Decision ‘08

Cindy Sheehan Compares Herself to Mary, Mother of Jesus

And, for good measure, she draws a parallel between guess who and the killers of Christ. I kid you not:

On Ash Wednesday of 2004, a few days before Casey left for Iraq, his dad and I went to see The Passion of the Christ. That was our Ash Wednesday penance that year. Casey’s dad fell asleep during the scourging scene while I sat in my seat and quietly sobbed. I was especially touched by the character that played Jesus’ mom who followed her son along while he was being violently tortured and killed by devious men with an evil agenda. Of course, since I became a mom over 26 years ago, I have identified with Mary as she sobbed at the foot of her sons cross and cradled his lifeless body in her arms.

I am recounting all of this, because since Casey was killed in Iraq by devious men with evil agendas, I find it extremely difficult to go to the movies.

Cindy refuses to go softly into that dark night. Hey, Cindy, your 15 minutes are up…run along now, dear…

36 Responses to “Cindy Sheehan Compares Herself to Mary, Mother of Jesus”

1 mtl Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
cindy, who…?
2 utron Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
Of course, we all know that the Jooos killed Christ. I think Lenny Bruce even admitted to it. At last, the neocon puzzle is complete…
3 Ryan Bonneville Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
McCain’s almost certainly running in 2008. We knew that already, but now we have confirmation.
4 Dennis Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Gotta love that she threw in the little zing about her ex-husband falling asleep during the scourging scene while she wept. Because apparently no one feels pain as deeply as she does.

I’m surprised she identifies with Mary, since she clearly likes to put herself on the cross…
5 The Political Teen Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Cindy Sheehan Says She is Mary, Mother of God

…
6 louielouie Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
mary?
media prostitute that she is, i would think mary magdalen is more appropo.
7 AcademicElephant Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Louie: Mary Magdalen was framed. How about Jael, the wife of Heber? She was pretty nasty.
8 peter Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
OK, so Cindy Sheehan is a wacko, and has thoroughly discredited herself. Let’s move on to a more interesting question. George Bush was quoted as saying that he picked Miers because of her evangelical beliefs. Do you think this is a valid criterion? Moreover, place yourself in the position of an Iraqi citizen. Would you regard the American occupation any differently if you learned that the President chooses judges based on how faithful they are to Christian beliefs?

Or consider these questions: the Senate recently overruled Bush by a 90-9 margin when they insisted on a published code of conduct prohibiting torture in the interrogation and detainment of prisoners. Do you feel that it is wrong to torture enemy combatants? (If no: do you feel that Bush’s demands to allow torture are helpful? If yes: how do you feel about American POW’s being tortured?) Again, put yourself in the shoes of the Iraqi citizen. How would you regard the American occupation if you learned that the President lobbied to allow US soldiers to torture prisoners?

Cindy Sheehan is a sideshow whose time came and went. If she thinks she is Mary, God help her. I don’t care about her personal religious beliefs – however I care greatly about the President’s religious beliefs (or, more precisely, how those beliefs affect his actions and policies). Isn’t this the more important issue?
9 Mark Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
peter, you could say Bush is shamelessly playing the religion card; I’m a Bush fan, but not a sycophant or an apologist. Bush’s own words are that he is telling people about her religious beliefs because they are a part of her life. Now, that’s a tad sneaky (I think we all know he’s sending a signal to his religious supporters), but it’s not a call for a theocracy, and it doesn’t quite live up to the billing you give it.

Now, the torture thing is abhorent to all of us; however, there is a growing literature of people on both the right and left who say that limited ‘pressure’ techniques, techniques that don’t cause lasting physical harm, are, as disgusting as they seem to all civilized people, at least worthy of discussion. I’m not advocating torture, or even these limited pressure techniques, but let’s not get carried away and suggest that the U.S. is advocating torture. I think we as a society are trying to figure out where to draw the line post 9/11, if the line needs to be moved…

As to Sheehan - hey, I wish she’d go away, too, and I said so in the post…however, I didn’t dig that up from a private investigator, it’s featured prominently as a new post at Huff’n'Puff. Just thought my readers would like to know…and it looks like I was correct…
10 peter Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Re your first point: I don’t think Bush is calling for a theocracy, but using religious belief as a justification is tantamount to saying that one set of religious beliefs is superior to other beliefs (or the lack of belief, for that matter).

