Congratulations, Mr. President. It appears that you got your wish. The rationale with which you sold the American people on war in Iraq was that preventive war was the only way to prevent another terrorist attack like 9-11, where 2,973 people were killed. You’ve even said as much in public speeches. On October 25, 2004, on the campaign trail in Greeley, Colorado, you told an audience, “We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities.” To prove that this wasn’t just campaign rhetoric, you echoed these sentiments on Independence Day, 2005: “We are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to win the war on terror. We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.”
Never mind the fact that just three days after that second statement, the London bus bombings devastated our closest ally on its home turf, just as the Madrid train bombings brought the fight to another ally’s doorstep two years earlier. And now, Mr. President, now more Americans have died in the war in Iraq than died on 9-11. As of December 26, 2006, 2,978 American service men and women have sacrificed themselves for your hallucinatory crusade for democracy, even if imposed at gunpoint.
Shame on you, sir. Shame on you for believing that American lives are worth sacrificing overseas, where they were under-protected and ill-prepared for the task that they faced, a result of your delusions of flowers and candy and being greeted as liberators. It was your lack of planning, Mr. President, that caused this body count to skyrocket as it has. It was your arrogance that led those who questioned your tactics and presuppositions on the eve of the invasion to be labeled turncoats and traitors and bad patriots.
The war on terror was taken to the enemy, sir, and it is being lost. Fighting insurgents on their home turf, aided by networks of tribal affiliations that we are only beginning to understand, has proven to be a recipe for disaster—even if it is one that could have been avoided, had you or anyone in your cabinet paid attention to the lessons from Vietnam. Suggestions, plans from people far more qualified than you or I in military policy suggested that over twice the troops sent to Iraq were needed to secure Iraq—a basic tenet of military strategy. It takes more men, Mr. President, to hold a country than it does to conquer one.
General Eric Shinseki testified to as much before the Senate Armed Services Committee and his testimony was brushed aside by Paul Wolfowitz. The war games undertaken by Centcom under General Anthony Zinni suggested that over 400,000 troops would be necessary to secure Iraq in a regime change scenario, yet that number was also ignored.
People from the Defense Department and the State Department warned of the dangers of going into Iraq unprepared, and you ignored them. You ignored them, Mr. President, at the great peril of the men and women whom you were tasked to command. You are the Commander-in-Chief, sir. The ultimate responsibility for the safety of our troops is yours, and you have failed them. The men and women who serve and protect this great country have been put in grave danger, moreso than necessary because of your hard-headedness.
You have gotten this country into a war from which there can be no graceful exit. To leave now is to invite world opinion of this great nation to crumble around us. To leave five years from now, I fear, will leave us no better off than we are now. This war, this unnecessary, ill-conceived, arrogantly approached war of choice, not necessity, not even potential future concern, has already cost this country so much, Mr. President. It has cost us international stature, it has cost us more money than I can fathom, but most importantly, sir, it has cost 2,978 people their lives.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, Mr. President. He has done nothing to us, save the ill-conceived attempt to assassinate your father over a decade ago that had no potential for success. He is a bully, but not one of immediate concern. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, even your friends in the Saudi royal family: these are the real threats to American security. It is these threats on which you should have focused the last six years. Instead, you chose to chase a red herring, perhaps on the advice of your former secretary of defense who complained early in the war planning that Iraq had more high value targets than Afghanistan.
However, it is another piece of advice from Mr. Rumsfeld that you should have paid attention to. Perhaps you don’t remember, but I do. Early in your first term, he sent you a memo on troop commitments. In it, he said, “In fashioning a clear statement of the underpinning for action, avoid arguments of convenience. They can be useful at the outset to gain support, but they will be deadly later….It’s a great deal easier to get into something than it is to get out of it!”
Secretary Rumsfeld was correct, sir. Arguments of convenience have limited utility, and the erroneous belief that taking the war to the enemy meant the enemy wouldn’t try to push back on us or our allies was most certainly convenient. It made for nice sound bites and motivated the base and made it easy to demonize Democrats and others who dared to question you. But in doing so, you have gotten us into a fine mess with no easy exit.
Please don’t misunderstand, Mr. President. I don’t claim to have all of the answers. I have learned firsthand from watching you the dangers of believing that I do. But I do have questions, sir. Many, many questions. Why did you ignore General Shinseki and General Zinni? Why were the recommendations of the State Department’s ‘Future of Iraq’ Project rejected, almost wholesale? Why did you stubbornly stick to your ‘stay the course’ rhetoric when it was obvious that the status quo was only leading down a road of destruction? Why did you and others in your administration infer than your opponents were morally or intellectually confused only months ago while now accepting criticisms from the Iraq Study Group that have been voiced by those very same critics for months, even years now?
