Quoted article:

You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.

These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took.

Like ideologues everywhere, they scorned compromise. When John Boehner, the House speaker, tried to cut a deal with President Obama that included some modest revenue increases, they humiliated him. After this latest agreement was finally struck on Sunday night — amounting to a near-complete capitulation by Obama — Tea Party members went on Fox News to complain that it only called for $2.4 trillion in cuts, instead of $4 trillion. It was head-spinning.

All day Monday, the blogosphere and the talk shows mused about which party would come out ahead politically. Honestly, who cares? What ought to matter is not how these spending cuts will affect our politicians, but how they’ll affect the country. And I’m not even talking about the terrible toll $2.4 trillion in cuts will take on the poor and the middle class. I am talking about their effect on America’s still-ailing economy.

America’s real crisis is not a debt crisis. It’s an unemployment crisis. Yet this agreement not only doesn’t address unemployment, it’s guaranteed to make it worse. (Incredibly, the Democrats even abandoned their demand for extended unemployment benefits as part of the deal.) As Mohamed El-Erian, the chief executive of the bond investment firm Pimco, told me, fiscal policy includes both a numerator and a denominator. “The numerator is debt,” he said. “But the denominator is growth.” He added, “What we have done is accelerate forward, in a self-inflicted manner, the numerator. And, in the process, we have undermined the denominator.” Economic growth could have gone a long way toward shrinking the deficit, while helping put people to work. The spending cuts will shrink growth and raise the likelihood of pushing the country back into recession.

Inflicting more pain on their countrymen doesn’t much bother the Tea Party Republicans, as they’ve repeatedly proved. What is astonishing is that both the president and House speaker are claiming that the deal will help the economy. Do they really expect us to buy that? We’ve all heard what happened in 1937 when Franklin Roosevelt, believing the Depression was over, tried to rein in federal spending. Cutting spending spiraled the country right back into the Great Depression, where it stayed until the arrival of the stimulus package known as World War II. That’s the path we’re now on. Our enemies could not have designed a better plan to weaken the American economy than this debt-ceiling deal.

One thing Roosevelt did right during the Depression was legislate into being a social safety net to soften the blows that a free-market economy can mete out in tough times. During this recession, it’s as if the government is going out of its way to make sure the blows are even more severe than they have to be. The debt-ceiling debate reflects a harsher, less empathetic America. It’s sad to see.

My own view is that Obama should have played the 14th Amendment card, using its language about “the validity of the public debt” to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. Yes, he would have infuriated the Republicans, but so what? They already view him as the Antichrist. Legal scholars believe that Congress would not have been able to sue to overturn his decision. Inexplicably, he chose instead a course of action that maximized the leverage of the Republican extremists.

Assuming the Senate passes the bill on Tuesday, the debt ceiling will be a nonissue until after the next election. But the debilitating deficit battles are by no means over. Thanks to this deal, a newly formed supercommittee of Congress is supposed to target another $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in cuts by late November. If those cuts don’t become law by Dec. 23, automatic across-the-board cuts will be imposed, including deep reductions in defense spending.

As has been explained ad nauseam, the threat of defense cuts is supposed to give the Republicans an incentive to play fair with the Democrats in the negotiations. But with our soldiers still fighting in Afghanistan, which side is going to blink if the proposed cuts threaten to damage national security? Just as they did with the much-loathed bank bailout, which most Republicans spurned even though financial calamity loomed, the Democrats will do the responsible thing. Apparently, that’s their problem.

For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They’ll have them on again soon enough. After all, they’ve gotten so much encouragement.

Now, of course, I have no intentions of burning the Bible. I have a deep, abiding love for the scriptures. To this day, when I hold the Bible in my hands, its sacredness makes me tremble. I can never think of the Bible except I think that through it God is calling me to be more than I am. The Bible coaxes me to forgive, to love my neighbor and even my enemy, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, to trust in the loving presence of God through whom all things are possible and through whom I may live and move and have my being. None of these things come naturally. Be I alone, they are beyond me. The sacred scriptures are one instrument by which God intends to make more of me than I am. Burning the Bible would incinerate my soul, for it would be to deny God’s claim on me.

The scriptures of every religious tradition create such responses. The Quran of Islam, the Torah of Judaism, the Sutras of Buddhism–and all the others, too–are holy. To burn any of them is an unthinkable atrocity. Nonetheless, the scriptures of most traditions have been marshaled for terrible purposes; certainly the Bible and the Quran have. The scriptures of every tradition call their followers beyond themselves, beyond their own possibilities, beyond and their own greed and self-centeredness, beyond their fear and prejudice. But these human failings are nothing if they are not enduring, inventive and seductive. Our most egregious human instincts, given half a chance, will trick us into believing that our scriptures call us to hatred, condemnation and vengeance. It’s enough to make you want to burn the books–until you remember that the books would call us to be better than we are. It is our sin, if you will, that gives voice to our worst selves.

So, let’s not burn the Bible, or the Quran, or any other holy book. Indeed, let us remind ourselves that, as the Bible would say it, the very idea comes from that within us which is corrupt, not from God.

The link to the petition is: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tobigotrynosanction/

I’ve pasted the text here for your convenience as well:

“To Bigotry No Sanction, to Persecution No Assistance”

A Call to Citizens, Elected Officials, Journalists and Religious Communities to End the Current Wave of Fear and Bigotry Against Islam from Massachusetts Interfaith Leaders (September 7, 2010)

Massachusetts knows too well the painful and dangerous effects of religious bigotry, persecution, and intolerance. American Indians, so-called witches, Quakers, Baptists, Jews, Roman Catholics and others have borne the brunt of fears that bear no connection to reality. Such a danger looms again. We must not succumb.