I think the more troubling thing, however, is the perception in the Arab world. I was stunned by Karen Hughes’s recent trip to the Middle East. She had two big cards to play: she could have told her audiences that Americans rushed to aid Muslims after the tsunami hit (and she could have added that Clinton sent in troops to protect Muslims from ethnic “cleansing” in Bosnia). Secondly, she could have reminded her audiences that American pressure helped get the Israelis to withdraw from Gaza. Instead, if press reports are accurate, these two cards were unplayed, and instead she told the Saudi women how wonderful it is to be able to drive a car and vote, and wouldn’t they prefer to live as we do?

What does this have to do with Bush and Miers? We don’t like to be lectured by the government in our own country, so why people in other countries would want to be lectured is beyond me. Beyond that, put yourself in the mindframe of a people whose history has been shaped first by European (religious) crusaders and then by colonialists. You have seen your neighboring country invaded by an Americans whose stated aim is to install a Western political system. The President’s emissary just came and went and made speeches trying to install Western cultural values. Now the President is quoted as using a Christian religious litmus test for picking a Supreme Court justice. How would you feel?

We’ll never win the war on terrorists with guns and ammo – there are too many of them and they are too hard to find. This is a hearts and minds war. How can we possibly win this war?

Re torture: we could disagree about how to define torture – it’s OK if Sipowicz does it on NYPD Blue, but not OK if you water-board someone so he thinks he will drown. Or whatever. The question is not what the definition is – rather, it is whether it ought to be defined and prohibited. George Bush answers this question with a no. In my opinion, this is a grievous mistake.

In my mind, the crux of the issue of terror is the ticking time bomb question (if you held a suspect who knew where a bomb was placed and could only get that information through torture, would it be justifiable to torture the individual because of the greater good of saving lives?).

I believe the answer is no. In the Brothers Karamazov, the saintly brother was asked if he had the power to end all suffering in the world by torturing a small baby to death, would he do it? He said no. I think that is the right answer.
11 peter Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
To make the point more clearly: if we do not define and prohibit torture, we are, in effect, advocating it. We torture enemy combatants (broadly defined) overseas, and we also hand them to other countries to be tortured. We therefore condone the practice (and the difference between condoning something and advocating it is a distinction without a difference). The only way to eradicate this stain is to explicitly condemn and forbid it. I’m grateful that 90% of the Senate appears to agree.
12 mtl Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
It’s a wash. Democrats use race, Bush uses religion.
13 T. Longren Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
Cindy, Mother of Jesus

Sorry, I know I said I was done before, but Cindy Sheehan is a great source of entertainment, so I’m gonna put her to use. She’s comparing herself to Mary, Mother of Jesus. And while she’s doing that, she relates “devious men…
14 The Political Teen » Cindy Sheehan Says She is Mary, Mother of God Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
[…] (via Decision ‘08) […]
15 Mark Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
peter, the torture thing is interesting…but I’m gonna give you the last word for now because you quoted the great Dostoyevski…it’s about time I begin to reread all his books, I think…

I’ll admit to not paying the Karen Hughes trip much attention…perhaps I should have…I do recall she did not get rave reviews…
16 peter Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
If you want to cheat, the torture question is at the very end of the legend of the Grand Inquisitor…
17 Inside Larry's head Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Mother Sheehan and The Passion

Mother Sheehan shows us more proof that The Passion of the Christ leads to mental illness ( hat tip Decision 08)
18 Chris J. Breisch Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Of course she’s right, though. Her son was killed by “devious men with evil agendas”. That’s as good a description for “terrorist” as I’ve ever heard.
19 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » It Comes and Goes, Like the Seasons (or Really Bad Poetry)… Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
[…] I’m blessed right now to be riding one of the hot streaks: my post on the RNC conference call and the Mother Sheehan / Mother Mary post are ranked #3 and #5, respectively, at Blogniscient among political posts, and my Weekly Jackass piece on Harold Pinter is getting good play, too. […]
20 Mark Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 10:11 pm
Chris, indeed…right concept, wrong men…
21 Jeff Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Peter: Actually, I’m afraid I do believe it is quite wonderful for women to be allowed to drive a car, and vote. And more specifically, it should never cross our minds to censure the promotion of such obvious (as I’m sure we can all agree) rights. Should it?

