tagentially related to education and this board

[kber <kber@EARTHLINK.NET>]

Ashcroft demonstrates his limitations in a recent statement by our
Attorney General which would exclude from his understanding as civilized
people well over two billion people in nations such as India, Japan
China, Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar,
etc...    I have included in the body of the e-mail, below, an article
that appeared in the New Republic.    I realize that some on this board
may think I am stretching its limits.  But given the influence over
education nationally sought by this administration, and given the the
Department of Justice often offers advisory opinions that guide all
departments of the government in their actions, I think it important
that the public statements of major figures in the government be known,
so we can see where they might possibly be leading us.

I realize that some will say Ashcroft's personal beliefs shoulld make no
difference in how he enforces the law.  IN an ideal world I would agree
with you, but I think his actions to date have clearly demonstrated, on
more than one occasion, in more than one area over which he seeks to
assert sawy, that his eprsonal beliefs clearly influence his public and
official actions even when he claims they do not, and even when
seemingly settled law is being overturned by his actions.

The article also discusses in more details some of the owrds and actions
of Bush and others in the adminstration.  But when I read the oeprable
words in Ashcroft's sentence, I could not help but think how limited the
world view and understanding is of many of  our nations leaders.  I am
reminded that Bush did not realize how offensive his use of the word
"crusade" would be to people in the Middle East, for example.  Anyhow, I
have enclosed the entire article for those who are interested.  I
precede the article with my response to the person who forwarded the
article to me.   Skip over my words if you like - I won't be offended.

Ken Bernstein

My words:

"Ashcroft may have in that speech done a major blunder by eliminating
over two
billion people in some of the most important countries in the world as
not civilized.   His words were, in the article you sent me:

"Civilized individuals, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all understand
that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator."


I will stick only to major religious traditions.  He has eliminated from

civilized individuals those who are Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Confucian,
and Taoist from consideration as civilized.

Let's consider the following.

What we call "Arabic numerals" are actually from India, transmitted to
the West by the Arabs at a time when Europe was still wrestling with
Roman numerals, and lacked both the concept of zero and the concept of
negative numbers.  India has a population of over one billion, of whom
approximately 800 million would not qualify as civilized by Ashcroft's
reasoning.

China has well over one billion residents.  It has one of the world's
oldest civilizations, and tends to look down its nose at us in the West
for how late we were to come to anything resembling civilization.  The
vast majority of its residents would not qualify under Ashcroft's
reasoning.

Japan, like China, one of the world's most important nations, had 125
million people in the census of 1995, of whom at least 100 million, and
probably far more, would not qualify as civilized under Ashcroft's
reasoning.

Other countries omitted by this definition include Thailand (60 million
people), Sri Lanka (18 million), Myanmar (50 million)... you get the
picture.  Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia -  for all of them, the
majority of their people would be excluded.

What an ignorant and pompous ass.

Of course, he was not appointed attorney general because of his
knowledge of world populations, religions and cultures.  Unfortunately,
to date his demonstrated knowledge and understanding of law and
constitution are about on a par with what is demonstrated here."



The article:


                      TRB FROM WASHINGTON
                      Bad Faith
                      by Peter Beinart

                      Post date 03.18.02 | Issue date 03.25.02


                      A month or so ago, in a speech to the National
Religious Broadcasters' annual
                      convention, Attorney General John Ashcroft said
the following: "Civilized
                      individuals, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all
understand that the source of
                      freedom and human dignity is the Creator.
Governments may guard freedom.
                      Governments don't grant freedom. All people are
called to the defense of the
                      Grantor of freedom, and the framework of freedom
He created." And with those
                      words, Ashcroft encapsulated everything that is
admirable, and everything that is
                      awful, about the Bush administration's
understanding of religion in the United
                      States.

                      Conservatives seemed genuinely puzzled by the
outcry over Ashcroft's words. "I
                      think General Ashcroft was quite inclusive," said
Ken Connor, president of the
                      Family Research Council. "He made reference to
Christians, Jews, and Muslims
                      all recognizing the Creator as the origin of
freedom." And in a sense, Connor
                      was right. Not long ago a conservative cabinet
member from a conservative
                      administration, speaking before a conservative
Christian audience, might not
                      have mentioned Jews and almost certainly wouldn't
have mentioned Muslims.
                      Ashcroft was being ecumenical in a way that, say,
Ed Meese probably wouldn't
                      have been.

                      One reason is that the United States is more
religiously diverse than it was two
                      decades ago--Muslims, for instance, played a role
in George W. Bush's electoral
                      considerations in 2000 in a way they never did for
Ronald Reagan. Another
                      reason, of course, is September 11. Respect for
American Muslims is now a
                      critical component of American foreign policy.

