Kissing My Neck

Later this morning, I returned to Purgatory Creek for the Memorial Day commemoration.  A great deal of harrumphing, colorguard-marching and flagworshipping mumbo jumbo, with the surprise arrival of Sen. Klobuchar, who harrumphs and grandstands with the best of them--and every bit as boringly.

Schiebler's crutch-use is explained and he begins, mentioning he has a condition which sometimes makes him sob uncontrollably--and he then goes on to tell his story about carrying the enemy soldier three miles on his back.  Again we learn Schiebler thought about summarily executing his prisoner, though he then remembers dear old granddad's parting advice, that God loves Charlie just as he loves us--and so he carries the wounded sergeant major back to the US base.

The idea that an American officer would consider summarily executing a captured, disarmed uniformed enemy is, when you think about it, disgraceful.  Surely Schiebler can't mean what he says, you think.  A small plane flies overhead and Schiebler jokes he wishes it could be shot down.  We then hear the remainder of the sergeant major story--told also here--this time with the captured prisoner kissing Schiebler's neck.

After returning to base, Schiebler is summoned back to the captured prisoner--who will only speak with Schiebler, via an interpreter.  Upon learning that Schiebler comes from a small town in Wisconsin and has a loving family, the North Vietnamese sergeant major reveals valuable intelligence to the Americans. 

This story sounds quite false, with its core the claim that 'if they knew we were nice people, they wouldn't be fighting us.'  Upon learning Schiebler is a friendly person capable of resisting his impulse to execute captured enemies, his entire reason for fighting the Americans disintegrates.  Yeah, right.

In fact, the Vietnamese had quite sensible reasons for fighting us--and they were not based on the belief that, one-to-one, Americans are mean people.  The Vietnamese wanted to rid their country of political corruption and foreign domination--and they could point to the devastation and mass civilian killing brought about by the American intervention.

Learning that an individual American was kind-hearted wouldn't have much impact then, upon a committed Vietnamese officer's will to fight.  The story is unbelievable; Eden Prairie lapped it up.

By the time the ceremony adjourns, I've got a sunburn and make my way toward the dignitaries--and shake hands with the keynote speaker, who's entirely devoid of the Gavin-hatred your humble servant occasionally endures, within his lonely avocation.  Schiebler introduces me to his wife--whose eyes indicate internet access.

Forgetting Randy Voas

This morning I observed Randy's Run--'a wonderful way to celebrate Randy and to recognize the great sacrifices the members of the United States military make every day to keep our country free.'

As pilot in command, Voas crashed a $100,000,000 Osprey helicopter in Afghanistan in April 2010.  The report states that the accident was not caused by enemy action or loss of engine power.  Of the 'ten factors [that] substantially contributed to the mishap,' four sound very much like pilot error:

1. 'inadequate weather planning'
2. 'a poorly executed low visibility approach'
3. 'the mishap crew's task saturation'
4. 'the mishap crew's pressing to accomplish their first combat mission of the deployment.' 

Today's event drew more than one hundred people, with the predicted blaring Toby Keith flagworshipping soundtrack and preening fitness enthusiasts.  Entrants wore t-shirts highlighting the event's corporate sponsors.  I walked about and asked people, 'What are we doing here?'

Actual photograph of the wreckage, from the report

Every person I asked knew almost nothing about how Maj. Randell D. Voas died.  Some people told me Voas had been 'shot down' in Afghanistan.  Several interviewees told me everyone on board the helicopter died.  No one with whom I spoke had taken the time to view the accident report.

(In fact Voas was not shot down, and only four of the twenty men on board died.  Many of the survivors were seriously injured.)

Even people with a real connection to Voas demonstrated zero curiosity about learning information surrounding his fatality.  Some attendees reacted with shock, upon learning that a person stood before them who wasn't committed to not knowing the basic facts pertaining to Voas crash--a person who didn't consider Voas' hero status self-proving.

A woman, pissed off, just prior to announcing our interview is over, asks why I can't simply honor Randy for giving his life for his country.  She mentions she's heard of my No Hero post.

In fact I do express sadness for Voas' loss.  At the same time, I'm nauseated by the corporate sponsorship hucksterism, the cowardly refusal of adult participants to rationally reflect upon their hero claim and the contempt most participants feel toward anyone who asks questions.  Randy's Run expresses an 8-cylinder McCarthyism; I oppose that.

Odd also is the extreme blandness of the event organizers' description of Randall Voas.  Was he a person with any ideological or political commitments?  Did he like anything unusual?  An event volunteer--a high school classmate of Voas, Eden Prairie 1985--provides nothing remotely interesting about the man.  No, he's not sure if Voas cared about politics; no, he can't remember Voas having any particular religious beliefs.

Sullivan Meets Schiebler

I spoke on the telephone today with Bill Schiebler for more than thirty minutes.  He had some awareness of my criticism of him, though he bore me no animosity and was pleasant throughout.

While friendly and polite, I learn that Schiebler has very little familiarity with the internet.  When asked for his email address, he appears sincere saying he almost never checks his email; it might not even be worthwhile for me to write it down.  He expresses curiosity as to whether calumnies, once published on the internet, can be retracted.

I explain that unlike most bloggers, I welcome criticism, particularly from those I censure.  When shown to have been in error, I apologize.  I don't censor my critics.  I am fallible and thank any person who can correct me.

Schiebler is friendly, soft-spoken and chatty--and given to conversational tangents.  I explain I want to focus upon one important claim of his--as, essentially, an integrity check.

He verifies that my description of his narrative of the 1965 quadruple homicide he ostensibly ended is fair.  Further, he clarifies that the event occurred within Company B, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry--within the 1st Brigade of the 1st Air Cavalry Division.  (Perhaps such wording might be meaningful to some readers.)