Additionally, I question your assertion that the mindset of the Arab world has been shaped “first by European (religious) crusaders and then by colonialists.” Ah, colonialists! The Islamic world has contributed nothing of any lasting value in the last 400 years or so. Your very comfortable life is due to the scientific and political ideals of the Enlightenment. If you want to don your sandals and your wife her burqa, and move to Damascus, be my guest. I’ll stick with Locke, Newton, Mill, Intel and Microsoft, thank you.
22 Mark Says:
October 13th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Jeff, wouldn’t Locke, Newton, and Mill be a good name for a law firm?…
23 Jeff Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 9:24 am
I’d hire’em! Can you imagine Ronnie Earle’s face if those guys strolled in behind Delay? On second thought, Earle probably hasn’t heard of them.
24 Knemon Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 10:52 am
“Jael, the wife of Heber”

Is she the one who kills a guy with a tent peg? The Old Testament, brought to you by Quentin Tarantino.

*

You know, my aunt married a Saudi a few years ago. She likes the whole not-having-to-drive thing.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

(I am not making this up).
25 Knemon Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 10:54 am
(of course, had she married a less-than-well-off Saudi, if indeed there are such, it wouldn’t be not “having” to drive, it’d be not “able” to drive. So that probably has something to do with it).
26 Knemon Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 11:00 am
“In the Brothers Karamazov, the saintly brother was asked if he had the power to end all suffering in the world by torturing a small baby to death, would he do it? He said no. I think that is the right answer.”

It’s an open question - not the specific baby example, but whether we should take it as the right answer, full stop. Alyosha is the moral heart of the novel, but he’s also an ineffective drip who doesn’t accomplish anything except make a dying kid feel a little better - a noble act, granted, but hardly a model for how to live in the world. He’s got a monk’s conscience, a reflective, detached sense of the fragility and beauty of life. That’s what you want in a poet, a teacher, a preacher. Not a President. We need Mother Theresas, but we also need Reagans (or FDRs, take your pick).

And there are negative sides to his personality. He reacts in horror to his brother’s story about the Inquisitior, but it’s Alyosha’s own suspicions of his worldly family members that drive the false detective story that passes for a plot.

Of the three brothers, right-wingers follow the older brother accused of murder as an archetype, liberals” in the modern sense the younger, “saintly” brother, and “liberals” in the classical sense the scribbling, cynical, melancholy middle brother.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.
27 peter Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 11:00 am
Jeff: we both agree that women should drive cars and vote. People in Saudi Arabia may or may not agree with us – given the fact that they have organized their society differently, my guess is that most people there don’t agree with us. Where I disagree with you is that I do not believe that our government has any business telling other people how they should live. I don’t care to be lectured by (for example) the French on how Americans ought to act – I doubt the Saudis are any more enthusiastic about hearing us tell them how they could be better if they were more like us.

Whether the Arab world contributed anything in 400 years or whether progress came as a result of the Enlightenment has no relevance here. My point was simply the historical fact that various armies have gone through the Middle East over the past few millennia, and their worldview was shaped as a result of that. Our country has never been invaded – theirs have. So their perception of an American occupation of an Arab land would be a little different than someone from, say, Canada.

