I've just seen a face I can't put out of my mind.  Today, Raw Story posted photos from what appears to be another large-scale killing of Iraqi civilians by American troops.  The pictures are more awful than you can imagine.  If you scroll all the way down, you will see one that you will wish you had not looked at.  And it will stay with you forever.  I know.  I looked.  I'm warning you, it's graphic and horrible.  But if you don't look, you will not fully appreciate what this war is costing us morally and spiritually.  

More on the flip.

There has been a lot of discussion here lately about the positions and tactics of the Religious Right - a movement that some of us believe verges on the theocratic takeover of our country, and others see as nothing more than American politics as usual - albeit politics with which "we" happen to disagree.  

The questions framing the discussion appear to be these:  Are right-wing Christians a bunch of incipient theocrats who seek to trump democratic principles with biblical ones, and subvert the Constitution by transforming the U.S. into a Christian religious state?  Most of us would say no, or at least, not exactly.  Or are they exactly like every other political movement in history , using tried-and-true democratic means to influence national policy in a direction they find congenial?  Most of us would say that's not quite it either.

Promoted by PD. As I say below, this is definitely a project we should take on.

On a whim, I bought the domain name "ValuesVoter.net" and want to do something great with it that will be helpful to "us" and infuriating to "them."  

Any ideas, Street Prophets?

I was inspired by Katherine Harris's nauseating references to her $10 million "widows mite" (brilliantly skewered in Old 33's recent diary) to make everyone aware of this call to action by folks raising funds for Harris's opponent, Bill Nelson:

Make Her Spend It All

Two disturbing stories crossed my radar screen this week, both touching on the ability of religious beliefs to incite violence.  This week, a traditional healer and a Christian are the victims.  Who will be next?  

Today's New York Times featured a piece on what is, depending on your perspective, either a new Christian counterculture or the same retrograde Christian Right message poured into a hip, glossy new lifestyle package.  I'd be interested to hear the take of people here.

More beyond the flip . . .

A piece by that hero of post-modernism, Stanley Fish, in today's New York Times, entitled "Our Faith in Letting it All Hang Out" articulates better than I have been able to some of the problems I see with liberalism's programmatic aversion to strongly held religious beliefs -- of the One True Truth variety -- and concommitant embrace of the religion of tolerance as the greatest social good.

Because this is op-ed material that I believe the Times makes non-subscribers pay for access to, I'll make liberal use of direct snippets from the piece.  

Please follow me to the flip if you're so inclined

In what has to count as one of the all-time high points of its hypocrisy, the Bush Administration has backed a U.N. resolution by Iran (yes, the folks we are otherwise considering nuking) to deny two gay rights groups consultative status to the United Nations' Economic and Social Council, effectively denying them a voice in the U.N.  Consultative status provides thousands of non-profit organizations with the opportunity to distribute documents to the council.  

The New York Times reported today that America sided with Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe -- defenders of freedom all -- in the denial of the groups' status.  

I know, I know, moral relativism is supposed to be the only thing we may accept as universal truth in our culture.  The basic idea is, live and let live.  Your truth is fine, and so is my truth.  You may think it is okay to wage a dishonest, pre-emptive war or to cut poverty programs in order to give more money to the wealthy, and I may not concur.  But that is okay.  We can both be right.  Or maybe one of us is truly right, but neither we nor anyone else can be sure which one.  Or maybe there really are no objective moral facts whatsoever, so to even ask a question with the word right or wrong in it is utter a nonsensical statement.  Whichever the case, you must be free to do whatever you like and I would be in error to suggest that you are wrong to do so, except according to my own limited, personal (or culturally specific) standards.  

Stay with me now.

A while back, I wrote at some length about global poverty and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  Just as a reminder, those are eight interrelated objectives, agreed to by all the member states of the United Nations, aimed at ending global poverty as we know it by 2015, specifically:

1. Cut in half the number of people living in extreme poverty (less than $1 a day)
   
2. Achieve universal primary education
   
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
   
4. Reduce child mortality by 2/3
   
5. Improve the health of mothers and reduce maternal mortality by ¾
   
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, and reverse the spread of these diseases
   
7. Ensure environmental sustainability
   
8. Develop a global partnership for development

According to experts in many disciplines, these goals are achievable within the stated timeframe if we and the nations that agreed to them make good on our commitment to them.

More on the flip

This was just too funny to let go by without comment.  There has been a lot of smart and impassioned discussion about the "rechristening" of public Christmas trees as Holiday trees, with cogent arguments on both sides.

There has been truly heartwarming agreement on one thing, though:  We all find something repulsive in the way that the leaders and mouthpieces of the Extreme Religious Right have latched onto the alleged "banning" of Christmas as a smokescreen to further their self-serving, neocon agenda.

The funny part on the flip --

Promoted by PD. Great discussion.

The Street Prophets team came up with some great ideas and thoughtful caveats for the process - which most of us agree is necessary - of reclaiming Christianity® from the Extreme Religious Right.  First, I want to thank everyone who put their time and thinking into the Idea Jam.  We came up with some great stuff, and I thought it might be helpful to summarize the proceedings as a way to stimulate further fresh thinking about a strategic framework and the way forward.

Thanks again to all who participated.  If I missed anyone's contribution, please let me know and I'll update the diary.  

More on the flip.