My impression is that Bowe Bergdahl didn’t fit into miilitary life and was unpopular with the other guys in his unit, although that could be wrong. He had been home-schooled and was possibly unskilled at fitting into a group. His Wikipedia profile, which seems unbiased, is of someone who just plain didn’t know how to “play along.”

That said, the viciousness of the Right’s attack on Bergdahl and his family, especially his father, does remind one of a school of hungry piranha. Typical behavior for them, though. And it seems the announcement of Bergdahl’s release was barely out of anyone’s lips before congressional Republicans were screaming for investigations and hearings.

Next week, there will be a news story about President Obama eating a tuna fish sandwich, and congressional Republicans will call for an investigation of the tuna industry and its possible connections to the Administration.

There’s a lot that we don’t know about this case, but there’s nothing about it I’ve heard so far that breaks with long-established precedent involving presidents and prisoner exchanges. And we all know that if a Republican president had done exactly the same thing, the Right would be ready to carve his head next to George Washington’s on Mount Rushmore.

Fox News is running a story that the intelligence community investigated Bergdahl’s conduct. The article quotes an unnamed “counterterrorism official” hinting that Bergdahl possibly corroborated with the enemy. The right-wing side of the Web is linking to this article as proof that Bergdahl is a traitor, even through all that presumed investigation hasn’t led to anyone actually charging him with anything. That could still happen, of course. But even if he is never charged or even is exonerated, don’t expect anyone on the Right to change his or her mind. Anyone named Bergdahl living in a red state might want to change his name, or move.

We’re going to be hearing about Bergdahl from now until the 2016 elections. Whether this story will have any impact on people who don’t already have Obama Derangement Syndrome remains to be seen. It might actually make the majority of Americans more exhausted with wingnuts than they already are.

See also:

Wingnuts’ war on the troops: The ugly lesson of Bowe Bergdahl and Sarah Palin

Bowe Bergdahl Is the Right’s New Benghazi

GOP Strategists Arranged Interviews With Angry Members Of Bergdahl’s Platoon

Nicholas Kristof is visitng the Rohingya Muslims of Burma (Myanmar). This is a situation I’ve been following fairly closely in my capacity as a chronicler of Buddhism for the other website. There’s is no question the predominantly Buddhist majority of Burma is committing a crime against humanity in regard to the Rohingya. I wrote an article with background about Buddhist violence against Rohingya awhile back.

I’ve learned more since, which I included in My Book, Rethinking Religion. Violence connected to religion has been increasing around the world, and to analyze why that is so I used Burma as one of my examples. Another example is Sri Lanka, which has been just as bad and has the potential of being just as bad again, if not worse.

When we hear about violence associated with religion, we tend to think that religion caused someone to be violent. But it isn’t that simple. Most of the time, when you look closely at “religious” violence, there are all kinds of historical, cultural and political factors mixed in as well. This is true even of episodes like the Spanish Inquisition that appeared to be about doctrinal purity; much else lurked beneath the surface. Indeed, most of the time the historical, cultural and political factors are the real drivers of the violence, and religion is called in mostly to act as a moral cover or justification. Motivations that are packaged to be “religious” often are anything but when you look at them closely, and that’s very much true of both Burma and Sri Lanka right now.

A lot of this has to do with our old friend, the existential threat. In both Burma and Sri Lanka, the religious-ethnic majority has become obsessed with the belief that one or more minority groups are about to wipe them out. And in both Burma and Sri Lanka, this is nonsensical. Burma is about 90 percent Buddhist and 4 to 8 percent Muslim. Sri Lanka is 70 percent Buddhist, 10 percent Muslim, 5 or 6 percent Christian (mostly Catholic) and the remainder are mostly Hindu. Buddhism has been established in both countries for many, many centuries and is an inextricable part of culture there. Buddhism also dominates both nations’ politics not unlike the way Christianity dominates politics here. Which is part of the problem.

In Burma, for example, hard-liners in the government are fanning the flames in an effort to prevent reform. There is at least tacit coordination in rhetoric and effort between the political hard-liners and a faction of reactionary monks supporting the oppression of the Rohingya. Both groups are trying to hurt Aung San Suu Kyi by trying to force her to takes sides, either with the Muslims (which would kill her political career) or with the Buddhists (which would kill her reputation with the rest of the world). She has been desperately clinging to a fence and pissing off everybody.

So, it’s complicated. One part that isn’t complicated is Buddhism itself. There is absolutely no justification for violence against the Rohingya in Buddhist scripture or doctrine. This is true in spite of the claims of some western academics who say otherwise, based on gross misreadings of scriptures. I’ve some to think that those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; and those who are completely and utterly inept get Ph.D.s in religious studies specializing in Buddhism. That may be the topic of my next book.

Those justifying the violence by declaring they are “defending Buddhism” are, in effect, destroying a village to save it. And in this case the village didn’t need to be saved. It’s mass insanity. And there are a lot of historical, social-cultural, and political factors behind the insanity.

I have more to say, but I think I wil save it for the next post.