Hilton, Hotels, and Hospitality: Oh, the Irony

The Hilton Family of Hotels has launched a "be hospitable" campaign (just as heiress Paris has been welcomed into a slightly different hotel in southern California). The idea--which is a crass example of "welfare" marketing, selling a product by being "good"--is to compile and record random acts of hospitality around the country, all in the spirit of hospitality that supposedly motivates the Hilton hotel empire.

But of course the irony is that the explosion of the hotel industry is a symptom of the remarkable decline of real, concrete hospitality in this country. Not only do we not welcome the stranger, we don't even make room for our own families any more. Or those visiting don't want their style cramped by staying at Uncle Ben & Aunt Susie's, so they check into the hotel first (recall a recent Holiday Inn campaign that centered around how terrible it must be to actually stay at your family's house on Thanksgiving). And this is true even in the church.

The random acts of so-called hospitality being logged by this campaign are just a cover for the exponentional decline of real hospitality. If we actually, really, concretely started to practice hospitality--welcoming the stranger--the Hilton hotel empire might be in trouble.

You know things are bad when you start agreeing with David Brooks...

I'm a tad alarmed at how often I now find myself agreeing with David Brooks. He offers a nice apologia for the "quasi-religious," who inhabit a world between Pat Robertson and Richard Dawkins. He ends a recent column with this nice credo:

Always try to be the least believing member of one of the more observant sects. Participate in organized religion, but be a friendly dissident inside. Ensconce yourself in traditional moral practice, but champion piecemeal modernization. Submit to the wisdom of the ages, but with one eye open.

The problem is nobody is ever going to write a book sketching out the full quasi-religious recipe for life. The message “God is Great” appeals to billions. Hitchens rides the best-seller list with “God is Not Great.” Nobody wants to read a book called “God is Right Most of the Time.”

More on Hitchens; and More Chalmers Johnson on America Empire

Two pieces this morning that deserve wide attention:

1. Jacques Berlinbau (author of The Secular Bible) has penned a stinging critique of Hitchens' God is Not Good in the Chronicle of Higher Education. What makes it interesting is that Berlinbau is a committed, nuanced, and articulate secularist.
2. Jonathan Freedland's piece, "Bush's Amazing Achievement" in the most recent New York Review of Books. The "amazing achievement" is how the disastrous effects of Bush Jr.'s foreign policy has brought about the strange world in which both WTO protesters on the street and foreign policy wonks inside the Beltway are all agreed: the neocon project for a "New American Century" is bad news (what we might call a dis-angelion, to play with the New Testament language for "good news"). On this, both Noam Chomsky and the editors of The National Review seem to be agreed. Of particular interest is Freedland's attention to Chalmers Johnson's new book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
   

Why I Don't Have "Christian" Bumper Stickers...

...listen to Antsy McLain's Trailer Park Troubadours' song, "I Was Just Flipped Off By a Silver-Haired Old Lady with a 'Honk if you love Jesus' Sticker on the Bumper of Her Car" (click on the audio link for the song title.)

A Glitch re: Hitch

OK, OK: some readers took the time to point out to me that Hitchens' God is Not Great has indeed received some mainstream press (which I hadn't seen yet since I'd been in England). But Michael Kinsley's review in the New York Times borders on being sychophantic, and certainly lets Hitchens' off the hook. (Kinsley talks about how "logical" the book is. That is a stretch; it might be "syllogistic," but any student in a decent logic or critical thinking class could slice through Hitchens' smokescreen.)

More interesting is Stephen Prothero's review in The Washington Post. Prothero, I think, hits the nail on the head:

Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn't know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery. But it is Hitchens who is the naïf. To read this oddly innocent book as gospel is to believe that ordinary Catholics are proud of the Inquisition, that ordinary Hindus view masturbation as an offense against Krishna, and that ordinary Jews cheer when a renegade Orthodox rebbe sucks the blood off a freshly circumcised penis. It is to believe that faith is always blind and rituals always empty -- that there is no difference between taking communion and drinking the Kool-Aid (a beverage Hitchens feels compelled to mention no fewer than three times).