Mr. Schiebler twice verifies the Puerto Rican perpetrator's name:  Juarte Rodriguez.  As during his interview, Schiebler maintains a certain qualified support for Rodriguez the man:  The four African American soldiers blown away by Rodriguez had, prior to the mayhem, stolen some cash from him.  I push back and Schiebler will hear none of it:  Rodriguez was indisputably ripped off by the four black GI's, Schiebler affirms--and Rodriguez was, essentially, a good person.

To participate within community discussion about controversial topics, one has a certain requirement to stay abreast of developments in librarianship.  One has to maintain some skill in the marshalling of evidence.  If Mr. Schiebler once had any such skill, it has clearly atrophied.

As noted, Bill Schiebler has long suffered from multiple sclerosis.  Memory loss is the most common mental change in people with multiple sclerosis.

Bill and I discuss the Rodriguez matter in a completely friendly manner--and my skepticism is in no way diminished, post-call.  The one change in my thinking:  I am again reminded that people can believe false things for a host of reasons, often without any conscious dishonesty or malevolence.  In an ongoing way, our brains massage our autobiographies.  The little changes that occur, as months pass, can with the years snowball--particularly when combined with a degenerative autoimmune disease that wrecks nerve cells.

So I tentatively amend my previous remarks:  Bill Schiebler may be hugely inaccurate and wrong--without being a scumbag or a liar.  My fundamental position remains, however:  If, for whatever reason--including cognitive degeneration--one publicly states falsehoods about one's wartime record, one forfeits the right to receive public honor, based upon one's military service.

At the end of our call, I tell Schiebler I'll be in the audience for his speech tomorrow.  He makes a point of requesting that I stop by and say hello to him, afterward--and I assure him I'll do so.  We agree to get together for lunch sometime within the next few weeks.

National Ego

Hi Ron,

During our telephone chat yesterday, you provided quite little information--though clearly you are very unhappy that anyone would question Bill Schiebler's candor. Perhaps you haven't listened closely to those stories--as I can't find anyone who considers them plausible. Indeed, I don't think you consider them plausible--and to test my theory I have requested we focus upon one of Mr. Schiebler's claims, of which you are already aware and to which you haven't yet responded substantively.

During our call, you asked if I was a Vietnam veteran.  (I am not--and was 13 years old on the day the Vietnam War ended.)  My hunch is that you were suggesting that people who are not Vietnam veterans have no business commenting upon Mr. Schiebler's rectitude.

Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps you didn't mean to so imply. But since you clearly weren't going to be forthcoming, I was forced to guess as to your viewpoint.

If I am correct, and you do believe non-veterans have no business assessing the integrity of a veteran set to receive Eden Prairie's highest honor, then I want to make clear my firm dissent. It is incumbent upon citizens to take action when they observe the community bestowing a high honor upon a person emphatically undeserving thereof.

When a veteran publicly lies about his record, he forfeits his right to any laurels for his service. By rescinding Eden Prairie's invitation to have Bill Schiebler serve as this year's keynote speaker, we defend the dignity of all honorable veterans. By failing to so rescind, we sully the reputation of America's Vietnam veterans.

We often hear that when Vietnam veterans returned to the USA, they were disrespected by their countrymen. To the extent that this claim is true, it is regrettable: The Vietnam war was a military, humanitarian and moral disaster for which millions of Americans bear responsibility. Scapegoating those who served was and is a reprehensible strategy for assuaging our national ego.

By criticizing Bill Schiebler's numerous dishonesties, I am in no way engaging in veteran-spitting--and am, on the contrary, defending the honor of upright Vietnam vets.

Star • Smile • Success

Gavin Sullivan

Eden Prairie

DD214

In recent posts I have drawn attention to the likelihood that Bill Schiebler--the scheduled keynote speaker at Eden Prairie's most solemn annual community event, set for Monday--is a huckster, a fraud and a scumbag.

Schiebler has made numerous unbelievable claims about his conduct while in uniform in Vietnam.

Since time and attention are limited, I have suggested we verify one of Schiebler's odd-sounding potboilers--that in 1965 a Puerto Rican soldier murdered four men within the group which reported to Schiebler--and that Schiebler himself disarmed the madman, at great personal risk.  Schiebler claims that during the spree, seven or eight additional men were seriously wounded by the gunman.  Schiebler claims 'Rodriguez' was then arrested and held accountable for the quadruple homicide.

I can find no record of any such crime having been committed during the Vietnam War.

I have brought this matter to the attention of a half-dozen community leaders in Eden Prairie, and--to be blunt--nobody cares whether Schiebler is a man of honor or a scumbag.

As a community we say we're interested in expressing gratitude to exceptionally honorable veterans--though we're really performing kabuki--a ritual having nothing to do with Bill Schiebler and everything to do with reassuring ourselves we're really patriotic.

If we were genuinely high-minded, would we bestow a high honor upon a known fraud?  Wouldn't we have a duty to perform some rudimentary vetting?  Email received yesterday, unsigned:

Mr. Sullivan,

It is true that Bill Schiebler will be honored this Memorial Day for his service to country and any awards that he will be recognized for will be to the level that's reflected on his DD214 (record of discharge) as issued by the Department of Defense.  We have reviewed that document and to that end, are satisfied. Thank you for your interest and we hope that this will satisfy your concerns.

EP Veterans Memorial Committee

The Eden Prairie Veterans are ostentatiously uncurious as to whether Bill Schiebler is a scumbag, though they make no claim about Schiebler's general good character:  The honor is being bestowed solely based upon what they've read on Mr. Schiebler's DD214.

