A Call for Evangelical Rhetorical Accountability (by Brian McLaren)
The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA.org) was launched in 1979, in response to growing concern "over an increase of [sic] questionable fund-raising practices in the nonprofit sector." As their Web site explains, Sen. Mark Hatfield challenged "a group of key Christian leaders" to begin policing their own mission agencies as a kind of "Christian Better Business Bureau."
Perhaps 30 years later, evangelicals, because of "an increase in questionable rhetorical practices in the nonprofit sector," need to form the ECRA: The Evangelical Council for Rhetorical Accountability. Those of us who have a lot of pew time know ... not to mention those who listen to religious broadcasting and partake of religious literature, Web sites, and blogs (!) ... that such accountability is sorely lacking.
The need for an ECRA became clearer than ever to me this week when a beloved elder in the evangelical broadcasting community spoke out against Sen. Barack Obama. What is evident to me in this interchange is not just a difference in policy, but also a ...
... difference in rhetoric, defined as how one attempts to argue and persuade. In times like these -- dangerous times, election seasons, and so on -- we must not only scrutinize what people say and whether we agree with it, but also how they say it and whether we agree with their means of persuasion. I'm suggesting that we sharpen our sense of rhetorical accountability just as we sharpen our sense of financial accountability.
This week's "Beloved Christian Broadcaster Attacks Beloved Christian Presidential Candidate" headline reflects at least seven patterns of unhelpful discourse I frequently see among the religiously vocal, whatever their political persuasion. (Perhaps critical readers will find in these paragraphs similar lapses of which I am guilty, and perhaps they will be able to identify my lapses without committing lapses of their own.)
1. Inferring and Judging Motives (or: Do not judge - Matthew 7:1)
First, this Christian leader didn't restrict himself to making judgments on Barack Obama's statements; he inferred the candidate's motives and judged them as well. Consider his use of the word "deliberately" in this sentence:
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology."
While this august spokesman is certainly free to use words like "distorting" and "confused" to express his opinion about Obama's views (especially when preceded by the qualifier "I think"), is he equally justified in making the judgment that the candidate's motives were deliberately disingenuous and deceptive? Would it be equally justified -- or otherwise -- to say that this evangelical leader is deliberately distorting Obama's statements to fit his own worldview? Wouldn't it be sufficient -- and more biblical - for this evangelical broadcaster to fairly express Obama's views and restrict himself to accurately identifying where he disagrees and why, without "poisoning the well" by judging his subject's motives and integrity?
2. Scrutinizing the Biases of Others Without Scrutinizing One's Own Biases (or: Don't remove others' splinters before removing one's own planks - Matthew 7:3-5)
Second, the same sentence in question seems to reflect a belief that many religious rhetoricians share: that others are trapped within a "worldview," while they themselves are privileged to speak from a position of pristine objectivity and/or absolute truth. When in this way religious leaders are unwilling (or unable) to apply the same scrutiny to their own assumptions that they apply to the assumptions of others, they need to be held rhetorically accountable.
3. Logical Inconsistencies (or: In your thinking, be mature adults - 1 Corinthians 14:20)
There is an added irony in the evangelical leader's "deliberately distorting" comment: when a person speaks from within his or her worldview, his or her biases are normally unconscious, rendering it more likely that any distortion of which he or she is guilty would be unintentional rather than deliberate.
Similarly, according to Eric Gorski's AP article on this story, this evangelical elder "reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people." It is hard to see how our democracy would be improved by framing debates in arguments inaccessible to those who are not already in agreement. The speaker in question didn't help us logically work that out.
4. Name-calling/Mockery (or: Don't stir up needless anger - Proverbs 15:1)
Which brings us to a fourth rhetorical problem. The evangelical leader in question -- whose attempts at persuasion I would judge as average or slightly above average in the world of religious broadcasting -- displays the common religious tendency to lapse into name-calling, which has predictable and unhelpful results. For example, he referred to Obama's approach as "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." This tendency to mock the opposition might be deemed excusable if it were a rhetorical icing on the cake of solid analysis, but lacking that analysis, it can hardly be called an improvement over the thoughtful speech by Sen. Obama, given at an event at which I was present in 2006, which was being criticized by the respected evangelical speaker.
5. Misrepresenting Your Opponent's View (or: Do not give dishonest evidence - Proverbs 12:17)
Add to the problem of icing without cake a fifth problem: an unhelpful misappropriation of the reductio ad absurdum argument. Rather than legitimately showing how an opponent's argument will lead to an absurd outcome, this approach, via an informal fallacy or straw man argument, unfairly renders the opponent's statement into an absurdity from the start. In this week's news story, this "incipio ad absurdum" took the form of a rhetorical question:
"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies? ... What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."
Of course, Obama was not requiring anything of the sort. He was merely saying that if religious leaders would like to persuade their fellow citizens so they will vote in sufficient numbers to make policy change possible, religious leaders will need to do so in language that their diverse audience will understand. And they must argue from assumptions that are widely shared, or in the absence of sufficient shared assumptions, they must do the hard work of arguing for those assumptions with sufficient rhetorical skill -- and integrity -- that the wheels of democracy will roll in their direction. Which brings us to a sixth common rhetorical problem ...
6. Confusing Democracy with Theocracy (or: Don't pre-empt discernment by claiming "God says ..." - 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22)
Simply put, in our form of democracy, religious leaders can't claim to speak for God and thereby be exempted from the responsibility of making persuasive arguments. Contrary to the assertion implied by the speaker's rhetorical question, nowhere did Obama say that the evangelical elder in question doesn't have a right to fight for what he believes. Rather, the senator suggested that appealing to religious authority will not win the day in a democracy where all do not share their version of religion. I'm certain Obama would defend -- as a right inherent in free speech -- the beloved evangelical elder's right to argue ineffectively and unpersuasively if that's what he feels he should do; what Obama was critiquing was the demand that religious leaders also have the right to "win" through ineffective and unpersuasive argument based on appeals to authority that are not widely shared.
