
Last night I had a fascinating conversation with a fellow from Northern Ireland who said he felt that State power was greater, and more threatening, than at any time he's known. He said that we should start worrying when we hear folks say, 'If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of', as a justification for the ever-tightening security net in this country. Well, I hear that all the time. Pay no never mind to the fact that more and more we're criminalizing basic human behavior, and allowing ourselves to be monitored and searched as though we were all suspects and not citizens - as long as you do no wrong, you don't have anything to worry about, until, that is, we decide that what you're doing is wrong.
So you see, the revolutionary unrest in Egypt and other far away lands could have serious, and subtle, effects on our daily lives. We wring our hands over the price of oil - 'What about the Suez canal?' - and fail to see all around us the tightening noose of a Security State. Again, I worry that this process will only accelerate as we panic over the spectre of uncontrollable contingency - i.e., history - spilling over once again into our happy kingdom of order and prosperity. This horror at history accounts for our dull-witted policy in the Middle East, and thus our muddled response to the revolution unfolding before us. We are, it would seem, about to lose our innocence once again, as we learn, perhaps for the last time, that history has not in fact come to an end.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
ah, blasphemy...
Just thought I'd react rashly to this article about the trial of Geert Wilders. I know little enough about Wilders and his political party, which is to say, I only know what I read from time to time in the news. For that reason, I have nothing intelligent to say about the man or his party. No, I want to say a few words about words, and about Islam. Along the way, I warn you, even the casual reader will find multiple instances of what that religion considers blasphemy. As you will see, dear reader, I've concluded that that is just too damned bad.
Now, I have read the Quran. When I first encountered it, I was in a receptive frame of mind, being at that time a 24 year old student of medieval philosophy and theology kindly disposed to Islamic mysticism and the works of al-Gazali. To my surprise, I found much of it distressing, to say the least, but there were dogmatic, theological reasons for that, reasons which I could at the time barely articulate. What I had realized, without knowing how to say it clearly, was that Islam is, in its core confession, blasphemous.
We'll get to that in a moment. For now, let me say that as you find me, I agree with this, taken from the article: '“No moderate Islam exists,” Jansen said; “moderate Muslims do exist,” but they do not have scripture on their side.'
Why, you might ask, given that I know Muslims who are learned, kind, and open? Well, I'll tell you, it's the simple fact that Islam did come tear-assing out of the Arabian peninsula, and from there conquered by the sword most of Christendom. From that era to the present, the history of Islam has been one of conquest and oppression of Christians when possible, and disgruntled resentment of Christians when not. We're in a transition time, I think, and so Muslims around the world use threats of violence to silence those in the West and elsewhere who might raise a critical point with regard to the Religion of the Prophet. I note, for instance, as does the article, that Wilders public remarks and policy proposals have not resulted in the kind of violence the ridiculous laws governing speech in his country is supposed to prevent, but Wilders and others have received death threats, and some, like Theo van Gogh, have received much worse.
Here I must digress for a moment.
Speech is supposed to be provocative. It's meant to arouse folks, to move 'em. That's the risk inherent in speech - it will inevitably lead to hurt feelings and flared tempers. More dire is the simple fact that any real clash of ideas, confessions, loyalties, is a conflict over Truth. That's just the way it is. And it is just this that a Liberal Democracy can not allow any more than Fascism can - free speech leading to conflict. For the later, this is an existential threat [to use a fashionable phrase] to Leader wielding the Fasces; for the former, it is a threat to the system's procedural neutrality. Such conflicts, again, result from the fact that for the parties so incited, nothing less than Truth is at stake, and it is just this kind of truth that undermines both Liberal Democracy and Fascism.