To the dustbin!

Valuing Honor

At Eden Prairie's Memorial Day ceremony on May 28 and at similar events all over the country, people who consider themselves patriotic will gather to honor those who have served in America's armed forces.

Participating in such an event has a strong sociopolitical component.  By taking the time to attend, one impresses upon other community members 'the type of person one is.'  A high proportion of politically active people show up; a subliminal aspect of political participation, within a McCarthyite social order, revolves around asserting one's own patriotism as contrasted with the ostensible lazy free-riderism prevailing across the aisle.

The overwhelming signaling component, at the Memorial Day commemoration, can easily eclipse the event's purported purpose--paying tribute to exceptionally honorable individuals.

This year's Memorial Day ceremony will pay tribute to Bill Schiebler--a person who has published several astoundingly bizarre stories concerning his service in Vietnam.  The stories all have one unchanging leitmotif:  Bill Schiebler is an unusually selfless, loving, heroic, anti-racist human.

I have emailed Eden Prairie Veterans, asking if they have verified any of Schiebler's numerous odd stories.  I am being stonewalled.  Valuing honor means knowing your place; the Eden Prairie Veterans won't countenance any questioning.

Some years ago--having spoken not a word about it in three decades and with the American rescuee comfortably in the grave--Schiebler began remembering his heroic rescue of Paul Mobley and an enemy soldier.  Schiebler narrated his act of heroism very differently three years later.

Schiebler suffers from Multiple Sclerosis--a horrible illness with which I have considerable second-hand familiarity.  People ravaged by MS are treated badly by the general public, who often (stupidly) find handicapped people's presence nervous-making and unpleasant.  To assuage their guilt, people often feel the need to compensate--particularly when under any media glare--and thank handicapped people for their various splendors, even when non-existent.  Perhaps such a meme is active in the present case.

Without verifying any of the facts, in 2003 Gov. Tim Pawlenty presented Schiebler with a Bronze Star, accompanied by false-sounding words about 'lost paperwork.'

When claims such as these come forward, there's simply no incentive for any American to question them.  The Bronze Star has been awarded to so many people that no one maintains any easily-accessible list of recipients.  Give the disabled man his Bronze Star, damn it.

Schiebler is a liar and a fraud, but he's published so many bullshitty stories I've only got time to verify one.

It's a pity the Eden Prairie Veterans don't care whether the person they honor is a scoundrel.  I sent the following email to the National Archives - Military Personnel Records today:

Dear Nara,

On this coming Memorial Day (May 28, 2012), my community will honor Vietnam Veteran Bill Schiebler.
 

Schiebler has published an interview in which he describes a number of events which sound unbelievable to me.  So I'm emailing you today just to verify one of his many stories.

Schiebler claims that after arriving in Vietnam in 1965, one of the 45 men who served under him--a Puerto Rican soldier named Rodriguez--shot dead four African American soldiers (who'd also reported to Schiebler).  In addition, Schiebler claims that during the tragedy, 7 or 8 others were seriously wounded.

Schiebler claims he personally disarmed the insane murderer--and that Rodriguez was then arrested and punished for the crime.

You can easily confirm my description yourself--just click on the second link, above.  You'll be required to create a login at prx.org--it's easy.

Is this story true?  There cannot have been too many American-on-American quadruple homicides during our intervention in Vietnam, right?  Surely checking this claim should be extremely easy for you, right?

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan

Eden Prairie, Minnesota

Schiebler's Magic Negro

Hello Eden Prairie Veterans,

I understand that the Eden Prairie Memorial Day ceremony on May 28 will honor Bill Schiebler.

I have also listened to Schiebler's remarkable 2005 interview--published here.  The comments which follow refer to the stories related by and about Schiebler within the two previous links.

It is improbable that Schiebler--an officer--would have been assigned to guard Martin Luther King's car in Selma, in 1965, prior to shipping out for Vietnam.  If he had been, it would be unprofessional for a US serviceman to salute Martin Luther King--a civilian.  In 1965 in Selma, it is improbable in the extreme that a military officer assigned to protect MLK would exchange a hug with him--as Schiebler claims King initiated.

Within a month of arriving in Vietnam, one of his best soldiers--a Puerto Rican named Rodriguez--gets ripped off by four black soldiers--all of whom are in the platoon of 45 men reporting to Schiebler.

Rodriguez then shoots the four black men dead, in addition badly wounding seven or eight men.  A half dozen survivors catch Rodriguez, but Schiebler tells them to hold fire.  Schiebler then offers Rodriguez a hug--and Rodriguez puts down his grenade and surrenders as Schiebler and he share a cry.

There's a silver lining:  Schiebler then pulls an all-nighter with his remaining men, instructing them that from now on, they're family, and they'll all address each other by first name.  Schiebler happily reports that Rodriguez is only locked up for a few years, and then set free, as he'd been under a great deal of stress.

Schiebler later works alongside a black career soldier--a 'buck private' named Jimbo.  Jimbo proves his ingenuity by draping a mosquito net over his helmet--which soon becomes standard practice--and invents a brilliant way to prevent the M16 from jamming.  Jimbo has an 'amazing physique' and can do 250 pushups--and mouths off in the face to 'a four-star general,' earning Schiebler's admiration.

A mortar attack eventually blows palm-sized chunks of flesh off Jimbo's calves, permanently disabling him, while Schiebler emerges from the attack without a scratch.  Observing the ghastly injury, Schiebler sobs and reflects on the insignificance of race.  Schiebler and Jimbo are then medivacced to the Philippines and on to Japan to recuperate, despite the fact that Schiebler is uninjured.