In a monarchy, maybe, and even in an oligarchy, corptocracy, gerontocracy, or theocracy, unsubstantiated appeals to authority can win the day ... but not in a democracy of the type fostered by our Constitution. Religious speakers -- whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever -- must realize that freedom of religion doesn't mean that a religion is free to impose its rules or norms upon the Constitution or those who vote under its auspices. They are free to speak, influence, argue, and otherwise work for the acceptance of their ideas in a civil public square, but not to demand acceptance of them without persuasion.
If a set of values were to be expressed in public policy in biblical times, one would have to persuade a king. Today, having dispensed with monarchs, our Constitution requires that we persuade a majority of voters.
7. Name-Appropriating (or: Calling yourself something doesn't make it so - 2 Corinthians 10:12)
I noticed another important rhetorical problem last night in a CNN discussion about this story. A friend and colleague of the evangelical elder in question came to his defense, repeatedly using the term "orthodox" to describe their shared views in contrast to Sen. Obama's. I couldn't help but think that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians would consider many of this colleague's conservative evangelical views -- for example, regarding Apostolic Succession or the autonomy of independent local churches -- to be unorthodox. Anabaptists would consider their views on warfare and torture unorthodox. Mainline Protestants would consider their views on women in ministry unorthodox.
Similarly, it was standard orthodoxy in various eras of church history -- in the sense of being a belief held everywhere, by all, and always (up until that time, anyway) -- to believe that the relics of martyrs had miraculous power, or that God was impassible (meaning incapable of feeling emotion or suffering pain), or that no Christian could serve in the military, or that slavery was a God-ordained institution, or that celibacy was superior to marriage. It's clear that at some levels at least, what is considered orthodox changes over time. While claiming the label orthodox (or any other desirable label) can give one an air of authority and legitimacy, so can presenting a fabricated resume. Saying something loud and often and on television or radio doesn't make it so.
Conclusion
I was saddened this week by this beloved evangelical leader's religious and political rhetoric, sad for the example it sets, sad for the opportunity it misses for constructive Christian and civil dialogue, sad for the way it plays into a lot of old, ugly, unholy politics. But even sadder, his rhetoric wasn't far below what is commonly acceptable in many religious circles: it was more or less typical. And sadder still, many people who see the value of above-board financial practices seem oblivious to poor rhetorical practices, as if truth were less valuable than money.
Unless this leader and his political and religious allies can lift their level of discourse, their shared good ideas will be discredited along with their bad ones. The same goes for all of us. And unless more of us become more scrupulous regarding how arguments are made -- even if we agree with the point they're trying to prove -- we will become less able to tell the bad ideas from the good ones.
So, whether my modest proposal for an ECRA is deemed wise or foolish, literal or figurative, ironic or to be taken at face value, I hope it makes its rhetorical point. One wonders what it will profit evangelicals -- or religious people of other traditions -- to have financial accountability while they squander their rhetorical integrity as honest and trustworthy bearers of truth.
Brian McLaren is an author and speaker and serves as Sojourners' board chair. You can learn about his books, music, and other resources at brianmclaren.net.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I am so glad that you can back your reactions to Dr. Dobson's tirade against Obama with Scriptures. It is harder to a good Christian when I have to suppress my anger with the jabber-walkies of the hardcore Zealots of the Religious Right. They have caused me to fall done in prayer more often than any other temptation.
The Wholeness of the Gospel is that there us no difference among believers other than the one we falsely impose on each other by dogmatic dribble.
Posted by: Paul | June 26, 2008 12:20 PM
I like a lot of what McLaren brings to the table even though I don't always agree with him. But the first commenter is right, the bloggers on this website have been just as guilty (while less direct and more subtle) as Dobson at times. And if there was an ECRA that held others accountable, you know McLaren and Jim Wallis would have to answer to them a lot.
Posted by: Matt G. | June 26, 2008 12:21 PM
Brian,
It appears to me that all of these criticisms apply to your colleague Jim Wallis. Why not take care of your in house follies before going after your political opponents?
Posted by: anon2 | June 26, 2008 12:27 PM
I find a lot of hypocrisy here.
Jim Wallis Yesterday:
Dobson and Minnery's language is simply inappropriate for religious leaders to use in an already divisive political campaign. We can agree or disagree on both biblical and political viewpoints, but our language should be respectful and civil, not attacking motives and beliefs.
Jim Wallis in November:
I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar; and that George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the president of the United States. I would favor investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration on official deception, war crimes, and corruption charges. And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison - after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven.
Posted by: Rob | June 26, 2008 12:54 PM
I hate to say this, but an authority monitoring rhetoric is more or less exactly the last thing we need.
For example, consider what Jim Wallis said about Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney a while back:
I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar; and that George W. Bush was, and is, clueless about how to be the president of the United States.
Now here's the question we need to ask ourselves: "What if Wallis is right?" What if Cheney and Rumsfeld actually had lied in order to persuade people to support an unjustifiable war. (To be clear: I'm not saying that's what happened -- just asking what if.) If that really were the case, would you be the least bit interested in having some guardians of civility running around lecturing Jim Wallis? Or would you be ready for even stronger language? (I mean, we did wind up going to war, and people did get killed.)
"Politics ain't beanbag", as Mark Shields likes to say, and the prophets certainly didn't mince words. I can't say that occasional use of harsh words is unchristian.
The best response to over-the-top rhetoric is free speech: calm, rational speech that demands evidence for accusations, reintroduces awkward facts, adds perspective, deflates hot-air balloons, and pours cold water on flames of overworked outrage.
Brian McLaren himself suggests that his idea for a rhetorical watchdog isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally. I sure hope not.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 26, 2008 1:00 PM
Well said, Brian. Thank you!
Posted by: Rachel | June 26, 2008 1:02 PM
Let me see if I have the crux of your argument. When leftist preachers wade into politics, that's speaking truth to power. When preachers with whom you don't agree wade into power, they need to be investigated by the government.