We'll pick that back up in a moment. For now, let me say that Muslims might take umbrage at my position on relations between Christians and Islam. What is that position? Succinctly put, that Islam is our enemy. We may befriend particular Muslims as the chance arises, but we cannot make nice with Islam itself. Islam, dear reader, is grounded on many interlocking confessions, one of which is of course crucial: God has no Son. This, rather than some silly notion that Allah is a Voluntarist while Yahweh is a Thomist, articulates quite honestly the great divide, for to a Christian of even lukewarm devotion like me, such a confession is nothing less than blasphemy.
Now here's where it gets tricky. Precisely the Christian confession that God simply is the Father begetting the Son in the Holy Spirit in all eternity world without end, and that the Son was born of the Virgin Mary as a very real man in a particular place at a particular time, and that moreover he died a shameful death on the cross to save humanity from sin and death, to be raised again...well, let's say that to a Muslim, that must sound like blasphemy. In fact, it was just this assertion that justified the conquest of Christendom in North Africa, the Levant, Anatolia; other blasphemies exercised 'em in Persia. I say this, not as a good relativist who wants to point out that one man's devout confession is another man's blasphemy. That may indeed be so, but I'm willing to get into serious trouble here - it's too damned bad that Muslims find the Christian confession blasphemous. They should get over it. After all, the Christian confession has the virtue of being true.
To return, then, to what I said about provocative speech, here we see the crux of the confusion many feel when they observe Muslims and Christians in conflict - it is an intractable conflict over ultimate Truth. To many Christians, it is indeed an eschatological conflict, inasmuch as Jesus is the incarnate Son whose crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension have brought on the New Aeon, while Islam is a relic of the Old Aeon fighting its demise. To say this in no way implies that the conflict need be violent, at least on the Christian side. Of course, in the day when outright war was waged on Christendom [Vienna, anyone? Lepanto? Barbary pirates?], folks could exercise the right of self-defense. But never should we indulge in individual acts of violence, because that would be, you know, wrong. We must also welcome those Muslims we know, and not befriend 'em on false pretenses. This imples, of course, that we not lie to 'em about the simple facts of our history, or the simple deception at the heart of their confession. Nor, for that matter, should we expect 'em to lie to us, to hold back to spare our fine feelings.
In short, we must grow up, all of us, and boldly confess the Truth, taking all the risks that implies. The least interesting response to any assertion of Truth is hurt feelings and offense. Argue, accept conflict, and don't look to any kind of procedural neutrality or authoritarian order to ameliorate it. Finally, let us pray that we who claim to be Christians might spend our days in peace and repentance, praying for our enemies that they might become our friends, and reaching out in love to those we fear, all for the sake of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of the living God, who trampled down death by death for the life of the world.
Now, I have read the Quran. When I first encountered it, I was in a receptive frame of mind, being at that time a 24 year old student of medieval philosophy and theology kindly disposed to Islamic mysticism and the works of al-Gazali. To my surprise, I found much of it distressing, to say the least, but there were dogmatic, theological reasons for that, reasons which I could at the time barely articulate. What I had realized, without knowing how to say it clearly, was that Islam is, in its core confession, blasphemous.
We'll get to that in a moment. For now, let me say that as you find me, I agree with this, taken from the article: '“No moderate Islam exists,” Jansen said; “moderate Muslims do exist,” but they do not have scripture on their side.'
Why, you might ask, given that I know Muslims who are learned, kind, and open? Well, I'll tell you, it's the simple fact that Islam did come tear-assing out of the Arabian peninsula, and from there conquered by the sword most of Christendom. From that era to the present, the history of Islam has been one of conquest and oppression of Christians when possible, and disgruntled resentment of Christians when not. We're in a transition time, I think, and so Muslims around the world use threats of violence to silence those in the West and elsewhere who might raise a critical point with regard to the Religion of the Prophet. I note, for instance, as does the article, that Wilders public remarks and policy proposals have not resulted in the kind of violence the ridiculous laws governing speech in his country is supposed to prevent, but Wilders and others have received death threats, and some, like Theo van Gogh, have received much worse.
Here I must digress for a moment.
