On being a first century church in the 21st century

Anyone who knows me know that I am about as far from a fundamentalist as one can get. So it may sound strange for me to advocate returning to the first century state of mind when it comes to American Christianity. For the record, I don’t think the first century church was particularly fundamentalist theologically, but I digress. Among the key characteristics of the first century church were its minority status and its mission. Because of the minority status of the church, it could not proselytize openly, yet it thrived. Why? Because it catered to the poor and the disenfranchised in society, just as Jesus did.

Those with the biggest soapboxes in the American church have all but abandoned this principle. It’s easy to forget the little things when you’re by far the biggest fish is what is admittedly the biggest religious pond in the world. When there are so many denominations fighting for butts in pews, it’s easy to overlook the basic message of Christianity in the pursuit of convincing people that yours is the best (possibly the only) path to salvation.

The Great Commission commands believers to go and make disciples. Most of the “leaders” of American Christianity seem more interested either condemning those whose beliefs don’t line up with theirs or bemoaning the supposed persecution of Christianity in America. If I understand my Bible, neither of these fall under the rubric of making disciples. As I see it, whining has never won anyone to any cause, least of all Christianity. Furthermore, this wrong-headed persecution complex belittles the actual persecution experienced by Christians in many parts of the world.

I spent four months in Cairo this spring, where Christians make up 10% of the population and face many social and political challenges. As in almost all Muslim country, proselytizing is against the law in Egypt. Christians in America who only think their rights are being infringed upon would find those rights actually being curtailed on the streets of Cairo. Yet the churches there are active, they are vibrant, they are, indeed, fulfilling Christ’s command to go and make disciples. These churches have active prison ministries. They teach English to Sudanese refugees. They offer free or nearly free medical care to those who cannot afford to go to hospitals. They provide job training for women so that they can earn money to help feed their families.

The people who are helped by these services are well aware that they are being helped by Christian churches, even if the words “church,” “Jesus,” and “Christian” are never spoken. This is the spirit of the first century church. Jesus and his disciples, above all else, took care of the poor, widows, children, and the sick. When they met with opposition, they didn’t whine or cry or pout because Jesus commanded them to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them.

I have been approached by a couple of people in the last few weeks asking what can be done to get young people back into churches, and I think the answer lies in going back to the ideals of the first century church. We have known for many years about the fundamentalist reaction against materialism. However, I think what we are seeing now is a progressive reaction against materialism. I call this a progressive reaction to materialism because those in my generation aren’t suggesting going back to a status quo or advocating a strict interpretation of scripture or any of the things that the fundamentalist movement espouses, but we are distressed by the vacuous nature of the our culture and desperately want to contribute something positive to the world around us.

We care about issues like global poverty, AIDS in Africa, and human rights abuses. We hope to find greener energy alternatives both because of our concern for the environment and our worries about being so dependent on foreign oil. We want to reach out to the impoverished in our own communities. We are distressed by the prevalence of abortion in this country, but do not feel that criminalizing abortion is the answer.

The key to getting young people back into churches is to recognize our concerns and find ways for us to contribute to those causes which we are passionate about which are, incidentally, the same issues Jesus and his disciples were concerned with as well. We are not satisfied with a few hours of singing and platitudes on Sunday mornings. Bishop Mouneer, the head of the Anglican diocese in Egypt, often preaches that the church’s mission does not end at the front door of the church; that’s where it begins. Only when we face the world and confront the problems in it can we claim to be doing the work of the church.

This is the position of many in my generation, yet few of our elders in the American church seem as concerned as we are about the issues we care most about. Churches all around the United States are dying. Their populations are aging, their membership decreasing. To prevent Christianity from diminishing in America, churches must reach out to my generation. This is the blueprint. Will anyone listen?

More on Torture, Justice, and the American Way

When last we spoke, I asked why the Bush administration had turned to a torture program reverse-engineered from the U.S. military’s SERE program to train soldiers, sailors, and Marines to resist torture designed to elicit false confessions for propaganda purposes. Apparently the Republicans have conveniently glossed over this troubling detail, because they continue to stay on the “Dick Cheney kept us safe” bandwagon. Oh well. Things are getting a little hotter for the Republicans, though, since hearings have started on Capitol Hill regarding who knew what and when, who authorized what and when, and who dissented and when and why.

When it comes to damning testimony, I don’t know that anyone has any more damning information to share than Ali Soufan. Soufan is a Lebanese-American who joined the FBI as an interrogator in the late ‘90s. He is notable in this story because he was the guy who interrogated Abu Zubaydah before the waterboarding and got Zubaydah to give up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind behind 9-11 and the identity of Jose Padilla, the supposed “dirty bomber.” Again, this information was given to Soufan during a standard interrogation with NO TORTURE needed. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts this week, Soufan recounted the events that led him to walk away from the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. He and his partner, using traditional interrogation tactics, were getting lots of actionable intelligence information from Zubaydah.