On another occasion, Schiebler captures a North Vietnamese soldier whose feet are badly injured in combat.  Schiebler briefly considers blowing him away--since 'that's what their side does'--but then remembers Grandpa Schiebler's advice to young Bill, prior to embarkation:   'God loves [captured VC] just as much as he loves you.'  So Bill carries wounded Charlie on his back about two miles, to the American camp.

The wounded North Vietnamese soldier touchingly expresses his appreciation for Schiebler by licking him on the back of the neck, during the two-mile hike.

Back at the base, Schiebler's gringo subordinates want to abuse their captured soldier, but Schiebler speaks with him through an interpreter--and learns the dude is a high-ranking 'sergeant major.'  Floored by Schiebler's kindness and affection, Necklicker borrows Schiebler's freely-offered bayonet and draws a map of Vietnam in the dirt--pointing out his home town and sharing that he has a wife and two daughters back home.  Sergeant Major Necklicker proves to be an intelligence goldmine, having learned what a nice man Schiebler is.

Schiebler thinks he personally killed more than 100 enemy Vietnamese soldiers--and not a single civilian.  He struggles greatly, mentally, upon returning home, but eventually finds it in his heart to forgive the Vietnamese, driving 200 miles one night to Fort Snelling Cemetery (from the family base of Port Edwards, Wisconsin),  burying some blood-red roses in an adjacent ditch and returning home the same night.

The Eden Prairie News article--linked above--says that of 186 men in his group, only four returned to the USA alive. 

Can you confirm that you have rigorously verified Schiebler's trustworthiness, as a person meriting such an honor?

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

The Pity of War

Eden Prairie's Memorial Day commemoration is coming right up.  It's one of the community's primary moments of civic bonding, each year drawing a multitude.

The event is not without objectionable aspects:  Each year a Christian male superstition expert is asked to lead the multitude in prayer.  Many residents of Eden Prairie are not superstitious, but local christianists enjoy insinuating that American patriotism cannot exist without their ever-changing politically-favored magical beliefs.  It's 2012 now--and high time we excise sectarianism from the ceremony.

the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

As people of honor, we have an obligation to speak honestly about our country's history.  When we lie about the conduct of our armed forces, we disgrace the Stars and Stripes.  There are two particular forms of dishonesty which invariably crop up, within the ceremony:

Does the United States involvement in Afghanistan make our country safer?  In reading the local community newspapers and the state's paper of record, I have not yet come across any definitive argument requiring sensible people to accept such a claim.  If we had never occupied Afghanistan, our national security would be no worse than it is at present.

As a fundamental point of American integrity, upright citizens must be free to openly discuss this controversial question.  If you put the question to America's most highly-regarded experts in national security, you'll find a very large portion does not believe the intervention has advanced America's interests at all.

If you question the value of America's intervention in Afghanistan, there's an obvious, inescapable and painful corollary:  American soldiers who have died fighting in Afghanistan represent a genuine tragedy, given that no important national interest has been advanced by their sacrifice.  Speaking honestly about this reality is essential--so that future lives aren't wasted.

During the Memorial Day ceremony, then, let's watch out for speakers who thank wounded and dead American soldiers for 'defending our freedom' in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Such an assertion embeds a dangerous and dubious claim that has by no means been objectively established.  Instead, we should be asked to ponder our nation's tragic error, in the twin military fiascoes, perhaps even noting that our sainted former Rep. Jim Ramstad supported both--and has never emitted a scintilla of contrition.

Additionally, the ceremony invariably thanks Vietnam veterans, who make up a large contingent among attendees.  Vietnam vet Bill Schiebler, 71, will speak this year; the Eden Prairie News introduces him here.  The profile of Schiebler includes a number of questionable statements:

Schiebler claims 'his father was good friends with Charles Lindbergh.'  Lindbergh was a crackpot anti-Semite and racist who led an American political movement exceedingly friendly to Adolf Hitler.

If Schiebler's father was a brownshirt nutcase, fine--though it is disquieting the son appears to continue to take such pride in the association.

It is difficult to convey to younger-generation Americans just how unpopular Martin Luther King was, among white Americans, prior to his assassination.  (Decades later, Ronald Reagan felt entirely comfortable assailing him, recall.) If you've ever heard white Americans trashing Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, the mainstream white attitude toward King was one hundred times more bitter and dismissive.  Newspaper-reading, church-attending white Americans, by and large, despised Martin Luther King.

And so it would seem unusual--particularly coming from a Lindbergh-admiring home--that Schiebler adored Martin Luther King:

“[MLK] came right up to me and hugged me.”

Schiebler then said, “I respect what you’re trying to do and I salute you for it.”

Schiebler will keynote this year's event:

On Memorial Day, he said he wants to honor not only the men and women who have served, but also the families who have lost children, spouses and friends. In addition, he wants to honor those in public safety who put their lives on the line every day, as well as volunteers.

“I would like to honor them,” he said.

America's intervention in Vietnam was bad for America's image and spirit--and an utter nightmare for the people of Indochina.  About 95%--perhaps more--of the people killed as a result of the Vietnam War were natives of Vietnam and Cambodia.

The intervention did not advance any important American national interest--and thus there is a bitter irony in describing any American conduct there heroic.  Military heroism, within a war that worsened America's national interest, rings empty--and should ring empty.

When Americans gather to commemorate the suffering brought on by the Vietnam War, we should apportion about 95% of our time to reflecting on the suffering of Asians--instead of 0%, as Schiebler feels to be most just.

Bain, Walker

On the front page:  State activist has role in ad ripping Romney's work at Bain Capital.  

I want economic policies that favor growth.