Speech is supposed to be provocative. It's meant to arouse folks, to move 'em. That's the risk inherent in speech - it will inevitably lead to hurt feelings and flared tempers. More dire is the simple fact that any real clash of ideas, confessions, loyalties, is a conflict over Truth. That's just the way it is. And it is just this that a Liberal Democracy can not allow any more than Fascism can - free speech leading to conflict. For the later, this is an existential threat [to use a fashionable phrase] to Leader wielding the Fasces; for the former, it is a threat to the system's procedural neutrality. Such conflicts, again, result from the fact that for the parties so incited, nothing less than Truth is at stake, and it is just this kind of truth that undermines both Liberal Democracy and Fascism.
We'll pick that back up in a moment. For now, let me say that Muslims might take umbrage at my position on relations between Christians and Islam. What is that position? Succinctly put, that Islam is our enemy. We may befriend particular Muslims as the chance arises, but we cannot make nice with Islam itself. Islam, dear reader, is grounded on many interlocking confessions, one of which is of course crucial: God has no Son. This, rather than some silly notion that Allah is a Voluntarist while Yahweh is a Thomist, articulates quite honestly the great divide, for to a Christian of even lukewarm devotion like me, such a confession is nothing less than blasphemy.
Now here's where it gets tricky. Precisely the Christian confession that God simply is the Father begetting the Son in the Holy Spirit in all eternity world without end, and that the Son was born of the Virgin Mary as a very real man in a particular place at a particular time, and that moreover he died a shameful death on the cross to save humanity from sin and death, to be raised again...well, let's say that to a Muslim, that must sound like blasphemy. In fact, it was just this assertion that justified the conquest of Christendom in North Africa, the Levant, Anatolia; other blasphemies exercised 'em in Persia. I say this, not as a good relativist who wants to point out that one man's devout confession is another man's blasphemy. That may indeed be so, but I'm willing to get into serious trouble here - it's too damned bad that Muslims find the Christian confession blasphemous. They should get over it. After all, the Christian confession has the virtue of being true.
To return, then, to what I said about provocative speech, here we see the crux of the confusion many feel when they observe Muslims and Christians in conflict - it is an intractable conflict over ultimate Truth. To many Christians, it is indeed an eschatological conflict, inasmuch as Jesus is the incarnate Son whose crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension have brought on the New Aeon, while Islam is a relic of the Old Aeon fighting its demise. To say this in no way implies that the conflict need be violent, at least on the Christian side. Of course, in the day when outright war was waged on Christendom [Vienna, anyone? Lepanto? Barbary pirates?], folks could exercise the right of self-defense. But never should we indulge in individual acts of violence, because that would be, you know, wrong. We must also welcome those Muslims we know, and not befriend 'em on false pretenses. This imples, of course, that we not lie to 'em about the simple facts of our history, or the simple deception at the heart of their confession. Nor, for that matter, should we expect 'em to lie to us, to hold back to spare our fine feelings.
In short, we must grow up, all of us, and boldly confess the Truth, taking all the risks that implies. The least interesting response to any assertion of Truth is hurt feelings and offense. Argue, accept conflict, and don't look to any kind of procedural neutrality or authoritarian order to ameliorate it. Finally, let us pray that we who claim to be Christians might spend our days in peace and repentance, praying for our enemies that they might become our friends, and reaching out in love to those we fear, all for the sake of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of the living God, who trampled down death by death for the life of the world.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
saving the planet...
Saw an ad last night for the Nissan Leaf. I wonder how many coal fired and nuclear power plants we'll have to build in order to charge all these electric cars.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
weather report...
It's snowing! In the middle of winter! In Columbus Ohio! My god it's the end of the world! Panic! Stop in the middle of the interstate and cry! ... What?! Look! Another weather alert! O merciful heavens we have weather! Weather will kill us all! And I've never seen Barbados, or made love to a woman with red hair! O regret! O humanity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)