For Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, until 2003 the deputy head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s most powerful office, seeing The DaVinci Code in a Vatican bookstore was the last straw. In early March he lashed out at Catholic bookstores for carrying the book, and directed Catholics not to read it. Why? “There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true.”

Fables?

Dan Brown’s phenomenal bestseller suggests that Jesus was an immensely popular and prophetic leader who married one of his closest associates and had a family. Archbishop Bertone and the Church maintain that Jesus was at the same time a man, the son of God, and God himself, that a virgin woman gave birth to him and remained a virgin, that a few days after he was killed he came back to life and shortly thereafter was taken up to heaven to spend an eternity directing the destinies of billions of people.

In a rational world the burden of proof as to which is fable would fall on the Church. But there’s the rub. For when it comes to organized religion, no burden of proof is required. On the contrary, by definition, religion requires faith and faith renounces evidence. Taking a proposition “on faith” means to consciously and willfully refuse to examine the facts.

David Morris, AlterNet ( more. . .)

So Dear Wolfie, and anybody else tempted to pose this question: No. I would not be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. I would be happier if 1,500 Americans were still alive. I would be happier if 20,000 - 150,000 Iraqi civilians were still alive. I would be happier if tens of thousands of American soldiers didn’t have to face a future of disfigurement, disability, and/or psychological torment. I would be happier if my country didn’t violate international law. I would be happier if I weren’t lied to by an unethical government and an incompetent news media. I would be happier if we did something else with the $250 billion we’re spending on this war. I would be happier if the policy of successfully containing Saddam had been continued. I would be happier if we hadn’t gone through all this just so we can replace Saddam’s dictatorship with a pro-Iranian theocracy. I would be happier if we had any military resources to spare, so maybe we could rescue the helpless people of Darfur.

R. J. Eskow, CommonDreams ( more. . .)

In reviewing the new Pakistan arms sale policy, which overturns a 15-year-old ban imposed over concerns about Pakistani nuclear weapons activity, Congress should think hard about the messages the United States wants to send to future proliferators. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons of its own after refusing to sign international nonproliferation treaties. Worse, it has spread nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea, Libya and who knows what other countries, through the rogue network that was run by its top government nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan. When Dr. Khan’s activities became public a little over a year ago, he was pardoned by Pakistan’s government, which conveniently avoided embarrassing revelations about any help he might have received from allies in the Pakistani military.

Advocates of these military sales will argue, as they always do, that if the United States did not sell Pakistan and India advanced fighter jets, other countries would. That is probably true, but it is not a justification for fueling an arms race. One big reason both governments want to buy American planes is to advertise to their own people and the world that their costly military spending enjoys the full backing of Washington. That alone is reason enough to regret Mr. Bush’s decision.

New York Times ( more. . .)

The U.S. desperately needs to escape from Iraq before America is sucked into a wider conflict that will necessitate a draft. Once the Bush administration has created so much instability in the Middle East that a rising Islamic revolution is afoot, the stakes will be too high for the U.S. to be able to withdraw.

What might save America from further neoconservative miscalculations is the collapse of the U.S. dollar. A country dependent on foreign financing, as is the U.S., cannot fight wars that its foreign bankers do not approve. I suspect America’s foreign bankers would let the U.S. fight itself into a deep hole before pulling the plug. It is the best way the world has of getting rid of us.

Paul Craig Roberts, Antiwar.com ( more. . .)

“And here, in silence, are seven more.”

That is how Jim Lehrer has ended many of his News Hour broadcasts during the last two years. The reference is to American military men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan; their names, faces, ranks, hometowns, and service branches are presented, one by one. There is no background music or commentary. Only the mournful numbers vary.

As the war enters its third year and casualties continue, the question will not go away: What will it take to end the silence, to rouse the public from its torpor?

David Rossie, Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin ( more. . .)

In most of the rest of the world Annan’s prestige is undiminished — and it is worth remembering that the White House did not join the conservative feeding frenzy on the oil-for-food allegations. It still needs the U.N.’s help in Iraq, and is trying to enlist it against Iran and Syria, Bolton’s scorn notwithstanding.

In any case, Annan is not relying on his powers of persuasion alone. One of the purposes of the proposed deal is to get U.S. allies like Tony Blair to pressure the White House to go along with the package before the 60th anniversary summit at the U.N. headquarters in New York this September so that it can be ratified at that time. It would be silly to be too optimistic, but there are few such opportunities for a genuine change in how “we the peoples of the united nations” conduct our global affairs, and this package has a joint appeal to both altruism and self-interest — which often prove more potent than either on its own.

Ian Williams, Salon ( more. . .)

Bush cannot fight this war with a military that doesn’t want to fight, or when much of his own political base opposes him. That is the audience to whom an antiwar case must be made. So far, polls show that a majority of soldiers believe in their mission, but a substantial number do not, and even among supporters, morale is often low because of poor supplies, scandals like Abu Ghraib, and, especially, the nature of the conflict itself. If service members and particularly military families can be encouraged to speak out, the Bush administration cannot ignore their voices.

And here, also, is a lesson for the rest of us: to not just vent but be effective. Opposition to this war should be rooted in what is best for this country. Rather than being reflexively antimilitary, antiwar activists should learn to understand and embrace why this war is bad news from the perspective of the men and women fighting it. Supporting our troops is not simply the politically correct or a humane thing to do; it’s also the best way to work for an end to this war.

Geov Parrish, Seattle Weekly ( more. . .)