If this is religion, then by all means we should have less of it. But the only people who believe that religion is about believing blindly in a God who blesses and curses on demand and sees science and reason as spawns of Satan are unlettered fundamentalists and their atheistic doppelgangers. Hitchens describes the religious mind as "literal and limited" and the atheistic mind as "ironic and inquiring." Readers with any sense of irony -- and here I do not exclude believers -- will be surprised to see how little inquiring Hitchens has done and how limited and literal is his own ill-prepared reduction of religion.

Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens's pet themes -- the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep.

Finally, using the word "slumming" to describe Hitchens' engagements with Olasky and Wilson was perhaps a bit strong (chalk it up to jet lag?). Mea culpa. However, I still think these are basically un-interesting engagments. They have a feeling of disproportionality about them (another favorite military strategy of the Bush administration, which Hitch seems to love so much--though one does wonder whether God is Not Great might decrease his number of stays in the Lincoln bedroom). I've no doubt that Olasky and Wilson are sharp fellows. What I'm surprised by is the fact that Hitchens finds time to engage rather marginal voices (less so with Olasky, admittedly).

And despite Hitchens' slide here (why do so many "public intellectuals" become so incredibly stupid when it comes to religion? If I spoke about "science" or "liberalism" the way they talk about religion, I'd be laughed off the page), I continue to remain a somewhat guilty admirer of his snarky arrogance.

Hitchens' Decline

I think Christopher Hitchens must have serious debts to pay. Why, otherwise, would he be spending so much time and energy "slumming" it with a no-name like Douglas Wilson or 'debating' someone like Marvin Olasky (editor of the embarassing newsweekly World)? I guess since the mainstream press hasn't really paid attention to God Is Not Great, Hitch has time on his hands. But seriously...

These engagements with the fringe are snoozers. How about Hitchens and Cornel West? Or Hitchens toe-to-toe with Rowan Williams? Or even Jeff Stout? Methinks Hitchens is picking safe targets (a trick he learned from his friend, W, I guess).

The Pope in Brazil: Liberation Theology Revisited

Kudos to the New York Times for trying to tackle theology with Larry Rohter's story today about the Pope's visit to Brazil (just a month after a major New York Times Magazine article on Benedict XVI). However, the story is an indication of how hard it is to appreciate the nuance of theological debate in a journalistic venue. To that end, I sent the following letter to the NYT (which, of course, will never see the light of day, alas...)

To the Editor:

While Rohter should be commended for tackling a properly theological debate in relation to Benedict XVI's visit to Brazil, the account confirms the difficulty of appreciating the nuance of such debates. The story has an air of false dichotomy about it, or at least over-simplification. We have liberation theologians who care about the proletarian poor on the left, and the magisterium allied with capitalist oppressors on the right--as if Ratzinger was just the religious PR voice for the American Enterprise Institute (putting Michael Novak out of a job!).

But such a picture misses the nuance of Benedict's critique (which is more nuanced than John Paul II's). It is not a question of whether to be concerned with the poor or the "working class"--a long legacy of papal encyclicals already articulates this. The issue is whether "statecraft" is the proper vehicle for dealing with this injustice. Because liberation theology too easily accepts the logic and machinations of "secular" statecraft, and because the Pope articulates a trenchant critique of secularity, one could suggest that Benedict is critical of liberation theology precisely because it's critique of oppression is not radical enough.

Sincerely,
James K.A. Smith

Required reading here is Daniel Bell, Liberation Theology After the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering.