I didn’t say that Western culture is better or worse than Arab culture – nor did I say they were equal – rather, I said that it is not our role (or our government’s role) to lecture them on how their values would be better if they were closer to ours. And it is emphatically not our role during a time when our soldiers are on their soil and our tensions with the Arab people are as bad as they have probably ever been.
28 Mark Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 11:06 am
peter, I admit to being sympathetic to your argument, but ultimately, I think, it is our role…not in the sense of cramming it down their throats, but in the sense of promoting a more humane system of government. It reminds me of people who say ‘you can’t legislate morality’, as if we don’t do that constantly (theft, murder, hate crime legislation, etc.).

So it’s no use saying we can’t tell other countries how to handle their affairs (human rights campaigns by Jimmy Carter, anyone?). We simply must push the Middle East to adopt values closer to ours (not ours, America’s, but ours, modern, capitalistic democracies). The question is how best to do so without alienating everyone in sight…it’s a tricky business, to be sure…
29 peter Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Knemon: very interesting post, and there is much to be said for this point of view. I wouldn’t want to pit Alyosha up against Joseph Stalin. Still, I think the torture issue is a much more important question than whether Cindy Sheehan is a moonbat or a wombat or whatever. This is a real decision which people in power have to make, and it ought to be informed by intelligent debate.
30 peter Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Well, we do legislate morality, and you could argue that law is nothing more than the codification of a society’s moral code. My suggestion is that it should stop at our borders. Democracy and freedom are wonderful things which will spread on their own. I believe that U.S. government efforts to push this by sending emissaries abroad to market these ideals can only be counter-productive.
31 Jeff Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Peter: Certainly I don’t advocate sending in the Marines to give Saudi women the vote. On the other hand I think taking your national sovereignity argument to its extreme gives results like Rwanda.

Sorry if I tried to extrapolate your argument beyond its elastic limit. For sure, extreme moral certainty can be just as dangerous as extreme cultural relativism, but I still prefer Wolfowitz’s approach to Kissinger’s.
32 mtl Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
“In the Brothers Karamazov, the saintly brother was asked if he had the power to end all suffering in the world by torturing a small baby to death, would he do it? He said no. I think that is the right answer.”

If you gave me a lab coat, designed medical instruments, developed a ‘procedure’, wrote laws protecting it, developed a culture that accepted it, and made it part of a ‘mother right to choose’- I suppose I could put a screwdriver in the back of a baby’s head. Would that meet the Karamazov definition?

Silly me, it isn’t alive til it’s outside the womb. Wonder whether dostoevsky would have the same take…
33 peter Says:
October 14th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
I agree: results like Rwanda will occur. I don’t mean to sound unfeeling towards the Rwandese (Rwandarians?), but history is filled with societies which were brutal, genocidal, and ruthless. Russia under Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under the Kims, etc. The question is what, if anything, the American government should do about it.

My opinion: economic leverage is a great thing to use when used properly. We do not have to trade with every nation in the world. I have no problem with using American trade policy and tariffs as levers to reward friends and punish foes. For example, I think we are right not to trade with Cuba.

I think the use of American military power is justifiable when it stops mass murder or genocide, as in Bosnia. Then the question becomes: how do you determine in which instances American force should be applied. I think the answer here depends on the circumstances: what is the risk to American lives, how likely are we to be successful, etc. Maybe these criteria say Bosnia yes, Rwanda no.

However, the point of my earlier post is that in no circumstances should we send emissaries abroad to lecture other people how they should restructure their societies. If we spend American blood and treasure to save lives abroad, we add to our moral standing and influence throughout the world. If we send messengers to give speeches, we invite the world’s contempt.
34 Knemon Says:
October 15th, 2005 at 12:18 am
“I wouldn’t want to pit Alyosha up against Joseph Stalin. Still, I think the torture issue is a much more important question than whether Cindy Sheehan is a moonbat or a wombat or whatever.”

Peter: i totally agree. While you and I probably come at it from different angles, the conclusion is the same: the media are engaging in a punch-and-judy show with many hydra heads, from Michael Moore to Cindy Sheehand to, god love him, Oliver North. (That’s not even going into Aruba). Some might think they’re carrying water for the administration, I see them as profit- and scandal-driven camera vultures.