Posted by: b | June 26, 2008 1:23 PM
When leftist preachers wade into politics, that's speaking truth to power. When preachers with whom you don't agree wade into power, they need to be investigated by the government.
The "leftist" preacher has nothing to gain by speaking truth to power because he or she risks alienating friends, assocatiates and even relatives by doing so. But when a conservative, specifically one with a media "empire," does it it's for the primary reason to "fire up the troops" to defeat some enemy out there -- because they are already in a position of power and in fact are seeking more. That's the difference.
Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 1:36 PM
Wolverine -
Thanks for those very reasonable comments. Since I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar, that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar, and that George W. Bush was and is clueless about how to be president of the United States, I read Wallis's comment and see a statement of fact. I understand that others see only divisive rhetoric.
Now, I'm also willing to concede that Dobson probably believes he is also stating facts. Obviously I consider my facts to be better than his facts. However, I'm horrified by the tone of all the discussions on this topic so far. For heaven's sake, people, why is it so hard to understand that those who disagree with you are fellow Christians with integrity and passionate convictions? What is the point of having a blog like this if not to promote such understanding?
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 26, 2008 1:40 PM
As a gun hunting - beer drinking - church going - white, father of 3 children and one wife. Anytime Obama wants to retract how he has labeled me - I am all ears. Interesting that Obama can talk to blacks about fatherhood and be praised but Bill Cosby says the same and makes the same challenge and he is villified.
Accountability - bring it on!
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 26, 2008 1:55 PM
I'm delighted to see this Evangelical Council call for financial accountability. In addition, we should have voluntary TRANSPARENCY among Evangelical Corporations, especially the multi-million dollar media empires like 700 Club, TBN, Focus on the Family, and a multitude of "Mega-Churches," among others.
Posted by: Quetzal | June 26, 2008 1:58 PM
I agree with Wolverine too. We don't need a rhetorical policing unit. We need respectful dialogue that sticks to the facts and avoids attacking personalities.
I my view, Dr. Dobson went way beyond respectful dialogue. An example was his accusation that Obama has a 'fruitcake' understanding of the Constitution. Dobson's entire outburst, according to my understanding, was precipitated by an attempt of the Obama campaign to arrange a meeting with Dobson. Whatever else that might mean, Dobson's reaction demonstrates to me a distinct lack of Christian character.
And Another nonymous is also right--the tone of these last few discussions is disgusting at best. Not only the personal attacks on other bloggers, but the personal attacks on Barack Obama--that he's not really a Christian, that he's a radical left-winger, that his father was an Islamic radical terrorist, that his pastor hates America and is a racist, etc.--are unbecoming for Christians. At the very least, we need to check out our facts before repeating rumours--the Scriptures command us to do so. The Commandment against bearing false witness goes for those who oppose Obama's candidacy, too--it especially goes for those who oppose his candidacy.
Tone it down, folks! And be willing to learn from others, even if you think they're wrong. Wolverine has demonstrated in writing that he has learned from dialoguing here with people with whom he disagrees. I have as well. You can too. But you have to be willing. You have to be willing to listen to facts that don't square with your ideology. And if you want to disagree, bring documented evidence to support your disagreement, not more personal snipes. Another nonymous is correct once more--this blog exists in part to promote understanding. Let's try to make it fulfill that purpose.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 26, 2008 2:07 PM
It has been said (not by me): "There is no one on this earth more bigoted than a liberal, when confronted by a genuine conservative."
I think I detect elements of this bigotry often on this blog; the authors who present their statements on this blog are obviously nowhere near "evangelical", for the most part, since the term 'evangelical' really only associates itself well with 'conservative.'. They are left-wing, social salvation, Make-Jesus-over-into-someone-who-can-appeal-to-21st-century-folks kind of liberals. And they take every occasion they can to attack conservatism, in all its spectrum of forms.
I believe strongly in their right to do that, because of the free speech so dearly loved and defended by conservatives. But they ought to at least be willing to call it what it is - - a form of bigotry, the same kind that they so easily accuse the conservative of.
Posted by: joekc | June 26, 2008 2:34 PM
I like a lot of these suggestions, Brian--especially rule #1. But if we were all to follow them it would mean Wallis couldn't call Dobson a Theocrat and claim that Dobson is really only upset about losing power...right after criticizing Dobson's harsh rhetoric, no less.
If God's Politics truly followed these policies, they would have a reduction in output by about 50-70%.
As Jonah Goldberg pointed out at NRO, "If Jim Wallis is offended by religious leaders using divisive language, I assume he condemned Jeremiah Wright in the strongest possible terms." In fact, he didn't criticize Wright at all. He defended him.
Posted by: jesse | June 26, 2008 2:49 PM
I presume that Wallis, McLaren, et al were all for applying these same standards to Wright when he was in the news right?
Oh wait that's right all the Wallis' friends defended Wright, up to the moment when Obama finally had enough of him and threw Wright under that bus of his. Until Wallis and friends own up to this, they are no better than Robinson, Falwell, Sharpton, etc...
Posted by: MadHatter07 | June 26, 2008 3:05 PM
In response to joekc...
I agree that I sometimes encounter some pretty harsh rhetoric on this blog, but Brian's post exemplifies the kind of dialogue evangelicals need to be modeling.
Additionally, there are many of us that label ourselves as evangelicals but do not fit your definition of the term. Do you think it is possible to practice evangelical faith without being aligned with conservative politics?
Posted by: Brent D. Maher | June 26, 2008 3:07 PM
Wise and provocative words, as usual, Brian.
A couple of thots:
As with the financial accountability thing, wouldn't there have to be some kind of common ground (IRS law?) for various parties to agree to in order to effect rhetorical accountability? Who would draft that - the World Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, Fundies for Perpetual Female Servitude?
If the comments so far on this posting are any sample, it would appear that the "love" and "speech" directives of Scripture are not sufficient to control rhetoric. That being so, how on earth would you ever enforce rhetorical accountability when, in the Dobson/Obama instance, you have significantly different paradigms of rationale? On one hand, you have Dobson w/ his traditional mid-20th century authoritarian perspective. On the other, you have Obama w/ a more post-modern interest in seeking consensus and finding common ground.