I love this country, Mr. President, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women of our armed forces who make great sacrifices to do their duty. And it is because of my patriotism, not in spite of it, that I refuse to be guilt tripped, rail roaded, or derided as confused. I am angry, sir. I am angry at your administration for getting us into a war beyond the powers of extrication. I am angry that all over this country there are wives who will never again see their husbands, children who will never meet their fathers, husbands who must become Mr. Mom, parents grieving for children, friends mourning the loss of those who knew them best. I am angry that countries that have historically stood by our side are now questioning the prudence in doing so.
War is hell, and I understand that. My grandfather served proudly in the U.S. Army during World War II and Korea, and to his dying day, he would not talk about the things he saw on the battlefield. However, the true hell of this war, Mr. President, is that you have made it that way. We have indeed taken this war to the enemy, even if only to make it easier for the enemy to kill us.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Friday, December 01, 2006
The Devil…no, Barack Obama made me do it!
Today is World AIDS Day, and Rick Warren pulled together an all-star panel to discuss ways that America can confront the scourge of AIDS in this country and around the world. One of the speakers invited to Saddleback Church in California was Barack Obama, whose invitation was almost immediately protested by Warren’s fellow evangelicals because of Obama’s pro-choice stance.
Warren has defended (and correctly, I might add) the invitation of Obama saying that for progress on an issue as big as the AIDS epidemic, people must be willing to cooperate with those with whom they might not fully agree. Thank you, Pastor Warren, for setting an example for your fellow evangelicals to follow—and I hope they do. None of this is what I have a problem with. Here’s my problem: Some of the evangelicals who have criticized Warren for his decision did so by either suggesting or outright saying that evangelicals had no business cooperating with someone responsible for 40 million abortions.
Say what? Someone’s gonna have to explain to me how Barack Obama is responsible for 40 million abortions. First of all, several million of those occurred while Obama was growing up and most likely didn’t have a fully developed political philosophy. Surely, even the Calvinists among us don’t believe that such sin can be ascribed to him. Secondly, has Barack Obama held a gun to 40 million women’s heads and forced them to have abortions? I think we would have heard something about that had it happened. Even better, has Barack Obama himself had 40 million abortions—newsworthy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which would be the Ripley’s Believe It or No factor? Don’t think so.
Evangelicals, listen up, because this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. Neither the devil, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton, nor liberal judges are responsible for 40 million abortions. The 40 million women who had those abortions are each responsible for their individual decisions.
On Judgment Day, Barack Obama will not be asked to answer for each of those abortions. He may, as may I, be asked to answer for his political position, that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. If that is the case, his answer, I suspect, will be much like mine—Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control, but there are extraordinary circumstances in which it should be an option and legislating around those circumstances is incredibly difficult.
The devil—some evil force that takes away personal responsibility—has never once made me do anything. I alone am responsible for my own right- and wrongdoings. My actions are a result of my own sinful desires as they conflict with the Divine Will for supremacy. Sometimes, I do what’s right. Sometimes, I don’t. But in all situation, I, not the devil, not Barack Obama, not George W. Bush, am solely culpable for my actions.
Perhaps evangelicals would stop attempting to legislate morality if they came to term with the fact that legislation cannot save people from themselves. Christianity’s cause is advanced not by legislating morality or refusing to work with those whom don’t share your opinions or allowing itself to be co-opted by politics. Christianity’s cause is advanced in the taking care of the poor, the downtrodden, the sick and injured, and yes, the pregnant who are contemplating abortion.
Warren has defended (and correctly, I might add) the invitation of Obama saying that for progress on an issue as big as the AIDS epidemic, people must be willing to cooperate with those with whom they might not fully agree. Thank you, Pastor Warren, for setting an example for your fellow evangelicals to follow—and I hope they do. None of this is what I have a problem with. Here’s my problem: Some of the evangelicals who have criticized Warren for his decision did so by either suggesting or outright saying that evangelicals had no business cooperating with someone responsible for 40 million abortions.
Say what? Someone’s gonna have to explain to me how Barack Obama is responsible for 40 million abortions. First of all, several million of those occurred while Obama was growing up and most likely didn’t have a fully developed political philosophy. Surely, even the Calvinists among us don’t believe that such sin can be ascribed to him. Secondly, has Barack Obama held a gun to 40 million women’s heads and forced them to have abortions? I think we would have heard something about that had it happened. Even better, has Barack Obama himself had 40 million abortions—newsworthy for a variety of reasons, not the least of which would be the Ripley’s Believe It or No factor? Don’t think so.
Evangelicals, listen up, because this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. Neither the devil, nor Barack Obama, nor Hillary Clinton, nor liberal judges are responsible for 40 million abortions. The 40 million women who had those abortions are each responsible for their individual decisions.