Then the CIA showed up with orders from on high to use “harsh interrogation tactics.” This is, by the way, the only time I will use this despicable euphemism. They were told to torture, and no game of semantics can hide or obscure that fact. According to Soufan, as soon as the waterboard was introduced to Zubaydah, he became defensive and uncooperative. Eventually, Soufan and his partner were asked to come back and continue their interrogation. This back and forth between Soufan and the CIA continued until Zubaydah was so traumatized by the waterboarding that he shut down completely and Soufan could not get any more information from him. It was at that point that Ali Soufan, one of this country’s greatest weapons in the fight against terror, walked away from the interrogation. His disenfranchisement with what he saw going on around him eventually led him to leave the FBI altogether.

In his testimony this week, Mr. Soufan offered several refutations to the Bush administration’s “ticking time bomb” nonsense—you know, that scenario where an attack is imminent so you’ll resort to ANYTHING to get information to stop it, never mind the fact that torture doesn’t lead to actionable intelligence. In fact, that was Soufan’s first point. Torture is ineffective. According to Mr. Soufan, “Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, the al Qaeda training prepares them for much worse – the torture they would expect to receive if caught by dictatorships for example.” Hey, guess what, these guys have their very own SERE school! Just in case they get captured and tortured to elicit false confessions for propaganda purposes. Mr. Soufan also said that torture at the hands of Americans only reinforces a detainees impression of America as amoral and Godless and thus strengthens his will to resist.

Following closely from this is Mr. Soufan’s second point: The information gained during torture is not, despite the constant ramblings of former Vice President Cheney, reliable. In fact, the FBI and CIA spent entirely too much time chasing down false information which had been tortured right out of detainees. Again, see my previous point in the preceding post—I would probably admit to having Osama bin Laden’s love child if waterboarded just to make it stop. Too bad it would have been not just a lie, but a real whopper of a lie.

Finally, Mr. Soufan addressed the “ticking time bomb” scenario directly. The CIA had, in its arsenal of torture tactics, authorization to use sleep deprivation for up to 180 hours. That is seven and a half days, at the end of which, I don’t know many people who would be coherent enough to even remember their own name, let alone anything that might even resemble actionable intelligence. When questioned by Senator Lindsey Graham (we’ll get back to Mr. Graham in a moment) about the allegations of former CIA officer John Kiriakou that Abu Zubaydah (the very one that Mr. Soufan so excellently interrogated) broke within seconds of being waterboarded, Mr. Soufan first reminded the senator that Mr. Kiriakou had recanted that statement, saying he had not been present during the waterboarding of Zubaydah and thus could not speak to the veracity of that claim. Then he made the excellent point that if waterboarding was so successful, why was it used 83 times against Abu Zubaydah and 183 times against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed…IN ONE MONTH!! What kind of “timely” information can be coerced from a guy who has to be waterboarded 6 times a day for a month?

But here’s the really bad news, just as I feared in my last post about this topic: this wasn’t really about “actionable intelligence” at all. It was about propaganda, gotten by any means, at any cost. The administration always held up the “ticking time bomb” scenario as the only acceptable reason for getting a little rough with detainees, be they in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any number of black-ops sites around the world. Yet, the evidence points to something much more insidious. In a 2004 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War, buried near the back, on page 353, is the following statement: “CTC [Counter Terrorist Center] noted that the questions regarding al-Qaida's ties to the Iraqi regime were among the first presented to senior al-Qaida operational planner Khalid Shaikh Muhammad following his capture.”

Just so we all know the timeline here, KSM was captured on March 1, 2003. During March 2003, he was famously waterboarded 183 times. The Iraq War started March 20, 2003. So apparently the only attack that was imminent here was the American attack on Iraq. Furthermore, this was not, I repeat WAS NOT, a ticking time bomb scenario. This was a directive from somewhere in the Bush administration to get information linking al-Qaeda and Iraq, a link that virtually everyone (except Dick Cheney) now believes to be non-existent, to justify the war. If that’s not a propaganda purpose, then I don’t know what is.

Everyone, and I do mean everyone, is completely missing the point here. This isn’t about finger pointing or hating Bush or demonizing our armed forces or intelligence services. This is about what America stands for. This is about keeping America safe. This is about actually preventing the next attack, not merely paying lip service to that auspicious goal. Sunshine really is the best disinfectant here. The only way this country can avoid making the same horrible, illegal, injurious mistakes again is to know exactly what those mistakes where. How were these things allowed to happen? Who was responsible for allowing it? Who stood back and did nothing while it happened? I’m sure I will come back to this issue many times before all is said and done because it infuriates me. It infuriates me because it was harmful to national security. It infuriates me because it put our men and women in uniform in greater danger in Iraq and Afghanistan. It infuriates me because it has galvanized Muslim opinion in favor of al Qaeda and its objectives. And personally, it infuriates me because the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress at the time demonized those who disagreed with them.

Dissenters were subtly, and not-so-subtly, called traitors and turncoats. Their patriotism was questioned. They were mocked and ridiculed by people who claimed to be looking out for this country. As it turns out, the true patriots here were the dissenters, not the idiots in charge. And to think that their integrity was being impugned by the likes of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld who were looking out for something, though I haven’t quite figured it out yet. One thing is certain, they were not looking out for the best interests of the country. If they had been, they would have left the interrogating to the professionals, refrained from meddling in the affairs of the intelligence community, and listened when Judge Advocates from all four branches of the military raised objections to the torture methods being authorized from on high.