                      But I don't think Ashcroft's ecumenicism is purely
instrumental; I think he
                      genuinely believes it. As TNR's Gregg Easterbrook
and others have noted,
                      conflict between religious denominations has
declined in recent years as
                      traditionalists from various faiths have joined in
solidarity against what they
                      perceive as a growing secular threat. Conservative
Catholics and Southern
                      Baptists have put aside their theological
hostility to make common cause against
                      abortion. Evangelicals and Orthodox Jews have come
together to push for
                      government support of religious education. And the
affinity isn't only political;
                      it's cultural as well. Writing in TNR last
January, my friend Tevi Troy, an
                      Orthodox Jew and former Ashcroft aide, noted that
Ashcroft probably employed
                      more Orthodox Jewish staffers than any other
senator. "[A]s a devout person,"
                      Troy wrote, Ashcroft "feels an affinity to other
believers."

                      The same goes for Ashcroft's boss, President Bush.
After September 11, any
                      American president would have insisted that most
American Muslims do not
                      support terrorism. But Bush, as TNR's Franklin
Foer has noted, made a particular
                      point of absolving Islam itself. Influenced by
conservative intellectuals who
                      argue that nothing truly religious can be evil,
Bush quoted the Koran and declared
                      that "Islam is peace." Last November, Bush hosted
the first-ever White House
                      dinner marking the start of Ramadan. Muslim
dignitaries were invited to pray in
                      the East Reception Room before listening to Bush
tell the assembled that
                      "America seeks peace with people of all faiths."

                      And with that line, Bush exhibited the same moral
blindness as his attorney
                      general. Of course the United States seeks peace
with people of all faiths. But
                      what about people of no faith at all? In fact, the
Bush administration never
                      mentions nonbelievers; it never suggests that
they, too, possess a moral sense
                      that leads them to abhor terrorism and defend
freedom. To the contrary, Bush
                      has said, "The true strength of America lies in
the fact that we are a faithful
                      America by and large." He has described the job of
political leaders as "call[ing]
                      upon the love that exists not because of
government, that exists because of a
                      gracious and loving God." As Vice President Cheney
put it last year, "Every great
                      and meaningful achievement in this life requires
the active involvement of the
                      One who placed us here for a reason."

                      Don't get me wrong. It's perfectly fine for Bush,
Ashcroft, and Cheney to
                      declare their faith. It's even fine for them to
speak about the good they believe
                      religion does in the world. But Tony Blair has
done that as well, and yet he's also
                      said, "This atrocity is an attack on us all, on
people of all faiths and on people
                      of none." As far as I can tell (and the website
beliefnet.com chronicles George
                      W.'s statements on religion), President Bush has
never uttered a similar thought.
                      And when he and his top advisers, in hundreds and
hundreds of statements,
                      never miss an opportunity to exclude nonbelievers,
it's hard to believe the
                      exclusion is purely accidental. Consider, again,
Ashcroft's speech last month:
                      "Civilized individuals, Christians, Jews, and
Muslims, all understand that the
                      source of freedom and human dignity is the
Creator.... All people are called to
                      the defense of the Grantor of freedom...." Are
individuals who don't see "the
                      Creator" as "the source of freedom and human
dignity" uncivilized? And how
                      can "all people" be "called to the defense of the
Grantor of freedom" if some
                      people do not believe the Grantor exists? In
lauding the attorney general's
                      ecumenicism, conservatives ducked the real issue:
that for this administration,
                      celebrating the dignity of all believers has
become a way to impugn the dignity of
                      those who believe in no religion at all.

                      Politically, there are reasons for the Bush
administration's behavior. While as
                      many as 14 percent of Americans profess no faith,
they are so unpopular among
                      the population at large that affirming their
decency is far more politically perilous
                      than affirming the decency of Jews or Muslims. An
April 2001 survey by the
                      Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life revealed that
66 percent of Americans
                      viewed atheists unfavorably--almost twice the
percentage that held a negative
                      view of Muslims. And a survey that same year by
the Kaiser Foundation, The
                      Washington Post, and Harvard University found that
69 percent of Americans
                      would be bothered by a close family member
marrying an atheist.

                      There are ideological reasons as well. Many
cultural conservatives equate
                      secularism with relativism, and they genuinely
believe that religion is the only
                      source of morality. I think that's theoretically
simplistic and empirically absurd--I
                      doubt atheists and agnostics lie, cheat, steal, or
fly airplanes into skyscrapers any
                      more than anyone else. But if Bush and Ashcroft
really think that, then they
                      should have the courage to say it, and open up
their arguments to scrutiny and
                      rebuttal. What they are doing instead is worse:
implicitly writing atheists and
                      agnostics out of America's moral community. When
they describe the country
                      they love, they describe a place where people of
different faiths live in harmony
                      and equality, and where people who follow no faith
simply do not exist.

                      Speaking last month in Beijing, President Bush
declared: "Freedom of religion is
                      not something to be feared; it's to be welcomed,
because faith gives us a moral
                      core." No, freedom of religion is to be welcomed
because it allows some people
                      to practice their faith--and, through it, to find
a moral core. And it allows others
                      to find a moral core far from churches and
synagogues and mosques--secure in
                      the knowledge that their government considers them
just as civilized, and just as
                      American, as anyone else.

                      PETER BEINART is the editor of TNR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.