On Judgment Day, Barack Obama will not be asked to answer for each of those abortions. He may, as may I, be asked to answer for his political position, that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. If that is the case, his answer, I suspect, will be much like mine—Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control, but there are extraordinary circumstances in which it should be an option and legislating around those circumstances is incredibly difficult.
The devil—some evil force that takes away personal responsibility—has never once made me do anything. I alone am responsible for my own right- and wrongdoings. My actions are a result of my own sinful desires as they conflict with the Divine Will for supremacy. Sometimes, I do what’s right. Sometimes, I don’t. But in all situation, I, not the devil, not Barack Obama, not George W. Bush, am solely culpable for my actions.
Perhaps evangelicals would stop attempting to legislate morality if they came to term with the fact that legislation cannot save people from themselves. Christianity’s cause is advanced not by legislating morality or refusing to work with those whom don’t share your opinions or allowing itself to be co-opted by politics. Christianity’s cause is advanced in the taking care of the poor, the downtrodden, the sick and injured, and yes, the pregnant who are contemplating abortion.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Consistency in Moral Outrage…A Must in an Election Year…
Two issues yet again have found themselves on ballots across the country: stem cell research and gay marriage. And on each of these issues, Republicans find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to account for inconsistency in their stances. Let me explain—
Stem Cell Research:
Look…no one likes the idea of cloning. Not me, not Claire McCaskill, not Michael J. Fox. And for the Republicans to try to misrepresent the amendment on stem cell research in Missouri as a rubber stamp to begin cloning is only an effort to divert attention from the real problem for Republicans: their pro-life platitudes just don’t cut it on this issue.
- Adult stem cell research is much more difficult to accomplish because those cells have already differentiated themselves into classes of tissue.
- Embryos are full of stem cells…as in, completely made up of them full. That’s why scientists like the idea of embryonic stem cell research. Such cells can be directed to become any number of things: nerve tissue, heart muscle, you name it.
- The embryos scientists would like to use are leftovers at fertility clinics.
- Such leftover embryos have been destroyed by the hundreds of thousands in the years since in vitro fertilization has gained popularity as a way for women to have children.
Therefore, to use some of these embryos, which would be discarded anyhow, for scientific research seems to make perfect sense to me.
For Republicans to consistently uphold their pro-life stance on issues such as this, they would have to denounce IVF and call for fertility clinics to be shut down. Good luck getting that to happen. The other option is a bipartisan effort to create stem cell legislation that closes any loopholes through which unscrupulous medical researchers could attempt to clone a human being. If throwing away eggs hasn’t been an issue for pro-life Republicans for the last two decades with regard to the plethora of eggs that have been discarded in fertility clinics, now isn’t a good time to get concerned. Consistency, not cleanliness…right next to Godliness.
Gay Marriage:
*sigh* I hate games of semantics. Civil union, marriage. Civil war in Iraq, pockets of violence. If it looks like a duck and quacks like one, it probably is one. Let’s leave the word games to the side, shall we?
Every straight couple in this country that has a legally recognized marriage has a little certificate they had to go to city hall to get. It’s called a “Marriage License.” Allow me to sort out the vocabulary. That marriage license should be called a “Civil Union License.” It is a document showing that, for purposes of taxation and next of kin, Person A and Person B are recognized as being one household. They are married, whether they have a big fancy wedding in a church with hideous bridesmaid dresses and rented tuxes and all of their family and friends and a big wedding cake or not. That lovely little game of torture called a wedding is a ceremony where the church blesses the legal union of Person A and Person B as holy in the eyes of God.
One civil, one religious. One necessary, one not. They can be mutually exclusive or not, depending on the people getting married. Only one half of this equation would be affected by allowing gay civil unions—as the name would suggest, the civil (or legal) side. For purposes of taxation and next-of-kin notification, Female A and Female B or Male A and Male B would be able to enjoy the benefits of a legally recognized union. Listen very closely to the next part: Should churches object to gay civil unions, they would be under no pressure to recognize them as holy in the eyes of God.
Assuming that conservatives are using the Bible as their guide, if gay civil unions should not be legalized, then we should also do away with common law marriage (for the indecisive pansies of the world) and remarriages after divorce (for the Newt Gingrich’s of the world…). I’m sure the list of conservative politicians and even some clergy who support constitutional protection for the traditional heterosexual marriage that have remarried after a divorce would be fairly lengthy. It is to these people that I, and many others, respond that should they be so concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage, perhaps they should start with the divorce rate and work their way towards gay marriage.