As long as the Biblical literalists and traditionalists like Dobson continue to play the authoritarian trump card, it seems to me there will be no common ground on anything. This is not to suggest a carte blanche eradication of Biblical authority, but it seems to me any suggestion to control rhetoric seems to come to grips with the fact that, to date, people on both sides of this debate are somewhat selective in which parts of the Bible they accept as authoritative, and when.
Posted by: canucklehead | June 26, 2008 3:15 PM
"Scrutinizing the Biases of Others Without Scrutinizing One's Own Biases "
I just spit diet coke on my keyboard.
Suffice to say I fall into the category that finds the ECRA proposal ironic coming from this outfit.
The Barack Hussein Obama stuff was silly, and speaks poorly of those who introduced it, but that isn't what McLaren is talking about.
The "Wallis Then and Now" piece is making its way around the blogosphere, which I think is a good thing. While there are Christian communities that are more ideological, Sojourners is easily the most partisan.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 26, 2008 3:20 PM
To McLaren's proposal I say, "Amen! Praise the Lord! About time!"
But...
The prophet Jeremiah mocked and ridiculed his opponents and was booed out of town.
The prophet Elijah went over the top, condemning Ahab and all his male descendants to death and announcing that Jezebel's corpse would into "purina dog chow".
By way of contrast to these prophets...
Hananiah told the people the lies they wanted to hear.
Jezebel, Mrs. Ahab, told her royal husband the lies he wanted to hear.
Therefore...
We are having an ongoing truth contest.
Wallis versus Dobson...
Campolo versus Robertson...
Obama versus McCain...
Let's have the contest without unnecessary roughness
The Referee, Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | June 26, 2008 3:26 PM
Wright/Pfffleger's rhetoric = Prophetlike
Dobson's rhetoric = unacceptable
hmmm...
Posted by: Rob | June 26, 2008 4:04 PM
I fail to see why Christians of any belief must call each other names and accuse each other of being "liberal" or "conservative" or not the "right kind of Christian." Why do we have to tell someone that they have to have a certain political stance to be a Christian? Isn't that the work of the Holy Spirit--to tell our spirits if we are in line with what God wants us to do? I suppose I am a liberal on some things and a conservative on others, but above all, I am a follower of Jesus who wants to bring others to know Him. I don't think that going to be achieved by calling others names.
Posted by: Diane in Idaho | June 26, 2008 4:07 PM
The "Wallis Then and Now" piece is making its way around the blogosphere, which I think is a good thing. While there are Christian communities that are more ideological, Sojourners is easily the most partisan.
Sojourners is neither, thank you, certainly when compared to conservative "ministries" which don't even pretend to acknowledge folks whom they don't agree with except to slam them. And FWIW, I don't see any contradiction between either, especially since (I believe) Wallis told the truth back then. So much for charges that he's simply trying to make a buck by challenging the right -- heck, it may bring him notoriety he hadn't banked on.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 4:09 PM
"And FWIW, I don't see any contradiction between either, "
Between ideology and partisanship? Then you understand neither.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 26, 2008 4:31 PM
Although I don't agree with Dobson that much, I don't like McLaren's rhetoric either. Both McLaren and Dobson use emotive arguments that don't rely on reason or scripture for that matter. If you disagree with Dobson you are ungodly; If you disagree with McLaren you are stupid and evil.
Posted by: Patrick Dennis | June 26, 2008 4:35 PM
Well done, Brian!
Posted by: Steve | June 26, 2008 4:41 PM
I would like to be able to defend the conservatives that can truly give evidence of the Love of Jesus for their fellow man. There are many and the are the true Silent Majority. But they're held captive by the Zealots of the far Right. The Liberal Left is now being invaded by compassion Christians who call themselves progressive. What ever happened to just being Christian? Oh, I remember, that was Paul's complaint in the first church of Mesopotamia.
We will always fight between ourselves until the second coming and maybe even in the Hereafter we will be asking "Why are you here?"
Posted by: Paul - Living for Christ. | June 26, 2008 5:05 PM
I take exception to the claim that the term "orthodox" has been misappropriated. "Orthodox" means conforming with the basics of what's always been held to be essential to Christian belief. Sure, we can nibble around the edges on controversial issues such as pacifism and such, but orthodox ought to refer only to the ESSENTIAL doctrines of the faith. Ditch these, and you can no longer legitimately consider yourself Christian.
As to what they are, I would say the list is pretty limited. How about these for starters? (1) God exists, and is triune. (2) The resurrection really happened. And (3) salvation is through faith in Christ. Equivalently, take the ties that bind each church to each other, and the things that clearly distinguish churches from say Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.
Posted by: Ngchen | June 26, 2008 5:11 PM
Between ideology and partisanship?
No, between "then" and "now."
Posted by: Rick | June 26, 2008 5:16 PM
Hey, thanks everyone for yet another rousing blog discussion that will REALLY change the world. Of course we'll all sleep better tonight knowing that our post was witty enough (again) to "win" the all-important keyboard battle of words... Someone please tell me there is MORE TO LIFE than the blah blah blah of these blogs? Sorry, I guess I've just had a bad day and, for a moment, might have caught of glimpse of real life away from the internet.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 5:17 PM
"How about these for starters? (1) God exists, and is triune. (2) The resurrection really happened. And (3) salvation is through faith in Christ."
I think you and McLaren both miss the point on this one. The implication of the use of the term orthodox to describe Dobson is that he is orthodox and Obama isn't. If we accept your definition, which is a pretty good one, this would imply that Obama doesn't believe one or more of these things. I suspect that whoever used the term in the interview (I didn't watch it) doesn't actually know whether Obama believes these things or not. He used the term, rather, to imply that Dobson is obviously a more authentic Christian than Obama, as though that were self-evident.