There are well-funded people who comb over America's businesses, looking for those which might be purchased, improved and resold.  That's a good thing--and such people have no requirement to care about increasing the number of employees, or their compensation.  A competitive marketplace is a good thing:  Overall, such transactions result in long-term job growth.

Mitt Romney should be judged on the ideas he puts forward, and on his track record as an executive. His experience at Bain should be viewed as a very minor positive, though any decision whether to vote for him should be based on an analysis of the policies he advocates--and a sober assessment of his character.

The public is economically illiterate.  Barack Obama is a politician.  He seriously wants to get reelected; he's going to fire the political ammunition the experts tell him is most lethal.  Politics is an ugly business.  Those of us who support President Obama and support economic growth shouldn't feel embarrassed to admit:  Obama's Bain line-of-attack makes us cringe no less than does Obama's criticism of Romney's use of the word marvelous.

**

Same day:  An op-ed by Jonathan Zimmerman:  No mulligans over policies, please.  Like much commentary on the political situation in Wisconsin, Zimmerman seeks out a safe pox on both your houses critique.  To Zimmerman, Gov. Walker is a bad guy for a variety of reasons--cutting education funding, reducing collective bargaining rights for educators, etc.--but elections are elections, and mid-term recalls aren't good for democracy.

The Wisconsin recall movement centers upon one issue:  Are collective bargaining rights for public employees generally beneficial, to the citizens of the whole state?

Within our democratic framework, public employees answer to politicians.  If voters believe public employees are being unfairly treated or underpaid, they are free to elect politicians who will enact their preferences--and increase public employees' compensation.

We would be better off without public employee unions.

Horse and Carriage

For reactionary fuddy duddies, the writing is on the wall:  Opinion researchers have noted that the public at large--and younger people in particular--increasingly accept gay marriage.  If you oppose gay marriage, now is the time to state your case--as the tide is rapidly turning to your disfavor.

Rep. Erik Paulsen favors a national constitutional amendment, so as to impose a new restriction on citizens' freedom to enact the laws they prefer.  On this issue, Mitt Romney stands to Paulsen's left, as Romney--who also favors the Federal Marriage Amendment--supports granting adoption rights to gay couples.

I have the sticker--shown above--on my car.  I'm down with the community.  And yet I sense we're engaging in a bit of dishonest rhetoric, within the present political narrative.

The left position on this issue flirts with hypersentimentality.  For example, the Walker Art Center has traditionally stood for avant-garde thinking, aesthetically and politically.  Coming of age in the Twin Cities, I observed the Walker cleaving to a stony silence on marriage.  Many Walker-sanctioned artists equivocate with regard to the connubial institution's purported bliss--and some entirely decorous elite artists do not support matrimony at all.

The Walker cheapens its hard-won identity engaging in this kind of political cheese:

As an institution committed to both free expression and fairness, we stand behind couples—straight, gay, and lesbian—who wish to express their love and commitment for each other through marriage. Because of this unequivocal value, the Walker Art Center proudly joins with cultural organizations across our state in endorsing the Minnesotans United for All Families Campaign, which is working to defeat the marriage amendment that will be on the ballot in November 2012.

Let's cut the crap:  Marriage is not simply a way for a couple to express love and commitment.  It's a way for society to place significant pressure upon individuals to stay in relationships they'd prefer to exit--and to incentivize the continuance of certain politically-favored monogamous-appearing unions.  In exchange, it's a way for couples to attain bourgeois respectability and social status.

Maybe society needs to dangle such rewards before romantically-attached young people, in large measure to promote procreation and ensure the stablest possible home environment for children.  But--having been down the aisle twice myself, each time disastrously--let's not kid ourselves:  Feeling considerable ambivalence about marriage is an entirely upright position.

Leith Anderson's Persecution Mania

I finished reading Leith Anderson's Jesus: An Intimate Portrait of the Man, His Land, and His People today.  Anderson is the single highest-status public intellectual residing in Eden Prairie; his 368-page 'biography' of the Good Shepherd is truly execrable. 

Eden Prairie's two community newspapers both encourage credulity and superstition, especially when advocated by high-status, home owning white people--so Anderson has never faced any genuine ideological opposition.  'Tis a pity.

Anderson bases his narrative in the four New Testament gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  The book is meant for a popular readership, but important information is omitted.  Anderson does not inform readers that the four gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, nor were they written by individuals named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John--these are conventional attributions added much later.  We don't have a lot of information about the gospel writers, and there are enormous contradictions among the four narratives.

Anderson's Jesus picks and chooses among the stories related in the four gospels, often entering the minds of participants.  The book contains numerous unsubstantiated historical claims presented as unquestionable Truths.  Anderson frequently relishes in the torments nonbelievers will endure at the hands of his sadistic god--incineration being a favorite--and every single person described as not accepting Jesus' message does so due to malice, stupidity and/or hypocrisy.

Younger evangelicals increasingly accept gay marriage, and loads also reject Anderson's view that the prayers of non-Christians fall on deaf ears [see Jesus, p266].  (On this point, ironically, Anderson and I are in agreement.)

Anderson recently tweeted that he is considering blogging.  In order to blog effectively, one must agree to reply to one's critics--something Anderson has never previously done.  If you're going to blog, the public isn't going to be quite as supine as Wooddale Church congregants; you're not going to be taken seriously if you continue to assert that all criticism is illegitimate, and that you are the victim of satanic persecutors.

**

So I sent him an email:

Hello Pastor Anderson,

As you're aware, I have been blogging about your book Jesus: An Intimate Portrait of the Man, His Land, and His People.  In my discussion of the book, I have been quite frank:  I regard it as an utterly shameful publication--a disgraceful slander upon the honor of those who do not accept Christianity.