Equality Riders @ Calvin College

For the past several months Calvin College, my home institution, has been very intentionally planning for a visit from the SoulForce "Equality Riders"--a group of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christian students who, in the spirit of the civil rights "Freedom Riders," planned a road trip to visit Christian college campuses and raise awareness about the challenges faced by gay Christians. Some thought that Calvin's administration was over-preparing for this visit, and making a mountain out of a molehill. However, a blog post from an Equality Rider this morning seems to make all that labor worthwhile: Rider "Matt" described their Calvin visit as a "true Christian welcome" and the "most welcoming stop on the Equality Ride." While there was not necessarily agreement, there was nonetheless a charity that trumped disagreement. And that, it seems to me, is witness to a tiny little in-breaking of the Kingdom.

It was precisely because it went so well that there seemed to be so little news coverage of the visit! Whereas their visit to Cornerstone University yesterday, where they were barred from campus, led to arrests and--you guessed it!--news coverage on every local station.

Kudos to the college administration who worked so hard on this, particularly Shirley Hoogstra (VP of Student Life) and Dale Cooper (Chaplain), along with many others, who modeled thoughtful and intentional compassion.

Jeff Sharlet Audio

I previously announced a lecture by Jeff Sharlet at Calvin College on "Fundamentalist History, Secular Myth, and the Media's God Problem." Audio of that lecture is now available via the Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship (with thanks to Dale Williams). Sharlet's talk was entertaining, informative, and disturbing. Enjoy!

Stark Options in France

Imagine living in a country where you could actually choose between the Left and Right, and not just Right and Right-Lite? Though it does seem that Le Monde was pulling for the "centrist" Bayrou--who, even though he didn't make the run-off, has become a crucial figure in this election because he holds sway over a very important voter base.

New Obsession: The Deadliest Catch

Having conceded to my wife and children's request for something more than basic cable (but not premium!--yes, such a martyr, I know...) has translated into a new vice for me: an almost obsessive interest with the Discovery Channel's The Deadliest Catch. (This brings on bouts of affluenza on the nights when I have to choose between The Deadliest Catch and American Chopper, but I find Catch winning out.)

I discovered Deadliest Catch on New Years' Day. For the past several years our family's New Years' tradition has been to all cuddle up on the couch for the afternoon (Michigan winters will do this to you), load the coffee table with hot chocolate and snacks, and watch a movie or two together. This past year, after watching the movie, somehow we ended up on the Discovery channel which was offering a Deadliest Catch marathon. I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I stayed glued to the television for, I think, four hours straight!

For those who haven't seen it (which will include, I guess, those with more spiritual discipline than I, who remain committed to simplicity and thus spurn the temptations of cable--pray for me!), The Deadliest Catch is a documentary series that recounts the drama of fishing vessels pursuing king crab off the Alaskan coast. I hesitate to describe it as "reality TV" since it makes a mockery of all the other drivel that traffics under that banner. Crab fishing in the icy Alaskan waters is one of the deadliest jobs in the world (over 90 fishermen have died in the past 20 years) and the drama is heightened by the brevity of the season. The crews are looking to make their year's wages within a short window, all dependent on the ability to actually find the crab and at the same time survive the dangers of these Alaskan waters. (And kudos to the cameramen who undertake the same risks to bring us these images!)

The show follows the ups-and-downs of these ventures, ranging from the hilarity that comes along with such labor comraderie to the heart-breaking sadness when tragedy strikes. Rugged, cussing boat captains are reduced to tears as they hear word of a ship going down and claiming three lives. It is some of the most compelling drama I've ever seen on television, and goes a long way to redeeming the medium. (Further kudos to the Discovery Channel, which is a Smith family favorite and goes a long way to alleviating my guilt for caving in and signing up for standard cable.)

But I must confess that there's a regrettable aspect to all of this, namely the economics that drives this drama. While there are some fishermen for whom this is a way of life that is in their bones, for most it seems that the only "end" for such risk is the astounding paycheck at the end. Thus one regularly hears comments from the crew--smashing 6-inch ice off of overhead cables and braving rogue waves that threaten their footing--about the "ca-ching" that they're after. In other words, this is a drama undertaken for lucre, and pretty much nothing else.