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 26, 2008 5:31 PM
this is such an excellent article...so deep and helpful.
It puts into words some things that I felt when reading the elder evangelical's criticisms.
My feeling is that he has severely misunderstood what Obama was meaning on a few points.
I would hate to think he was deliberately twisting.
I don't think he was - he just misunderstood...but when you have a public radio show you should take more care to read in depth and context...I also noticed that actually watching and listening to Obama on the video making those points explains even better...maybe the elder evangelical only 'read' the transcript, although that is no excuse - that is all I saw until tonight.
Posted by: marion (U.K.) | June 26, 2008 6:13 PM
Brian,
I am so thankful for voices like yours. Until I began hearing vioces like yours and Mr. Wallis' I was totally sickened by the mention of christians' and politics. My feelings of the conduct of the leaders of the religious right made me unwilling to associate myself with my evangelical beliefs. Thank you for now holding them accountable for what I consider to be extremely unchristian behavior that they have been showing toward others. Your work has helped me to reconcile this disparity.
brett
Posted by: Brett Ferguson | June 26, 2008 7:37 PM
Thank you so much Jim and Brian...and Brett. If not for Sojourners I would not have been able to get through the last four years. Over these years, you have reframed what is defined as moral, in words that have moved and persuaded Christians and non-Christians alike. I agree with both your articles.
Having worshiped at both conservative envangelical and 'progressive' churches at different times over many years, I, like many, have finally broken free enough to see the hypocrisy of many on the right. But to be fair, I agree that we risk the same 'bigotry' in the moderate and left ranks and must be vigilant, prayerful, respectful, and as one writer said, realize that God seems to love and value diversity, and the Holy Spirit nudges each of us in different ways.
Posted by: Linda | June 26, 2008 8:59 PM
I like what Brian has to say and I'll admit finding Sojourners has helped me recover my faith. I no longer cringe at every public word attributed to Christian leaders. Thank you.
However, I don't think we need a censor. At least not as long as groups like Sojourners exist. Sojourners et al serve a neccessary role in pointing out the errors and excesses of these elders. The best result of these rhetorical excesses is losing badly in the court of public opinion. Shutting these folks down is nnecessary, wrong and a bad idea (making Martyrs never works).
The funniest part of this whole exchange was listening to this elder comment on the Constitutional analysis of a Harvard Law trained JD who has been teaching Constitutional law.
Posted by: Rothgar | June 26, 2008 10:46 PM
Jim's comments are precisely on target. Dr. Dobson's comments about Sen. Obama are very wrong. They woefully distort what the senator actually said. The Senator was pointing out the importance of building bridges of understanding communication between ourselves and persons of other faiths, rather than expecting them to agree with us because we are Christians. It is really true that the great religions at heart really do share many enormous values, and that this is to be celebrated, not denounced. We must not condemn or exclude others because their theology is very different from ours. Our nation has survived for over 200 years as one people precisely because we share a commitment to democratic standards, including the principle that our government must not be allowed to sponsor any particular religion, but must be required to avoid interference with the free exercise of any religion. We do not need to repeat the crusades, in which Christian knights murdered thousands of men, women, and children precisely because they were Muslims living in Jerusalem and other parts of the Holy Land, as well as many Jews. And we need not endure the slaughter of Westerners for not being Muslim. The crusades were very bad Christian theology in action, and 9/11 was very bad Mulim theology in action. True Christianity and true Islam forbid both. Jesus told us to love each other, including those we consider enemies, and he explained that this the most effective way to reduce the ranks of our enemies. Timothy B. Ray
Posted by: Timothy B. Ray | June 26, 2008 11:06 PM
If only Brian would study Scripture with the same attentiveness to the author's intent!
Posted by: PW | June 26, 2008 11:22 PM
I always enjoy reading McLaren's insightful analysis. We shouldn't overread his call for a formal board; that misses the point. What we need is greater personal responsibility, where we attempt to show as much self-awareness as humanly possible over how we use language to further our particular viewpoints.
Posted by: V | June 27, 2008 1:22 AM
"The funniest part of this whole exchange was listening to this elder comment on the Constitutional analysis of a Harvard Law trained JD who has been teaching Constitutional law."
Well, I'm sure if John Roberts had a crack at Barack Obama, he would be mighty critical as well. Of course, this is why appeal to authority doesn't really work.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 27, 2008 1:38 AM
I appreciate what Linda had to say. It really is the Holy Spirit's job to nudge us and lead us into truth. Hopefully this article will help Christians of diverse political persuasions to listen to that still, small voice...even when that voice is being reflected by someone of a different perspective.
Posted by: Diana | June 27, 2008 1:50 AM
I'm attending an academic conference this week. Debate at several sessions has been spirited but conducted with respect.
It's sad that one finds more generosity and more genuine attempts to understand what others think at a secular history conference than among Christians on God's Politics. I'm grateful to folks like Don, Another Nonymous, Wolverine, Canucklehead who model for us how Christians can debate with one another and yet treat the other side with brotherly respect.
Let's remember folks: we're all members of the same family, citizens of the same kingdom. We're gonna have to live with each other for an awfully long time (eternity--and I've no reason to think that both Dobson and Obama will not be with us too). Let's not say things we will later regret.
Posted by: carl copas | June 27, 2008 2:09 AM
" in the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake."
quote from Mark Driscoll
Posted by: Lauretta | June 27, 2008 2:24 AM
I googled Obama's speech, and for the life of me, couldn't understand where Dobson was coming from. I completely never got the same thing out of Obama's words.
But...more and more...this is becoming a frequent occurence. Christian bloggers, or leaders, who can't seem to understand what someone is saying. They seem to utterly miss the point.
And just so you know I'm being fair...I've ALSO read comments on things that Dobsen has said - and thought the same thing - that they completely missed what Dobson was saying. And I've wound up defending Dobson.
So...I tend to think it's something wider - because I often see people interpreting Scripture passages and verses the same way!