You and I have something in common, Pastor Anderson:  We are among that very minuscule portion of citizens who present our controversial opinions to the public, without hiding behind any cloak of anonymity. 

There the similarity ends, however:  I warmly invite criticism, always facilitating my critics' access to my readers--while you impede same.  You view criticism as presumptively ill-willed, whereas I view it as normal, to be expected.  I respond to my critics, while you refuse any interaction with yours.

Were you to allow interaction, I'd have quite a number of questions for you, as regards your Jesus biography.  In today's brief email, let me try one:

On page 309 of Jesus, you write:

"Thank you, Jesus!" they said.  "We appreciate it when you skip the figures of speech and use plain direct language.  It makes it even more obvious that you know everything!  You can answer questions before they are asked.  This helps us believe that you came from God."

What is your source for the attribution, above?

An overarching theme of Jesus is that every single person who disputes Christian theological assertions is an ill-motivated, evil persecutor.  If you are aware of any uncivil statement I have made, in criticizing your book, please do not hesitate to bring it to my attention.

Reading your book, I learned you frequently fantasize about torturing people like me [p104-106, p112, p266].  By contrast, I don't consider you satanic or deserving of torture--I simply think you're wrong.  I wish you a long and happy life--and indeed would consider it quite disgraceful were I to call for your eternal torment. 

As a strong believer in civility, I always try to respond to my critics.  Having now read your Jesus, I learned that you view legitimate criticism as being impossible--that people who disagree with your ideas are simply deluded, stupid, satanic and/or hypocritical--and therefore can never be engaged.  I strongly disagree with your dogmatic assertion, and herewith invite you to a Starbucks coffee, on my dime, to try to persuade you of the error of your ways.

Warmest regards,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Leith Anderson's Cult of Personality

I read from page 150 to 200 today in Jesus--and had occasion to swing by Wooddale.  The three gigantic parking lots were mostly deserted; the bookstore was open.  A rosy grandmotherly woman in appliquéd sweater assists me.  Answering my questions, she explains that while [millionaire, multi-residenced, globetrotting] Leith Anderson is now Pastor Emeritus and no longer preachers, a committee continues its 2-3 year project of finding his permanent replacement.

Anderson is intensely status-conscious, luxuriating in his national political role.  The day after Pres. Obama revealed his new position on marriage equality, Wooddale's pastor-in-dotage issued his first tweet in a week:  1M + 1W = 1marriage.  There will be no further discussion, the great one decrees.

Anderson is treated like a US senator at Wooddale, traveling within a two-yard force-field.  To be approached by him, in the presence of others, is to have one's own status elevated.

In Jesus--he devotes considerable attention to the hypocrisy prevailing within first century religious institutions, where the rich purchased status-acknowledgement.  The messiah came to overturn all of that--and to set a standard for just and equal social treatment, supposedly.

The bookstore woman mentions Pastor Anderson did preach at a recent funeral here.  A high-status, longtime member of the church died.  Wooddale employs 15 full-time ministers not including Anderson.  To have Anderson officiate at one's funeral is perceived, within the flock, as the culminating endorsement of a life well lived.  (Accountability isn't needed, mind you, as Anderson is morally pure.) In a pamphlet:

...Woodale is associated with several ministry organizations, including the Baptist General Conference, Bethel University, the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC), the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and Transform Minnesota.

Anderson spearheads Wooddale's aggressive cultural assertion, as if from a position of self-confidence:  A place this righteous, learned, pious and well-dressed insists upon its interpretive monopoly.  Preaching happens at Wooddale, but the church also spends a lot of time telling you how to understand the experience.

The bookstore gives out a professionally-printed, multi-color study guide, to accompany Jesus.  The guide assumes the reader lacks any critical faculty--one can only respond to the words of Wooddale's Dear Leader with submission and supplication.  If you consider the book rubbish-laden, its lofty author can't be reached by people of your status:  good day!

Jesus' Waterboarders

Ventured yet further into Leith Anderson's Jesus this afternoon.  Condensing the four gospels into one, the author chooses the stories he likes best, presenting the idiosyncratic hodgepodge as holy writ.

Anderson reflects often upon contemporaries who did not embrace Jesus' teachings.  (As minister, Anderson frequently impresses upon listeners the grave danger they put themselves in should their piety flag.)  Those who question Jesus' claims are invariably evil, stupid and/or hypocritical; Anderson can envision no well-intentioned person--even a person reading the pastor's preferred narration--thinking, 'This is for the birds!'

You sense this cheers Anderson:  People who reject Jesus' message are going to be severely tortured:  Gentle Jesus' angels will one day 'sort the evil people from the righteous people, tossing the evil ones into the incinerator...' [p104]  Skeptics are 'unbelieving enemies.' [p105] 'Just as the weeds are yanked up and burned in the incinerator, that's what will happen to evil unbelievers at the end of this age.' [p106]

Demonic possession, according to Anderson, is ubiquitous in the gospels.  Crowd members are often thrust to Jesus to be exorcised, and Jesus never questions the accusation; due process apparently hadn't been invented yet.  Accusations of possession are self-proving and require no consideration--indeed, an accusation against a mute person elicits no curiosity at all:  It can only be true.  A man possessed by numerous demons--Anderson considers 6,000 plausible--has his problem solved when Jesus transfers the spirits out of the man and into 2,000 unfortunate pigs, who promptly drown themselves. [p112]

Anderson sees all, identifying closely with Jesus the celebrity and Jesus the put-upon CEO.  He understands Jesus' every wile, and can describe many subtle, regional swings in the redeemer's popularity:

What they didn't realize was that Jesus was deliberately avoiding Jerusalem...primarily because of threats against his life.  They also didn't know that Jesus' popularity was already weakening in Galilee.