On top of that, the entire industry is one generated by economies of luxury. They are fishing for king crab, which doesn't make its way to all that many American dinner tables. Rather, it is the fare of the rich, or the middle class who splurge once or twice a year. It is sobering to think of how many lives are lost for the sake of providing the well-heeled with luxurious cuisine.

Neither of these economic factors seems to redeem the tragedy. Perhaps, though, one can find it redeemed in the friendships forged amongst this community who lives on the icy edge of danger. But I fear not.

Secchia's Economic Logic

[This is a response to Peter Secchia's recent op-ed in the Grand Rapids Press arguing for the benefits of a downtown casino in Grand Rapids.]

For Peter Secchia, the generation of revenue covers a multitude of sins.

Despite charges of hypocrisy, I don’t think Secchia has really changed his mind. While he has opposed a tribal casino in West Michigan, his opposition was “based on economic factors.” Unlike others who oppose casino development on moral grounds, or on the basis of the documented social repercussions, Secchia’s opposition concerned economic fair play: as tax-free entities, tribal casinos are playing with a loaded deck.

But in his argument for a downtown Grand Rapids casino, I detect a worrisome logic at work. So let me take up his invitation to conversation about his proposal.

Secchia’s argument goes something like this: The federal law that authorizes tribal casinos is regrettable and lamentable, but won’t be changed anytime soon. So tribal casinos are inevitable. Since they are inevitable and unpreventable, they will inevitably suck revenue and profit from Grand Rapids. Therefore, we should build a Grand Rapids casino to stem the tide, protect private sector profits, and generate revenue that will benefit the community.

Let’s call this the argument from inevitability. It amounts to a version of the axiom, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” The argument begins with a sigh, recognizing a regrettable state of affairs. One then throws up one’s hands and laments, “But it’s not going to change.” Therefore, the argument concludes, we should harness this regrettable but inevitable reality and turn it to our good (where “good” means profit and revenue).

Based on this reasoning, Secchia suggests that a Grand Rapids casino could be a cure to all kinds of social ills in the city, from empty swimming pools to empty bellies. (Was he kidding when he suggested funneling gambling profits to churches?)

But why stop there? Based on the same logic, it seems like we could harness all kinds of lamentable but inevitable activities in order to generate revenue for our beleaguered city. For instance, consider this version of the argument from inevitability: Prostitution is a terrible thing. But given its status as “the oldest profession,” it’s not going away any time soon. As a result, prostitution represents an entire underground and tax-free economy that is, in effect, robbing our city of revenue. Therefore, we should legalize, regulate, and tax prostitution. The funds generated could open the pools and perhaps provide scholarships for GRCC.

And while we’re at it, drug trafficking in our city won’t soon go away. You get the idea.

Running the argument with these alternatives shows us more starkly that Secchia’s logic is purely economic. But the generation of revenue does not cover the multitude of sins and injustices associated with casinos and gambling. We shouldn’t let Secchia’s fiscal myopia blind us to that.

Internet Politics: Take a Survey

A doctoral candidate in political science asked if I would share the following survey in order to generate data on how political advertising operates in the blogosphere, and I agree to share the link. Please considering take this brief survey:

Exploring the Role of Internet Advertising in American Politics

This survey is designed to help us understand what Americans like you think about internet advertising, modern campaigns, and politics. We are very interested in your thoughts on this matter and greatly appreciate your participation.

Click here to take the survey: http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/stu/crweber/TAKE%20SURVEY/internet_advertising.htm

Jeff Sharlet @ Calvin College

Fors Clavigera readers will be familiar with Jeff Sharlet's work in Harper's, since I've pointed there now and again. Well, I'm happy to report that I've been able to arrange for Sharlet to come visit Calvin College and present a public lecture on Wednesday, April 11, 3:30pm in the Meeter Center Lecture Hall at Calvin College. He will speak on "Fundamentalist History, Secular Myth, and the Media's God Problem." For complete information about the talk, see here.