The pattern I've noticed:
They almost always zoom in on 1 sentence or even 1 specific word - and build an entire thesis on what the person meant from that small tidbit. They ignore the "whole picture" of the person's remarks, the wider context.
These same people also tend to do that with Scripture. They take 1 isolated verse that can is a bit ambiguous - and magnify it out of all proportion - to the exclusion of everything else that was written.
I wonder...seriously...if this just isn't the peculiar way some people's brains work.
I mean...each of us has a brain that does SOME things wonderfully, and other things abominably. Saw that in college - the students that were brilliant in 1 discipline, often needed tutoring in another.
Like I have ADD and am a bit dyslexic - my brain generates original thoughts - at all hours of the night. I can muffle that somewhat - but my brain will always still do that. I have trouble focusing, I don't have many filters. I misspell words when I type. It's just the way my brain works.
Well, likewise, just because I chat quite a bit on the Internet...I've encountered my share of "flamewars". And they are often caused by differing interpretations of words used and ways ideas are expressed.
And there are certain individuals I've encountered (often if fields like engineering - where it is very important to be very, very precise and very literal) who continuously miss the point of what other posters say.
And they consistently do the exact same thing that Dobson often does and a good many other bloggers do. They focus on 1 word or sentence - and build a whole case around it. I remember one of atheist cyber-buddies who was always going off about "contradictions in the 4 Gospels"
And most of us would read the passages he was referring to - and immediately see how 4 different people would describe the same event - and give these 4 different accounts - but each chose some things to include and leave out. But they'd all mesh.
Only...this friend could never see that. To him, it literally said ONLY this - and NOT that. And he couldn't imagine that it was just a choice of what to include or not. To him, that meant the writer was saying it didn't happen.
And over time, it became apparent that was just the way this man's brain worked. He was an engineer. In engineering fields - there aren't "nuances". Just very literal, precise either/or's.
What I'm saying is that not all people get nuances. Or understand context. Not everyone's brain does that well. Their brains do something else well.
Add to that the difficulty of choosing your words when you communicate on complex topics. Each of us comes from different backgrounds - and what words mean to "you" and "me" depends quite a bit on our backgrounds and life experiences.
And to that the fact, that word choices can be affected by spontaneous circumstances (Like as I'm typing, can anyone see if my cat jumps on my desk and spills my glass of icewater all over my keyboard?).
I increasingly see this same problem with interpretation regarding Scripture as well. People don't seem to be taught to look for context anymore.
Or perhaps...people should field questions/answers when they write or say something - for clarification purposes.
Whenever a fellow poster responds weirdly to something I've written, I've usually tried to clarify what I meant, realizing that another from a different background might be predisposed to understand it differently. And I try not to get caught up in whether I miscommunicated - or someone misunderstood. But to just clarify what I did mean.
Anyway, it's late. I don't know what the answer is to all this. But I've noticed this very thing a lot. People focusing too much on just 1 word or sentence (that may have been influenced by the doorbell or phone ringing!) - and don't look for the larger picture.
This is increasingly pervasive. Part of a larger tendency.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | June 27, 2008 2:32 AM
Come on! McLaren and friends do not
like James Dobson because he is a
conservative Christian.
Posted by: Lauretta | June 27, 2008 3:41 AM
Isn't is obvious? The authors of
this website don't like James Dobson
because he is a Conservative Christian!
Posted by: Nick | June 27, 2008 3:45 AM
Well said, Brian. Very helpful.
I also applied to the way I speak. Good principles
Posted by: Rogier Bos | June 27, 2008 8:50 AM
Sweet Lord, people. Mr. McLaren is NOT suggesting that this "ECRA" be some sort of government institution like the IRS. He's merely suggesting that evangelical Christians consider that their words have actions, that, in the language of one of our best hymns, "though they may speak with bravest fire, and have the gift to all inspire, but have not love, their words are vain, as sounding brass and hopeless gain." And he's using this fictional thought-experiment of an evangelical-led and NON-GOVERNMENTAL group that helps guide Christians and others into that sort of rhetoric.
And second, for those of you quoting McLaren and Wallis and talking about oh-how-awful they have been and what terrible hypocrites they are, I'm shocked. You've caught Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren doing what they're best at: being human beings. Fallen human beings. And I'm 100% certain that both of them would be the first to tell you that they've made mistakes, and when confronted with their sins of commission and omission will listen to what you say and reconsider how the manner in which they have sometimes spoken betrays the Christian mission. And I'm sure James Dobson would do the same. We need to respect this simple fact: we are all sinners. We cannot judge, nor cast stones. If a single blog commenter has never said something they've regretted in a moment of anger, then I challenge them to "comment with stones."
Posted by: Madison | June 27, 2008 10:06 AM
Posted by: Madison | June 27, 2008 10:06 AM
Your post caused me to stop and think. I will watch what I say and limit my retoric if Wallis and Co. will limit their use of the words 'liar - immoral - wrong - angry - impose - selfserving' along with a few others. I don't think they will as they have to have a bully to attack inorder to deliver their message. So - I guess we will have the same retoric that we have always had in the past. Much of how I write is theme and vairation of what I have read from Wallis' writing.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 27, 2008 11:21 AM
When James Dobson first published his book on discipline, he was controversial but accurate. He is now controversial and inaccurate. He does not speak for the orthodox faith. McLaren accurately dissects Dobson's terrible critique of Obama's on religion in the public sector. I wish that Obama would have a stronger commitment to eliminating abortion but I also with the Dobson would likewise have a more pro-life position on capital punishment and war.
Posted by: john h pavelko | June 27, 2008 11:26 AM
Well, I'm sure if John Roberts had a crack at Barack Obama, he would be mighty critical as well. Of course, this is why appeal to authority doesn't really work.
Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, so I'm not sure how much authority he actually has.
Posted by: Rick | June 27, 2008 11:26 AM
First of all I listened to both Obama and Dobson's comments and found Dobson to be the better of the two. I understand that liberals such as Obama, McLaren, and others from Jim Wallis' blog love to hate Dobson and rather than pray for him (if they do truly love Jesus) they choose to try to make Obama look pure and innocent when in fact he was not. He did distort Scripture and I am thankful Dobson has stood against Obama.