Standing on the Statehouse grounds at the statue of Mary Dyer – Quaker, heroine of religious freedom, and martyr to religious intolerance – we call upon citizens, elected officials, journalists and religious communities to pause, take stock, search our collective heart and soul, and here and now to resolve to end the surge of hatred and fear against Islam and Muslim Americans.

Addressing the matter of religious liberty, President George Washington in 1790 wrote to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island confirming that ours is “a Government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

Thomas Jefferson said of religious freedom that it was “among the most inestimable of our blessings;” (Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom).

Katherine Lee Bates called upon the Author of the Universe to confirm this nation’s soul “in self-control,” and our “liberty in law” (God Bless America).

The current anti-Islamic climate is an attack not only on Muslim Americans, but also on this nation’s most basic principles. There is no small irony in that we are being urged to sacrifice these principles in the name of “patriotism” and “national identity.”

If today’s controversy were focused solely on the proposed Islamic center and mosque in Manhattan, that would be distressing enough. It is not. There are some ten or twelve proposed Islamic centers and mosques across the nation, and all have met with vitriol and resistance.

As people of faith and principle we cannot remain silent in the midst of the fear-filled suspicion and vilification of the Islamic community that is sweeping the nation. As members of the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or other faith traditions we share a sacred call to welcome strangers, not fear them; seek to recognize the presence of the divine in all whom we meet, and be instruments of love and reconciliation with all whom we interact.

Thus, with deep compassion for the families of the victims of 9/11 and for the enduring pain of all Americans, and with urgency and deep concern for this nation and for its people, we the undersigned affirm the following:

AN INTERFAITH PLEDGE

WE CONDEMN all terrorists and all terrorist acts, whether committed in the name of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion or creed;

WE KNOW that the terrorists who committed the heinous crimes of 9/11 were extremists who call themselves Muslim; in no way did they represent the vast majority of Muslims in this country or in the world;

WE AFFIRM that Islam, present in America even before the official establishment of this nation, is an integral part of the American interfaith mosaic, and that Muslims contribute great value to both our interfaith endeavors and our civil society;

WE ARE PAINED that emnity against Muslim Americans is disfiguring our national soul, is life-threatening to Muslims, and bears the potential of turning good-hearted people against their neighbors;

WE RESPECT the Constitutional and human rights of members of all religious groups to practice their faith, including the equal right to build places of worship unimpaired by the influence of favoritism, bigotry, or discrimination; and

WE CONDEMN –-in general, and in the particular context of attacks on the Park 51 Project—the cynical use of misinformation and fear-mongering by various politicians, commentators, and media outlets, to stir up anti-Muslim prejudice for political or other ends;

WE APPLAUD all efforts to build meaningful, honest, and enduring inter-religious and inter-cultural relationships; and

WE DENOUNCE the use of innuendo, stereotype, or misinformation that promotes fear, distrust, or hatred of Muslims, Jews, Christians, or any other religious or ethnic group;

WE CALL upon this great nation whose soul is tempered by law, to reaffirm the deeply held values of diversity and pluralism as intrinsic to our national character and to stand firm upon the First Amendment and its beautiful, unequivocal guarantee of civil liberties and freedom of religion.

THEREFORE, we the undersigned pledge the following:

WE PLEDGE to confront instances of bigotry against any religious or ethnic group whenever and wherever we find them, and call upon all those who disparage entire groups on account of the acts of a few to look deeply within themselves, and to stop; and

WE PLEDGE to work actively to break down barriers amongst the various communities of belief in our city –and beyond –and to replace those barriers with mutual respect, understanding, and an outstretched hand

It would be hard not to draw at least some parallels in the desire of a Muslim group to place a mosque and Islamic center 600 feet from 9/11 ground zero.  After all, the attacks were promulgated by people who are clear in their hatred of the United States and in their desire to exterminate it, and they have explicitly claimed Islamic beliefs to be the basis for the “jihad.”  One would best be careful about drawing the parallels too far.  The sheer magnitude of the Holocaust incomparable, for example.  But a call for a certain sensitivity to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and who, even if they didn’t, remain targeted by violence in the name of the religion that wishes to place clear religious symbol so close is understandable.

The complexity and the incendiary feelings the situations arouse call for care and thoughtfulness, and a willingness to make subtle but important distinctions.  It seems clear that sensitivity to the pain that both Auschwitz and ground zero represent is, without question, called for.  The question is, should that sensitivity preclude the placement of such things as the cross at Auschwitz and a mosque at ground zero.  I’m not asking about the right to do it.  At least in the United States the Constitution guarantees the right, it seems clear.  Nor am I asking whether it is wise, if by being wise we mean that we should expect it to be readily accepted.  I am asking whether it is wise for any group, no matter how egregiously offended they are, to refuse the overtures of those they associate with the violence.  That is, is it wise to allow the pain to raise a wall?

I don’t think so.  For a wall allows us to avoid another complexity, the complexity of human beings and human community.  It is hard not to be saddened by the rhetoric today, whether it be from the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda, or militant Christians whose characterizations of their “enemies” are but caricature.  We cannot afford to decide building projects, we cannot afford to run election campaigns, and we cannot afford to run wars based on made-up ideas of who other people are.  We need the real data that comes from real interaction.  In New York, we need honest conversations among Muslims and non-Muslims about the pain on each side, about the hopes and hurts, about offenses imagined and real.  Will it be difficult?  Of course.  Would it be easier not to do it?  In the short run, probably.  Would it even seem wiser?  No doubt.  But would it be wise?  Not on your life.  Not on your life.

None of this will make too much difference to users of the site.  I am retaining a good deal of the look of the current site, though I’m simplifying the style a bit.  If you’re interested to follow the progress, its current location is here.  I’m glad to hear any ideas you have.