Required Reading: International News

It's 8:34am on the morning of Monday, March 5. After prayer, I begin my day with a bit of a news round-up. And this morning I noticed a unique difference:

Front and center of the BBC's page was this story: "More civilians die in Afghanistan" (as a result of US bombing)

But in supposedly "liberal" American media, the story barely registers: at the New York Times website the story way below the fold, so to speak; at NPR.org it at least appears in a "latest headlines" box, and the L.A. Times has it above the fold on the front page of their site. And just out of curiosity, I checked at CNN.com (which I hardly ever look at) and the story nowhere appears. (I can't bring myself to look at FoxNews.com.)

Chicks Rule!, or Art and Ideology

My wife proved herself a prophetess last night. Despite the prognosticators, she confidently proclaimed that the Dixie Chicks would be winners at the Grammy's--though I don't think she envisioned them winning 5 awards (in every category for which they were nominated).

There is, of course, a sweet irony about this. This trio that won "Best Country Album" has not received an iota of country radio airplay time because they dared to be critical of the unmitigated militarism of the current administration. And these same Chicks that won five Grammy's (!) did not receive a single award at last fall's Country Music Awards.

We have been DCX fans since the beginning and enjoyed seeing their tour's kick-off show in Detroit last summer. (Who launches a country tour in Detroit?!) While I wish they were a tad more elegant about this last night, I'm happy that their work has been vindicated in this way. Don Henley was just downright giddy about the Dixie Chicks last night. (Alot of folks have noted that the Chicks' album, Taking the Long Way, has 70's-ish Eagles-like echoes.) When Don Henley is in your corner, it makes morons like Toby Keith look even smaller.

Edwards and the "T"-word

In rolling out his campaign for nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards sounds like...well, a Democrat! It's quite jarring to hear when one has become used to the basically right- and centrist-B.S. that passes for Democratic rhetoric in the wake of Bill Clinton. But the New York Times reports:

Appearing on “Meet the Press” on NBC on Sunday, Mr. Edwards said he would raise taxes on people making more than $200,000 a year to help pay for the [health care] plan, which he estimated could cost up to $120 billion a year.

That's right, folks: Edwards dropped the "T"-bomb (or is it the "R-T"-bomb): he will campaign for raising taxes. And in particular, he will suggest that it might not be a bad idea to tax the wealthy at a rate a tad higher than the working class. Where'd he come up with this stuff? (Maybe he took a glance at the way the rest of the entire civilized world operates.)

Granted, it's a bit early to know just what Edwards' is about. But I confess to being a bit giddy that somebody would roll out their campaign in this climate and unapologetically talk about raising taxes.

What would American politics look like if the working class were no longer duped by the cloak of social conservatism worn by the bourgeoisie, and actually started to vote in their interests?

[As a teaser for you-know-who-you-are: Given that they're still placing their eggs in the basket of statecraft, I'll be very interested to see whether Jim Wallis & Co. have the courage to get behind Edwards' (fairly) strident anti-poverty, anti-war campaign. Or will the rhetoric of "feasability" and "pragmatism"--and just the sheer glow of celebrity--keep them close to people like Obama and Hilary?]

Sunday "Snow Day"

For the first time in my memory, our city is experiencing a "snow day" on a Sunday (yes, my kids think God is playing a cruel joke by dumping a blizzard on the weekend!). All of the local churches, because of what's being hailed by sensationalistic local media as "The Blizzard of '07," are closed this morning and services are cancelled.

But why should a dumping of snow shut down Sunday worship across the city? Because people overwhelmingly drive to church. A Sunday Snow Day is a tangible confirmation of the loss of the parish in the North American church. Sunday is yet another "commuting" day because the automobility of religious communities merely mimicks the automobility of the culture in general--with this exception: if this was a Monday, more folks would have braved the roads for work than for worship.