Secondly, it's funny to me that Wallis and company claim to be neutral on politics, don't support any one group, and love God yet they are always on the left on every issue both politically or theologically. If Dobson is so wrong then why don't you point that out from Scripture?
Third, my earnest prayer to God is for Obama's salvation. His liberalism hinders this. Salvation is by grace through faith (Romans 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9) and in Jesus alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:1-6). Further, Rev. 21:8 bars Obama from heaven.
Posted by: Roy | June 27, 2008 12:12 PM
Reading all this leaves me very sad and also quite bored. These arguments and attacks have always arisen during campaigns. Really nothing new here from either side. Hypocrisy reigns on both sides of the political and religious spectrum. Ho hum.......
Posted by: waynebob | June 27, 2008 12:20 PM
Posted by: carl copas | June 27, 2008 2:09 AM
I've also been to quite a few academic conferences, and I can vouch for the fact that things can get testy. This is even more true when academics blog and join email lists. Egos and reputations are at stake, along with career advancement, tenure, and other things that can cause people to be on edge and defensive.
However, I have *never* seen anything in all my years in the academic circus that even remotely compares with the level of virulence and personal animosity that has surfaced in these threads about Dobson and Obama.
If my faith weren't already strong, it could be shaken, if not destroyed, by seeing Christians have at each other this way.
Yes, I understand that eternal salvation is an even higher stake than tenure. I have the latter, but am still working on the former. However, one thing we supposedly all share is our belief than we cannot achieve it on our own, but only with the help of the spirit of love, peace and forgiveness.
Thus, I would suggest that they next time someone is incensed by what they perceive others to be saying, they take a good hard look inside and say a prayer or two before posting.
If you're wondering if I'm talking about you, the answer is yes.
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 27, 2008 12:47 PM
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 27, 2008 12:47 PM
'If my faith weren't already strong, it could be shaken, if not destroyed, by seeing Christians have at each other this way.'
This is why for the most part I do not comment on peoples 'faith' in Christ. I believe that God will have to be the judge of that. I will comment on their actions - personal and private - because that goes to character. Their decisions they make are up for discussion too. I have no problem pointing out where their actions of decisions are on the edge for me. But I will not say that they are 'burning in hell' as I believe that is God's decision. If someone again on the edge - I may express that I have concerns but will not pronounce damnation on them.
When it comes to Jews and Muslims - again God is the final judge. I believe that the Jews and Christians worship the same God. I can not say the same about the Muslims. Personally and there is no theological bases for this. I hope that there is a special place in Hell for Mohamad and J. Smith for leading people into a false religion.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 27, 2008 3:13 PM
Too much hatefulness in some of these possts...Moderatelad, who are you to judge? If you want to speak what you believe, testify to your faith, go for it! But as Christians we have no place, and no right, to judge what will happen to others in the next life. If we did,would it be fair, and Christian, to say that George Bush will have a special place in hell for his crimes against humanity? No, whatever you may THINK, our faith does not allow us to act as part of the world and label, nor do we have the power to condemn. God has wisely reserved that for Himself.
Reading many of these posts makes me believe that we have a long way to go as Christians, in understanding, and acting out what Christ taught us...to love our neighbor as ourself, no matter what their politics, or beliefs.
Let Your Light Shine, and Pray for Peace!
Posted by: Doug & Jan In Co | June 27, 2008 4:38 PM
I'm puzzled about Jesse Rivers' umbrage in writing:
"He has publicly called President Bush a LIAR."
By every objective definition of the word (I define it as the intentional mis-statement of a known fact, done with the intention to deceive), George W. Bush HAS lied - repeatedly - to the American people.
How many examples do you require of his lies? - I will supply that, plus two more for good measure.
Posted by: neclark | June 27, 2008 5:44 PM
Let's all calm down about which religious camp is correct in its rhetoric, or who's a liar and who's a dillweed.
I think an important point was made that we should always consider how information is presented, what someone's motives are, and whether a valid point is made, or if it's just more pot-stirring to get people pumped up.
We need to separate the facts from the emotion sometimes.
Posted by: RexiFries | June 27, 2008 8:40 PM
There's a very good rebuttle to Dobson writting today in the Washington Post's op-ed page by Peter Wehner.
http://www dot washingtonpost dot com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702490.html
Posted by: Eric | June 28, 2008 11:22 AM
Posted by: Doug & Jan In Co | June 27, 2008 4:38 PM
Moderatelad, who are you to judge?
I believe that I used the word 'hope' not that there 'is', depending on your definition of 'is' is. I believe that we have the ability to decern what is correct and what is not. I believe that we have the right to comment when someone is out of bounds without condeming them.
Much of what I right I have expressed is my 'opinion' but it is how I have decided to live my life. I think that many should do the same but I know that others have a different view and that is the why is should be. I am not Orwellian that we should be thinking and dressing the same etc.
So the is HOPE for many things.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 28, 2008 12:13 PM
The article Eric cites is indeed worth reading. Wehner is himself a conservative evangelical. Here's his concluding paragraph:
"If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. In this instance, Dobson didn't. He has set back his cause and made some of us who are evangelicals and conservatives wince."
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 28, 2008 12:38 PM
"How many examples do you require of his lies? - I will supply that, plus two more for good measure."
I require three. Can you supply five? Keep in mind that disagreeing with you does not constitute a lie.
"If we did,would it be fair, and Christian, to say that George Bush will have a special place in hell for his crimes against humanity? "
That depends. Can one commit crimes against humanity as a Christian, in your view?
"God has wisely reserved that for Himself. "
What do you, Doug and/or Jan, make of the passages about judging angels?
"Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, so I'm not sure how much authority he actually has."
So Harvard Law degree does not equal authority. You made my point for me. Now change the subject again.
"You've caught Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren doing what they're best at: being human beings."