Consistency with my moral outrage is all I’m looking for, especially on issues like gay marriage that are so bloody trivial that they shouldn’t even be taking up time on my television every night during election season. What people do in their bedrooms and who they do it with isn’t my business and it’s not something I particularly care to think too hard about. As we’ve seen in the last month or so, perhaps those who are so concerned with this issues are a little too invested in the subject…
Sadly, Democrats, which I am not, by the way, have not called Republicans on these issues as much or as loudly as they should have. While I think that America is stupid, I generally like to believe that Americans can be somewhat intelligent when given all of the evidence. It wouldn’t take that long to explain these issues, and politicians could even use small words so that peons like me could understand them.
Hell, if they conquered these issues, maybe they could move on to giving a better explanation for voting for the Iraq war than John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it.” But that’s a rant that will have to wait for another day....
God is Dead…and It’s All the Megachurches’ Fault…
Best. Sermon. Ever. And it happened last Sunday at Seventh and James Baptist Church in Waco, Texas. Dr. Raymond Bailey, the pastor of Seventh and James, began by quoting Nietzsche:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?
Dr. Bailey’s point in quoting Nietzsche was to suggest that the trend that Nietzsche thought would happen, that religion would fade away in favor of human accomplishment, has indeed happened and megachurches have been complicit in it happening.
Joel Osteen and others espouse a “Health and Wealth” gospel—also known as “name it and claim it.” If you want that Hummer bad enough, by God, pray for it and God will give it to you. There is no mention of what God demands of believers, only the material benefits he can reap for you.
Other megachurches espouse fundamentalist worldviews, such as John Hagee’s church in San Antonio. Hagee, a noted dispensationalist, once remarked that Americans ought to spread the gospel with a Bible in one hand and an atomic bomb in the other. Because I’m sure we all know that that’s what Jesus would do…
Dr. Bailey, in his sermon, actually suggested that James and John—Sons of Thunder that they were—would have made good megachurch congregants. I agree. The sons of Zebedee were known for their confrontational style, one that Jesus had to reign in from time to time. These megachurches pervert the gospel, militarize it, and create a sad caricature of what Christ actually stood for.
God is dead. And the megachurches have killed him. The notion of humble service, that the first shall be last and the last shall be first, that Jesus would wash the feet of his disciples, has been completely discarded in favor of “what have you done for me lately?” It is up to moderate Christians, both evangelical and not, conservative or liberal leaning, to resuscitate God—the real God, not the belligerent effigy that megachurches have dressed up in a dark wig and a robe, under which there is hidden a bag of money and an M-16.
The God of the Bible is a God of love, not military might. He is a God of service, not a God of “gimme.” He requires of us to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). He demands servanthood, not hubris. Megachurches supply their members with feel-good Christianity, the spiritual milk that Peter talks about in his first epistle. It is up to the rest of us to graduate to spiritual meat—to sink our teeth into the difficult path of service, even service to those with whom we disagree.
I applaud the courage of Dr. Bailey to take a stand against the distortions of Christianity that megachurches have perpetrated in the name of power, ambition, and members. Christ was not an emperor or a king, as the Zealots hoped he would be. He was a humble carpenter who washed the feet of his followers. He scolded Peter at his arrest for slicing off the ear of a Roman centurion. He lovingly and gently confronted the Pharisees and Sadducees, and only got angry with his Father’s house was turned into a den of thieves. That is the example we ought to follow, not the example of Joel Osteen or John Hagee or any other pastor that champions man’s achievements—monetary or military to pursue selfish or militaristic goals.
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?
Dr. Bailey’s point in quoting Nietzsche was to suggest that the trend that Nietzsche thought would happen, that religion would fade away in favor of human accomplishment, has indeed happened and megachurches have been complicit in it happening.
Joel Osteen and others espouse a “Health and Wealth” gospel—also known as “name it and claim it.” If you want that Hummer bad enough, by God, pray for it and God will give it to you. There is no mention of what God demands of believers, only the material benefits he can reap for you.
Other megachurches espouse fundamentalist worldviews, such as John Hagee’s church in San Antonio. Hagee, a noted dispensationalist, once remarked that Americans ought to spread the gospel with a Bible in one hand and an atomic bomb in the other. Because I’m sure we all know that that’s what Jesus would do…
Dr. Bailey, in his sermon, actually suggested that James and John—Sons of Thunder that they were—would have made good megachurch congregants. I agree. The sons of Zebedee were known for their confrontational style, one that Jesus had to reign in from time to time. These megachurches pervert the gospel, militarize it, and create a sad caricature of what Christ actually stood for.
God is dead. And the megachurches have killed him. The notion of humble service, that the first shall be last and the last shall be first, that Jesus would wash the feet of his disciples, has been completely discarded in favor of “what have you done for me lately?” It is up to moderate Christians, both evangelical and not, conservative or liberal leaning, to resuscitate God—the real God, not the belligerent effigy that megachurches have dressed up in a dark wig and a robe, under which there is hidden a bag of money and an M-16.