If Sheehan and pals would realize that we are in a new historical moment, and a revamped 60s Magical Mystery Tour will break like a fart in a windstorm …

… and if the Administration had had the moral courage to, from the beginning, be honest about this war, its origins [see, I sound like a wombat myself here, except I wanted to hear less, not more, arguments made for the war] and its duration …

The conversation we’d be having would be a serious one.
Instead we are all reduced to groping at different parts of the elephant - while events unfold at dizzying speed.

The Alyosha-Stalin death match is an interesting point, and reminiscent of hypothetical Ghandi-Nazi matchups. You can’t rollerskate in a buffalo herd. We should be alarmed at any instances of torture, and guard against the slippery slope, but we can’t come into this with historical naivetee.

Our soldiers abused prisoners at Nuremberg, too. Big time. It’s something that should always be prosecuted, and I’d agree that it’s not being prosecuted sufficiently under this administration, but again, we draw different conclusions - where some might see a sinister conspiracy, I see a disorganized, desperate, bad-at-PR (and, just like their domestic critics, naive, just in another way) group of people in what they see as a fight for the fate of the world.

I see it as that, too, and there were reasons to see it as such well before September 11th. The Second Hundred Years’ War is not over yet - it’s wrong to see this either as a result of recent wars and policies, but equally wrong to see it as the most recent phase of some eternal Jihad.

What it is is a civil war within the (post)modern West, catching up to the neglected corners of the world three generations later. Islam is just the olive in the martini.
35 peter Says:
October 15th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Knemon: I (almost) completely agree with you. A (nearly) Kumbaya moment. My only nits:

1) People like Cindy Sheehan become the pinata or the hero of the day — depending on your perspective — because they symbolize a controversy, and the heat of the controversy draws viewers and readers. It’s easier for many people to argue about Terri Schiavo than abstractions like what is the legitimate role of the state in end of life issues. So even if they become caracatured and distorted in the media, I think there is some value because it provokes people to think about issues which otherwise would be largely ignored.

I also think there are media which discuss and analyze issues intelligently: the Economist, the New York Times Sunday magazine, and the Wall Street Journal come to mind. Also, I think, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and (until now) Ted Koppel. When you screen out the noise of the screamers and chest thumpers on cable talk shows, I think there is a lot of substance around.

2) I don’t see a sinister conspiracy regarding torture, but I think you let Rumsfeld and Cheney off the hook too easily. We are quite visibly ignoring human rights and Geneva Conventions by incarcerating people at Gitmo and elsewhere with no charges against them. Our government’s laissez-faire approach to torture is equally evident in its use of extraordinary rendition. Soldiers of rank were not punished for Abu Ghraib, despite the fact that in the military responsibility goes up the chain of command. I belive that Cheney and Rumsfeld are culpable both because of these events (acts of commission) but also because they did not provide explicit guidelines to soldiers on where the limits are (an act of omission). If you do not restrain adrenalized twenty-somethings in war from doing what to some comes naturally, you are culpable for their actions. So I don’t see it as naivete or ineptitude at PR: I belive it is wrong and (dare I say it) evil — not to mention entirely counter-productive.

Aside from those minor things, however, I believe that your points are perceptive and right on the money –
36 Knemon Says:
October 16th, 2005 at 6:12 am
“I think you let Rumsfeld and Cheney off the hook too easily.”

You’re probably right. I guess you go to war with the administration you have, not the one you wish you had?

I know that’s not a very good response.

I like your list of media and would add the Weekly Standard - it’s as predictable in its own way as Time and Newsweek, only difference is it’s got really smart, talented people working for it and unlike T&N it doesn’t sufficate them with a dumbed-down regime of relentless editorial cheer.

Hey, the sooner we can get through the “war” phase and into the “recriminations” phase, the happier I’ll be. I just think it’s prudent to wait for phase II … however, modern communications tech has rendered the two indistinct.

Kumbayaaaaaa, my lord … kumbayaaaaaaaaaaa ….