Couldn't I turn this argument around to defend any one of their many (many, many, many, many) conservative targets? They seem decidedly uninterested in the humanity of those with whom they disagree. Goose, meet gander.
"And I'm 100% certain that both of them would be the first to tell you that they've made mistakes, and when confronted with their sins of commission and omission will listen to what you say and reconsider how the manner in which they have sometimes spoken betrays the Christian mission. "
They have yet to do so even once.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 29, 2008 3:35 AM
Brian's comments are right on target and would be well applied to all Christians. The endless quibbling over minutia that infects society today, and Christianity, is driving us apart and keeping us from making a positive difference among the divided, hurting humanity today. Endless name calling, invectives, false claims, and behavior for which we were (or should have been) scolded on the grade school playground does much to shatter community and drive people away from the faith. We would do well to concentrate on 1 Cor. 13 as we strive to be about the business God has given us to do.
Thanks Brian.
Posted by: J.S. Brooks | June 29, 2008 6:32 PM
"Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, so I'm not sure how much authority he actually has."
So Harvard Law degree does not equal authority. You made my point for me.
That has nothing to do with it. The Federalist Society, in case you didn't know, is an activist conservative legal "fraternity" that many, probably most, conservative judges, including Scalia and Thomas on the SCOTUS, belong to. So, basically, you say that a demonstrated ideologue should challenge someone who's not so ideological (despite what you have said about Obama in the past). That's nonsense.
Couldn't I turn this argument around to defend any one of their many (many, many, many, many) conservative targets? They seem decidedly uninterested in the humanity of those with whom they disagree. Goose, meet gander.
No, you cannot. Notice that they do not attack the person unless that conservatism is demonstrated by an obvious character flaw. But in my experience conservatives hold their views as sancrosanct and do not think they should be held to scrutiny, and they do attack the person when they begin to lose arguments (remember the late Jerry Falwell's insult of Wallis as "as evangelical as an oak tree").
"And I'm 100% certain that both of them would be the first to tell you that they've made mistakes, and when confronted with their sins of commission and omission will listen to what you say and reconsider how the manner in which they have sometimes spoken betrays the Christian mission."
They have yet to do so even once.
What mistakes have they made?
Posted by: Rick | June 30, 2008 11:24 AM
"No, you cannot. Notice that they do not attack the person unless that conservatism is demonstrated by an obvious character flaw. "
Which is meaningless because you consider conservatism to be a character flaw. That is an extreme position.
"That has nothing to do with it. "
It has to do with the original comment to which I was responding. I am well aware of what the federalist society is, and your characerization is incorrect.
"who's not so ideological (despite what you have said about Obama in the past). "
Statistiaclly speaking, Obama is the most ideological member of the Senate. You simply don't believe it is possible to be ideologically liberal, which is an absurd contention that you cannot defend without resorting to talking about how bad conservatives are.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 30, 2008 3:57 PM
Which is meaningless because you consider conservatism to be a character flaw. That is an extreme position.
The character flaw is in taking any opposition personally, which in my experience is par for the course with the political right.
Statistically speaking, Obama is the most ideological member of the Senate. You simply don't believe it is possible to be ideologically liberal, which is an absurd contention that you cannot defend without resorting to talking about how bad conservatives are.
"Liberalism" generally doesn't demand ideological purity for the sake of power; I have found that, with the "left," I'm generally allowed to disagree on numerous points if I so choose (and that's why it's relatively weak). But because of the history and origins of modern conservatism, any disagreement there is seen as heresy -- I was just on that other Christian blog I visit occasionally and a poster got huffy and insisted that a vote for Obama is a vote against God. So what you're saying is either meaningless or fundamentally wrong.
Posted by: Rick | June 30, 2008 4:50 PM
To Jesse Rivers: "How many examples do you require of his lies? - I will supply that, plus two more for good measure."
I require three. Can you supply five? Keep in mind that disagreeing with you does not constitute a lie.'
...how `bout six? With no particular pleasure:
from THE TRUE LIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH by Jeremy Warren:
(1) I was never arrested after 1972 -- unless you count that DWI. Err, those two DWIs.
Bush reportedly told the Dallas Morning News in 1999 that he was never arrested after 1972. Of course, as we all learned, he was arrested for drunk driving in 1978, with his younger sister and Australian tennis star John Newcombe, in the car. According to NBC News, Bush was also arrested for another DWI in Midland after 1972. Are his arrests the big deal? No, but his constant lying about them sure goes to character, don't you think?
(2) [Re; the use of civilian planes in the 9/11 attacks] "No one could have imagined them hijacking airplanes." Of all the lies, this one might be the most annoying. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice made this claim repeatedly during the summer of 2002. Nevermind that Ramsey Yousef, one of the masterminds of the original attack on the World Trade Center, had his plot to hijack and crash 12 airplanes foiled by U.S. and foreign intelligence agents...in 1995. It was big news then, but apparently didn't make it all the way out to Stanford University. Rice's deceit was completely exposed in 2002 when details of the President's Daily Intelligence Briefing in August 2001 revealed that CIA and other sources warned the administration of just such hijackings.
(3) In the run-up to the Iraq War, Bush claimed: "Saddam would not let the inspectors in." Bush has now made this claim twice. It came as quite a surprise to the hundreds of U.N. inspectors that were in Iraq in 2003 and were told by the U.S. to get out or get bombed. [indeed, I understand that CSPN was broadcasting live footage of inspectors on-the-ground as Bush repeated this claim in a televised speech]
...and these, excerpted from FALSE PRETENSES By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008
(4)In the closing days of September 2002,...Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
(5) On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
(6) On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
And, of course, we have a President who peddled the American people a weakening of the Clean Air Act under the rubric name "Clear Skies Initiative" (www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp)
That's enough for now...at least for me...
Posted by: neclark | July 2, 2008 7:05 PM
why is it that people like Jesse who get their rhetorical behinds kicked by the facts always seem to vanish into thin air?
Posted by: canucklehead | July 5, 2008 11:41 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?