The God of the Bible is a God of love, not military might. He is a God of service, not a God of “gimme.” He requires of us to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). He demands servanthood, not hubris. Megachurches supply their members with feel-good Christianity, the spiritual milk that Peter talks about in his first epistle. It is up to the rest of us to graduate to spiritual meat—to sink our teeth into the difficult path of service, even service to those with whom we disagree.
I applaud the courage of Dr. Bailey to take a stand against the distortions of Christianity that megachurches have perpetrated in the name of power, ambition, and members. Christ was not an emperor or a king, as the Zealots hoped he would be. He was a humble carpenter who washed the feet of his followers. He scolded Peter at his arrest for slicing off the ear of a Roman centurion. He lovingly and gently confronted the Pharisees and Sadducees, and only got angry with his Father’s house was turned into a den of thieves. That is the example we ought to follow, not the example of Joel Osteen or John Hagee or any other pastor that champions man’s achievements—monetary or military to pursue selfish or militaristic goals.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The National Intelligence Estimate, or: How I Learned to Stop Thinking like W and Start Reading bin Laden
Today, the President, responding to leaks in the New York Times and elsewhere about the findings of an April National Intelligence Estimate, authorized the declassification of that NIE’s key findings. While none of what the NIE suggested shocked or surprised me, some of it may have shocked or surprised people in DC who have been caught up in the “they hate our freedoms” dog and pony show the White House has insisted on parading in front of us.
Among the more entertaining conclusions of the NIE:
- Muslim extremists are increasing in number and geographic dispersion
- Pluralism and reform in Muslim countries may alleviate some of the complaints jihadists exploit
- “Self-radicalized” cells are becoming more important as security threats to the United States and its allies
- Iraq is the “cause celebre” for jihadists, but should jihadists perceive their mission in Iraq as a failure, fewer of them would be inspired to carry on their jihad
- The four factors identified as fuel for the spread of jihadist movements are grievances in their own countries, such as corruption and Western domination, Iraq, the slow pace of real reform in Muslim nations, and pervasive anti-American sentiment
- Should key leaders of al Qaeda be captured or killed, it seems likely, at least in the short term, that the threat from al Qaeda and its splinter groups would be less serious
- Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the US than its smaller affiliated groups with a more regional focus
- Jihadist groups most likely will employs IEDs and suicide attacks, focusing on soft targets (i.e. civilians), wage an asymmetric strategy, and continue urban warfare
- While some states (namely Iran and Syria) are active state sponsors of terrorism, other states are unable to prevent their territory from being exploited by terrorists
- Vulnerabilities that could be exploited to slow the movement of the jihadists include the lack of popularity of their radically conservative ideology with the large majority of Muslims, moderate Muslim clerics are speaking out against their use of violence, and the violent tactics of the jihadists against other Muslims citizens are turning popular Muslim opinion against the jihadists and their tactics
Obviously, one of the first things people ought to notice here is that the prediction that the capture or killing of key leaders of the jihad would cause the movement to weaken has proven somewhat incorrect. This NIE was published several weeks before Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed and the aftermath of that seems to disprove that prediction.
Secondly, the idea that perceived failure of jihadists in Iraq would lead to an abandonment of the movement would be more persuasive if some definition of “failure” was put forth—and not “failure” as we in the West would know it, but “failure” as the jihadists might understand it, because if you look at the peer groups of al Qaeda in Iraq, like Hamas for example, they haven’t yet achieved any of their objectives as laid out in the charter of Hamas, but that hasn’t stopped or even really slowed down that movement.
That Iraq has been identified as the “cause celebre” of jihadists seems a bit self-evident. Anyone surprised by such a conclusion has obviously not been paying the slightest bit of attention to the goings on in the world over the past three years. The problem here is that, in a very real way, the president’s opponents are correct: the war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more. That’s frightening and unacceptable.
It’s frightening for obvious reasons—if this war was supposed to make us more safe, it has failed miserably, which leads me to the unacceptable. 2,700 US soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. These are brave men and women with families and friends who now have to face life without their loved ones and for what, exactly? Don’t we owe our service men and women more than that? Don’t they deserve more from us that to continue to send them into such a landscape where they will be returning to their families not with their battalions, but in flag draped coffins?
Finally, this report SCREAMS to me that we still don’t get it. At the highest levels of the political spectrum, our government does not understand the enemy. In his speech to the country in the aftermath of 9-11, President Bush said, “Americans are asking, why do they hate us?...They hate our freedom—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with one another.”
This sentiment has been echoed over and over by the president and the rest of his administration, most recently in Condi Rice’s interview with Katie Couric on 60 Minutes this weekend. The underlying message of the administration is that our enemy is evil, blinded by irrational hatred, and despises those things that we hold most dear.