This is related to the research project ("Subdivided by Faith") that Mark Mulder and I are conducting for the Center for Social Research. In particular, we are investigating how and why evangelicalism (and other Christian traditions, too) so easily gave up on "the parish"--and the impact of that on culture.

The other question to be asked is whether there's any hope for recovering the parish model. Could we imagine a configuration of urban life where a "snow day" just means bundling up for the walk to church?

A Soundtrack for American History?

Jeff Sharlet’s most recent essay in Harper’s focuses on yet another front in the Religious Right’s strategy for the culture wars (in addition to the courts, the marriage altar, and science classrooms): U.S. history. At stake here is just how we narrate the story of the American experiment. The Right clearly sees the power of story, and Jon Meacham’s protests in American Gospel to the contrary, they remain committed to a story of biblical proportions—a tale of exiles and promised lands, exoduses and deliverance, cities on hills and New Jerusalems. I’m grateful for another one of Jeffrey Sharlet’s entertaining dispatches from the exotic world of Protestant fundamentalism, giving us a glimpse into the curricula of Christian madrasas located in homes throughout the nation.

I do have some minor reservations about Sharlet’s account—in particular, his suggestion that the Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper is something of a progenitor of R.J. Rushdoony’s “dominionist” theocratic project. This is mistaken and over-reaching on at least two counts:

First, while Kuyper did articulate a critique of the sacred/secular distinction, particularly as inherited from the Enlightenment, as well as the liberal notion of “neutrality” in a supposedly secular public square, his critique did not entail any pretension to theocracy. This is because of a central theme in his thought: the notion of “sphere sovereignty” which carefully and rigorously distinguished between the proper realms of authority for the state, the church, commerce, and other spheres. One might suggest this is a kind of Dutch rendition of the “wall of separation.”

Second, we can look at Kuyper’s own practice. As prime minister of the Netherlands, Kuyper’s vision translated into a robust pluralism that has never really been entertained in the United States, not even by the left (taken as they are with the benighted notion of a “neutral” public discourse).

But this is perhaps a bit of a marginal skirmish. More importantly, Sharlet’s piece pushed me to a musical meditation: for the past week I’ve been ruminating on Buddy Miller’s rendition of Bob Dylan’s “With God on our Side,” on Miller’s Universal United House of Prayer album. (You can listen to Miller’s version here.) Tracking the rhetoric of divine sanction of American conflicts—from Puritan violence against Native Americans up to the nuclear age—Dylan interrogates just the claim made by the Religious Right’s version of history: the persistent refrain of “God on our side.” Stand-alone lyrics don’t do justice to the mournful lament, but the song opens:

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

The refrain continues through the Revolution, Spanish-American war, up through 20th-century conflicts. But just when this starts to sound like an anthem for manifest destiny, the lyrics take a turn, and conclude thus:

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

I think the song should be required listening in 7th grade history classes across the country (one could hope it might be listened to by some home schoolers, too!). Dylan’s and Miller’s is a very different story about God’s role in U.S. history—one with a prophetic heritage.

Where's Hitchens on Carter?

Christopher Hitchens has, notoriously, come to a kind of tepid "defense" of the work of David Irving, who is in turn notoriously charged as a Holocaust denier, or at least revisionist. (See "The Strange Case of David Irving," in Hitchens, Love, Poverty, and War.) Hitchens' willingness to even have his name appear in a sentence containing Irving's stems, I think, from Hitch's long-standing advocacy for the Palestinians and thus his willingness to thus toy with something very few American intellectuals will touch: a critique of Israel.

So I find myself waiting for Hitchens to say something about "the Carter affair"--the controversy generated by Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. (The NY Times reports today on a number of advisors to the Carter Center resigning over the book.) Granted, Carter is not one of Hitchens' favorites, but neither is he any kind of admirer of Irving. I think Hitchens owes us an intervention on the issues here.