Anderson's Jesus believes in collective reward and punishment.  Jesus favors the credulous minority within one ethnicity--and will condemn whole cities en masse--with Anderson's strong approval.  When Jesus does wretched stuff, Anderson cannot entertain criticism.  It must be good.

Throughout Jesus, Anderson makes many ultra-dubious historical claims.  One example:  In a footnote on p148:

Jesus had witnessed a crucifixion when he was eleven years old.  A man named Judas the Galilean led an insurrection against Roman rule.  He attacked the imperial armory at Sepphoris, only four miles away from Jesus' home in Nazareth.  The Roman response was swift and severe.  Sepphoris was burned to the ground, and all of the citizens were sold into slavery.  The two thousand rebels were crucified on the same day on crosses that lined the road near Nazareth.  Jesus' memory had been etched with the horror of crucifixion.

[Hyperlinks not in original, of course.]

Does any historian consider this credible?

Pigs and Battleships

Taking a brief siesta from baby-kissing, I took in another several chapters of Leith Anderson's 'biography' of the Lamb of God.

Anderson, Eden Prairie's highest-ranking magic specialist, orchestrates fawning media coverage for himself--posing as public intellectual, CEO and historian.  He does not respond to critics, however, and his fancily-dressed, frighteningly submissive congregation devotes most of its energy to honing various symbolic expressions of qualification-free approval.

Relating various biblical stories, Anderson reminds us again how often demonically-possessed people were brought to Jesus for exorcism.  Were someone I know to describe another person as possessed, I would need a lot of evidence prior to agreeing--and indeed suspect several obvious alternative explanations might be at work:  Perhaps the person suffers from a serious mental illness; perhaps the person holds unpopular opinions and is therefore called possessed as a means of rendering her powerless.

My skepticism would expand were the demon-possession accusation to occur in a poor, prescientific, illiterate society.  In Anderson's retelling of bible stories, he never considers that the accusations may well be false:

Jesus took immediate control, forcefully ordering him to be quiet.  Then Jesus commanded, 'Come out of him!'  The evil spirit let out a shriek, dumped the poor man on the floor, and exited his body, leaving him uninjured. [p58]

After relating the improbable-sounding, twice-removed narrative as The Truth, Anderson enters the minds of attendees:

It was a synagogue service the attendees would never forget.  They buzzed with conversation:  'What is he teaching?  He talks like he is the person in charge who has the authority and power to give orders to evil spirits.  And then they do what he tells them!' [p58]

Anderson considers all questioning to be presumptively ill-motivated:

It was a powerful speech, but it didn't persuade his critics.  To the contrary, it inflamed them all the more.  They started looking for additional evidence to accuse Jesus of wrong behavior and beliefs.  It didn't take long. [p70]

Furthermore--to Anderson--non-believers should be considered sub-human:  A page or two after insisting upon the importance of loving one's enemies, he let's us know (paraphrasing the Good Shepherd) what he thinks of skeptics:

When it comes those necessary judgments, you should avoid giving what is sacred to unbelieving dogs or what is precious to pigs.  If you don't make this judgment, you'll risk being trampled and attacked by those dogs and pigs. [p83]

As Anderson tells it, Jesus most admires uncritical acceptance--and he's willing to threaten eternal divine hatred against those who aren't willing to roll over for him:

'Whoever is not with me is against me,' he said, 'and whoever doesn't help makes things worse.  Listen to what I'm going to say because it is really important.  God will forgive every other sin and blasphemy except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Someone who speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. [p97]

The Jesus character Anderson describes, then--often referring to him as 'a celebrity'--is not an attractive figure. In addition to his hatred for disinterested reasoning, Jesus--as Anderson describes him--was able to cure the sick but often preferred not to bother.  He often reminds one of Mel Gibson, even.

Reading the book is at times interesting nonetheless; I learned Anderson's theology accepts that Jesus had siblings:

One of Jesus' disciples told him, 'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.'  Contrary to expectations, he declined to see them, asking, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?'  Then he answered his own question, pointing at his most loyal followers in the circle around him.  'These disciples are my mother and my brothers.  Anyone who does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.' [p99]

Great guy, huh?  A person so human he'll even snub his mother.

Jesus Erected

At the library today, I picked up Jesus: An Intimate Portrait of the Man, His Land, and His People by Leith Anderson--and have just read the first fifty pages.  Anderson is the recently retired, millionaire superstition expert behind High Prod Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie; he remains president of the National Association of Evangelicals.  The book came out in 2006.

Rev. Leith Anderson speaking at the interfaith press conference on 
Capitol Hill - Nov. 2, 2011, a photo by Bread for the World on Flickr.

In Jesus, Anderson seeks to 'harmonize and integrate' the four gospels, spinning them into a digestible biography.

There are obvious problems:  The 'gospels' are often in conflict with each other and with known historical facts--and often make dubious assertions.  The gospel writers do not clearly state their distance from the events they are describing.  Quotations written down long after the purported happenings--by unreliable, little-known writers--have to be treated with skepticism.

Instead of dealing honestly with the multiple challenges facing Jesus' biographer, Anderson chooses the gospel assertions he likes best, only rarely mentioning their inconsistencies.

In relating the story of Jesus' arrival, only two gospels mention the virgin birth.  The fairest way to harmonize and integrate four biographical sketches, two of which make no mention of the subject's virgin birth--it would seem to me--would be to say 'while some have claimed Jesus was born to a virgin, two of the gospels make no mention of the claim, so we ought to view it with great doubt.'