This NIE suggests something very different. The suggestion here is that the vitriol with which radical Islam interacts with the US stems from internal corruption, poverty, hopelessness, and the perceived complicity of the United States in those problems. This understanding of the motives of our enemy is much more in keeping with what seems to be the reality of the situation. Osama bin Laden has been remarkably consistent in his critique of the United States and the reasons for which he is angry.
Last November, an edited volume of all of bin Laden’s major statements, translated into English and footnoted to explain some of the more obscure references he makes to Islamic history or the Qu’ran was published. I consider it a must read for anyone who truly wants to have a clue of whom and what we are dealing with (Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, edited by Bruce Lawrence).
Had the president or, apparently, any of his key advisors taken the time to actually listen to what bin Laden has said, they would find that he looks rather derisively on the president’s characterization of the roots of his anger. In a statement released on Valentine’s Day, 2003, bin Laden directly refutes the “hate our freedoms” hypothesis: “Then when they saw the gang of criminals in the White House misrepresenting the truth, whose idiotic leader claims we despise their way of life—although the truth that the Pharaoh of the modern age is hiding is that we strike them because of their injustice toward us in the Islamic world…—the mujahidin decided to overcome this obfuscation and to bring the battle right into their heartland.”
In October, 2004, this claim was repeated by bin Laden: “I speak to you today about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and its consequences. First of all, I tell you that security is one of the pillars of human life. Free men do no underestimate the value of their freedom despite Bush’s claim that we hate freedom….We have been fighting you because we are free men who cannot acquiesce in injustice. We want to restore security to our umma. Just as you violate our security, so we violate yours. Whoever encroaches upon the security of others and imagines that he himself will remain safe is but a foolish criminal….For if you would quit perpetrating these injustices, you Americans would be on the right path towards the security you enjoyed before September 11.”
It’s understandable that the president would be reluctant to acknowledge, at least publicly, that Osama bin Laden has real grievances against the United States, none of them frivolous or fabricated, though perhaps exaggerated. This messes up the idea that America is the best of the best, John Winthrop’s “City upon a hill.” America is good and just and noble, all apple pie and baseball and home cooking, and that couldn’t possibly be harmful or objectionable to anyone. But America is not perfect. It’s just as flawed as any other nation-state and those grievances that others have with us must not be brushed aside or sugar coated; they must be dealt with head-on.
I consider myself a politically incorrect patriot. I don’t place my hand over my heart during the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. I hate the 4th of July. I refuse to say “under God” when saluting the flag. I will unflinchingly critique the president or Congress or anyone else who isn’t looking out for the best interests of Americans. But I love this country, and I consider it my right, indeed my obligation, to point out those instances where this country has gone wrong, has committed injustices, or has turned a blind eye to its complicity in world affairs. Self-examination is a good thing. Self-criticism is a good thing. Confronting the wrongs of America is a just and noble and patriotic thing to do.
We have been approaching the War on Terror in the wrong way. We have approached bin Laden, the threat he poses, and the reasons he’s mad in the wrong way. It’s not too late to fix these things. And I don’t think either party is particularly more equipped or less equipped to deal with these issues. In fact, I think partisanship will continue to be a pox on not only both their houses, but the overall security of the United States as well. Finger pointing, buck passing, and the blame game don’t add anything positive to the political discourse. They divide, bring the already slow moving bureaucracy to a screeching halt, and prevent otherwise concerned citizens from speaking up for fear of being demonized, ridiculed, or treated with scorn.
May this National Intelligence Estimate open the eyes of the people of these United States. There are real problems with the War on Terror and the way we’re fighting it. It’s time for the American people to demand that their leaders, Democrat, Republican, hell even pink and purple polka dotted, stop acting like two year olds and start working together to keep this country safe.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Musings of a Back Row Baptist
Hey, if musicians can have self-titled debut CDs, then my blog can be self-titled as well. Anyhow...
They don’t tell you in orientation or in any of the enrollment garbage you have to wade through when you start school, but there is a great occupational hazard related to being a religion major—you start to have serious issues with organized religion. While I’m not convinced that any of the issues I’m about to enumerate are exclusive to religion majors, they really became striking to me both in my own attitude toward religion and in the attitudes of my classmates while I was working on my M.A. in religion at Wake Forest. Some of these ideas were germinating in my overworked little brain long before Wake, but it was not until then did all of this crystallize into well…this.
Problem #1—There is an overabundance of churches who will tell you what you think and a gross shortage of churches that cater to seekers.
I have a lot of questions—some about the very core of the doctrines of the Baptist church. Why do we do such and such like that? Is there any valid reason for it or is it just because that’s how things have always been done? It’s even worse when you start asking the same questions about other denominations. They get a little mad. This is, of course, an even more dangerous path to tread when dealing with the Southern Baptist Convention because asking such questions can get you labeled a Satan-loving liberal. C’est la vie, I suppose.
Seekers are problematic for churches. I recognize and even appreciate this fact. People who question everything, including the elemental doctrines of a faith, have the potential to throw a local church and, if they’re REALLY good at it, an entire denomination into chaos. Those common beliefs are what bind a church together, so it’s only natural that churches might be a bit scared of people who ask too many questions.
But churches should also recognize that seekers are important, if for no other reason that for accountability. Without those individuals who question everything and hold on to what’s good, as Paul advised the Thessalonians in his second letter to them, denominations can drift toward un-Christ-like behaviors, become to legalistic or exclusive, and lose the very essence of their character (yes, Southern Baptist Convention, I’m talking to you). Seekers don’t ask questions just for the sake of asking questions…much. They want answers. They want to learn. And in so doing, they can also enlighten the rest of the congregation. Seekers are looking for a place where they feel they can safely explore and question and investigate, and churches drop the ball when they do no accommodate such individuals.
Problem #2—Churches that primarily function as a social club wildly miss the point, or: Why Stephanie is not a Calvinist.
The church was never intended to be a social club, yet that’s what it has become and that sickens me. Let me be very clear here: Churches that primarily focus inward are not doing the work of the Lord. One’s congregation is important. People with shared beliefs and experiences are necessary to doing the work of the Lord. But churches that focus inward at the expense of the unchurched, the poor, the downtrodden just don’t get it.
The disciples were not by any stretch of the imagination a social club. They were a support system for each other. They were traveling companions, both of each other and of Jesus. And yes, they gossiped and they competed with one another, but they were Jesus’ helpers first and foremost. I don’t want to say that the church’s focus outside of it’s four walls ought to be to save the world because that’s both far overreaching its grasp and quite maudlin. And I certainly don’t want to say that the church’s focus ought to be winning souls to Christ, anti-evangelical that I am. I find this notion the height of arrogance. Only God can do that. God can harden hearts and he can soften hearts. That’s not my responsibility. My only duty is to behave in a way that reflects Christ, whether with the Word or in my actions.
And that’s really what the church ought to do. If the church is not feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, sheltering the homeless, serving the community, then it’s not doing what Jesus commanded. Perhaps this is why the times that I have really felt as though I was in church lately have been Thursday nights at FCA in Stillwater, OK, where John Talley frequently reminds us all that FCA is a service organization. People who show up to FCA for the fellowship alone miss the point. Fellowship is important, and good churches have it in spades, but it’s not the end all and be all of church, nor should it be. To serve the community is to serve God. That should be the foundation of any church’s mission. It’s just that simple.
Problem #3—There is a large class of women being overlooked, not just by their churches, but by the rest of society and it’s time for that to stop.
I have a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and I’m currently working on my PhD. And I don’t intend for any of those degrees or the hard work I put in to earning them to be only pretty wall decoration. We’ve heard all of the talk about stay at home versus working mothers. There’s been condemnation of those women who wish to work outside the home. This debate has been going on for several years now. It’s time to stop. Argue all you want about whether women in the workplace is a good idea, but it won’t change the fact that it’s a reality, and one that our society at large has not been confronting as it should.
I have questions about my ability to be both a professional woman and a mother. I recognize that it’s a delicate balancing act, and I want to do both to the best of my ability. But our churches, our schools, our universities have yet to open a dialogue about what women need to be put in a position to succeed in both roles. In discussing this with some of my friends—strong, career minded women all, we have all reached the same conclusion: churches either implicitly or explicitly avoid dealing with these issues, the implication being, or so it seems to us, that we should choose one or the other, because they won’t help us try to figure out how to do both.
I don’t believe that God gave me my intellect and drive and passion for the Middle East and human rights and ethics just so I could sit around coffee shops and discuss these things on weekends. I want to do something about injustices in the world. I want to affect policy and change people’s outlook on issues. I want to use the education I have received. I want that hard work to lead to good things. And yes, at the same time, I want to have kids and be involved in their lives and support their dreams and their ambitions and encourage them in the same way that my parents encouraged and pushed and prodded me to do my best. But I can’t do both by myself. I need a support system, help, advise, and one of the places I will turn for such things is the church. I can only hope the church is equal to the task.
They don’t tell you in orientation or in any of the enrollment garbage you have to wade through when you start school, but there is a great occupational hazard related to being a religion major—you start to have serious issues with organized religion. While I’m not convinced that any of the issues I’m about to enumerate are exclusive to religion majors, they really became striking to me both in my own attitude toward religion and in the attitudes of my classmates while I was working on my M.A. in religion at Wake Forest. Some of these ideas were germinating in my overworked little brain long before Wake, but it was not until then did all of this crystallize into well…this.