In the event, Anderson dogmatically asserts the virgin birth, without caveat, and thinks it obvious, were one to accept Jesus' virgin birth, one would then be required to accept all Christian moral claims.

Throughout the start of Jesus, Anderson imposes his idiosyncratic favoritism, choosing the stories he likes best--and almost never basing his choices in secular historical research, which he considers of no interest.  It gets worse:

Jesus [Anderson prefaces] uses a literary device currently popular in the writing of historical biography, adding descriptive language to conversations, emotions, and thought processes to facilitate the telling of the story.

When I attended a service at Wooddale, then too I noticed Anderson's willingness to concoct conversations and ascribe invented emotions and thought processes to historical figures, without factual basis.  The book's first paragraph let's us know what we're in for:

There was no good way to hurry the pregnant young bride as she traveled the caravan route from Nazareth to Bethlehem.  Her husband, Joseph, may have wanted to encourage her to greater speed, but she already was doing her best.

A footnote on page 13:

There is a tradition saying that Joseph was older than Mary and that he may have lost a first wife through death, though there is no historical evidence for such a theory.

Given that there is no historical evidence for all kinds of Anderson's story-telling:  Odd.

In his roles both as minister and author, Anderson assumes a perfect continuity between the emotional lives of ancient Jews and contemporary Eden Prairie evangelicals:

[Mary and Joseph] faced the same worries and panic shared by all parents of missing children.  Perhaps their fear was greater because they understood he was a special child who had been entrusted by God to their care.

Were an Eden Prairie blogger/congressional candidate to engage in Anderson's dishonesty and slop, he'd soon find himself a laughingstock.

Of a Down

Recently George Will paid tribute to his son Jon, who has Down Syndrome. 

With ever-decreasing risk, you can have your fetus genetically tested, identifying an array of abnormalities.  Learning that they are carrying a Down Syndrome fetus, about 90% of American women choose abortion.

And Jon was born eight months before Roe v. Wade inaugurated this era of the casual destruction of pre-born babies.

Roe v. Wade has indeed protected the right to abortion, though women choosing it do so for a variety of reasons.  Not regarding abortion as immoral, I think it best that the decision be available to--and made by--the pregnant woman.

If you believe abortion immoral, you might defend abortion's permanent legality while seeking to persuade women not to have them.  George Will opposes legal abortion and believes Roe lacked Constitutional basis--so he'd like the Supreme Court to reverse it.  Were Roe overturned, states would be able to ban abortion outright or place restrictions on it.

Will self-flatters--criticizing those who, upon learning their fetus has Downs, choose abortion.  What a 'garish flowering of the baby boomers’ vast sense of entitlement'!  '[T]he world would be improved by more people with Down syndrome,' says Will.  

I disagree.  What if science makes it easy to avoid conceiving a Down Syndrome zygote?  During the coming decades, humans are going to make profound interventions into our genetic coding:  People will be able to have all kinds of genetic errors fixed prior to reproducing--and indeed genetic improvements will become available. 

Going forward, selected genetic interventions in the human genome will far outnumber changes caused natural selection.  Human evolution--as a non-conscious process--is coming to an end.

Will believes people can't value his son while simultaneously preferring not to have Down Syndrome kids themselves.  His article has been praised by pro-lifers.  Deploying his Bill Clinton-supporting son on behalf of his effort to make expectant women wards of the state, arguing that America would benefit greatly from ten times more Down Syndrome babies, Will repels.

Rome is Spurning

The other day the Strib published Census shows newer churches are flourishing in Minnesota.  Did you know?:

While the Catholic Church remains the largest denomination nationally and in Minnesota, its membership has dropped sharply since 2000. Minnesota had 1.15 million Catholics in 2010, down 8.7 percent from 1.26 million in 2000. 

During a decade in which Minnesota's Hispanic population almost doubled, the state's Mystical Body of Christ nonetheless nosedived.  St. Patrick's--where I kneel, eying my Kindle--is noticeably older and sparser than it used to be.

Catholic affiliation will continue to decline, as the institution can't credibly embrace (to use local examples) strumming and squinting, Leith Anderson's honey-voiced corporatist shtick or Grace's Premillennialist weirdness.  Rose French writes:

The clergy sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is a likely factor behind its membership decline, Thumma and other religious scholars note.

There's more to it.  The Church's theological assertions are not remotely credible--and the Mass is extremely boring, for many.

An institution claiming a monopoly on identifying the universe's central truths gets there by insisting half of humanity be forever barred from any position of leadership.  Once this was widely accepted, then people started to think it unjust.  Now many consider it stupid and not worthy of effort to reform.

In the days of yore, the Church judged you.  Increasingly--in part due to today's bourgeois culture of flattery-exchange, often lambasted here--people feel freer to judge the church, less inclined to attribute dissatisfaction to their own ostensible depravity.

The experience of participating in a Catholic church is exceptionally insulting to the individual; the church member has almost no opportunity to participate critically.  You have to be willing to be led by stupid people.  Without polling Catholic congregants,

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis says it contributed $650,000 last year to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

The Catholic Church's options aren't at all easy. Were the Church to democratize, reverse its soup-to-nuts misogyny and sex terror, dispense with its false teachings, make the Mass less soporific etc., it wouldn't be the Catholic Church--and membership would continue to decline.

To the above-noted contradictions, a rearguard alternative is proposed--exemplified locally by Providence Academy and St. Agnes--where we try to practice yesterday's Catholicism, implicitly acknowledging  reform is impossible.  (At least it looks more authentic and aesthetically pleasing.)  Disneyfication will not work either, I'm quite sure.