Problem #1—There is an overabundance of churches who will tell you what you think and a gross shortage of churches that cater to seekers.
I have a lot of questions—some about the very core of the doctrines of the Baptist church. Why do we do such and such like that? Is there any valid reason for it or is it just because that’s how things have always been done? It’s even worse when you start asking the same questions about other denominations. They get a little mad. This is, of course, an even more dangerous path to tread when dealing with the Southern Baptist Convention because asking such questions can get you labeled a Satan-loving liberal. C’est la vie, I suppose.
Seekers are problematic for churches. I recognize and even appreciate this fact. People who question everything, including the elemental doctrines of a faith, have the potential to throw a local church and, if they’re REALLY good at it, an entire denomination into chaos. Those common beliefs are what bind a church together, so it’s only natural that churches might be a bit scared of people who ask too many questions.
But churches should also recognize that seekers are important, if for no other reason that for accountability. Without those individuals who question everything and hold on to what’s good, as Paul advised the Thessalonians in his second letter to them, denominations can drift toward un-Christ-like behaviors, become to legalistic or exclusive, and lose the very essence of their character (yes, Southern Baptist Convention, I’m talking to you). Seekers don’t ask questions just for the sake of asking questions…much. They want answers. They want to learn. And in so doing, they can also enlighten the rest of the congregation. Seekers are looking for a place where they feel they can safely explore and question and investigate, and churches drop the ball when they do no accommodate such individuals.
Problem #2—Churches that primarily function as a social club wildly miss the point, or: Why Stephanie is not a Calvinist.
The church was never intended to be a social club, yet that’s what it has become and that sickens me. Let me be very clear here: Churches that primarily focus inward are not doing the work of the Lord. One’s congregation is important. People with shared beliefs and experiences are necessary to doing the work of the Lord. But churches that focus inward at the expense of the unchurched, the poor, the downtrodden just don’t get it.
The disciples were not by any stretch of the imagination a social club. They were a support system for each other. They were traveling companions, both of each other and of Jesus. And yes, they gossiped and they competed with one another, but they were Jesus’ helpers first and foremost. I don’t want to say that the church’s focus outside of it’s four walls ought to be to save the world because that’s both far overreaching its grasp and quite maudlin. And I certainly don’t want to say that the church’s focus ought to be winning souls to Christ, anti-evangelical that I am. I find this notion the height of arrogance. Only God can do that. God can harden hearts and he can soften hearts. That’s not my responsibility. My only duty is to behave in a way that reflects Christ, whether with the Word or in my actions.
And that’s really what the church ought to do. If the church is not feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, sheltering the homeless, serving the community, then it’s not doing what Jesus commanded. Perhaps this is why the times that I have really felt as though I was in church lately have been Thursday nights at FCA in Stillwater, OK, where John Talley frequently reminds us all that FCA is a service organization. People who show up to FCA for the fellowship alone miss the point. Fellowship is important, and good churches have it in spades, but it’s not the end all and be all of church, nor should it be. To serve the community is to serve God. That should be the foundation of any church’s mission. It’s just that simple.
Problem #3—There is a large class of women being overlooked, not just by their churches, but by the rest of society and it’s time for that to stop.
I have a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and I’m currently working on my PhD. And I don’t intend for any of those degrees or the hard work I put in to earning them to be only pretty wall decoration. We’ve heard all of the talk about stay at home versus working mothers. There’s been condemnation of those women who wish to work outside the home. This debate has been going on for several years now. It’s time to stop. Argue all you want about whether women in the workplace is a good idea, but it won’t change the fact that it’s a reality, and one that our society at large has not been confronting as it should.
I have questions about my ability to be both a professional woman and a mother. I recognize that it’s a delicate balancing act, and I want to do both to the best of my ability. But our churches, our schools, our universities have yet to open a dialogue about what women need to be put in a position to succeed in both roles. In discussing this with some of my friends—strong, career minded women all, we have all reached the same conclusion: churches either implicitly or explicitly avoid dealing with these issues, the implication being, or so it seems to us, that we should choose one or the other, because they won’t help us try to figure out how to do both.
I don’t believe that God gave me my intellect and drive and passion for the Middle East and human rights and ethics just so I could sit around coffee shops and discuss these things on weekends. I want to do something about injustices in the world. I want to affect policy and change people’s outlook on issues. I want to use the education I have received. I want that hard work to lead to good things. And yes, at the same time, I want to have kids and be involved in their lives and support their dreams and their ambitions and encourage them in the same way that my parents encouraged and pushed and prodded me to do my best. But I can’t do both by myself. I need a support system, help, advise, and one of the places I will turn for such things is the church. I can only hope the church is equal to the task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)