And now the Republicans, who are supposedly all about duty, honor, and country, who have tried to win every election since 9-11 by portraying the Democrats as sissies and not at all concerned about national security, are stonewalling every attempt to get to the truth in this, the most important of matters with relation to national security. And that brings me back to our friend, Senator Graham. It was obvious from some of his questions for Mr. Soufan in the Judiciary Committee hearing this week that Mr. Graham has been drinking the Republican Kool-Aid. It is also becoming readily apparent to me that this is all being done not because of some deeply held conviction that these tactics were necessary but because the Republicans want to do whatever they can wherever they can to get in President Obama’s way. Want to know my proof? The words of no less than Senator Lindsey Graham.

In February 2006, when hearings were convening to investigate the allegations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Senator Graham disagreed with his Republican colleague, Jim Inhofe, who I try regularly to forget that my fellow Oklahomans have the bad sense to keep sending to Washington, about whether outrage over the events at Abu Ghraib was warranted or not. Inhofe, of course, thought that the outrage itself was outrageous because he just knew that all of the detainees being abused were murderers and terrorists. Senator Graham rebutted this assertion saying, “When you are the good guys, you’ve got to act like the good guys.” Indeed, Senator Graham. So in 2006, you thought the good guys ought to act that way, and now you think the good guys should just…what, exactly? Avoid looking too close at what was going on? You, John McCain, and others who have in the past vocally opposed torture now think we should just sweep it under the rug? How is that helpful? What good does that accomplish? Don’t the good guys generally stand for truth, justice, and the American way? How can we possibly do that if we ignore the truth and don’t vigorously pursue justice?

Prove to me, Republicans, prove to me that you are interested in government accountability all the time and not just when it’s the other guys in power. Prove to me that your belief in the goodness of our country isn’t just lip service to win elections. Cooperate with the Democrats. Call for a special prosecutor. Demand an independent investigation. Rigorously pursue justice for those who were tortured, no matter their degree of guilt or innocence. Demand of yourselves, of the Democrats, of all of us, that none of us be considered above the law—even, if necessary, a former president, vice-president, cabinet secretary, or legal counsel turned federal judge. Loving this country doesn’t mean turning a blind eye to its faults or its wrongdoings. Patriotism is not blind allegiance. So prove it, Republicans. Let’s see if your patriotism can hold up when the going gets tough, because this isn’t going away. You can stay on the wrong side of this issue, or you can come toward the light. If you’re at all concerned about the survival of the GOP or its continued relevance on the national stage, I strongly recommend you chose the latter of those two options.

Here is the link to all of the testimony from the hearing in front of the Judiciary’s subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, as well as a link to the written testimony of former Air Force interrogator Matthew Alexander. I would also like to thank Mr. Soufan and Mr. Alexander for their exemplary service to this country. These men are true patriots and deserve nothing but our utmost respect.
Testimony from Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
Matthew Alexander's Written Testimony to the Subcommittee

Torture, Justice, and the American Way

Hey, guess what? The Bush administration tortured people! NEWS FLASH!! Oh, wait…most of us already knew this, didn’t we? The real question here is whether we are willing to admit that this happened. The primary question seems to be this: is waterboarding torture? Many Republicans seem to think not. Last night, Sean Hannity volunteered, in a disturbingly jocular fashion, to be waterboarded for charity. Keith Olbermann, never one to let that kind of invitation from Fox News sneak by, offered to pay $1,000 to a fund for the families of American service men and women for every second Mr. Hannity lasts while being waterboarded. I hope, admittedly in part for purely sadistic reasons, that Mr. Hannity takes him up on the offer.

Lest there be any confusion as to where I stand: Yes, I think waterboarding is torture. In fact, in these United States, the issue of whether waterboarding is or is not torture has never been quite as ambiguous as those on the right would like for us to think. During the Spanish-American War (1898), at least two U.S. Army officers were court-martialed for using “the water cure,” that which we now call waterboarding.

After World War II, during the war crimes tribunals in both Germany and Japan, testimony was offered stating that both the Gestapo and Japanese troops used waterboarding as a method of torture. One U.S. airman, subjected to waterboarding by his Japanese captors during the war, said in his testimony, “The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again… I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death.”

During the Vietnam War, the Washington Post published a photo of American servicemen and one South Vietnamese soldier waterboarding a North Vietnamese POW. One of those servicemen was court-martialed and discharged from the service because of his use of torture.

Finally, in the early 1980s, a Texas sheriff and his deputies were tried and convicted of conspiracy to force confessions from prisoners. Their method of choice? You guessed it, waterboarding. For their crimes, the three deputies were sentenced to four years in prison and the sheriff to ten years. Still think America doesn’t consider waterboarding torture? Here’s the real doozy….

In the recently released report by the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Carl Levin, it was reported that much of the Bush torture program was based on reverse-engineering of the U.S. military’s SERE program. SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training is given to U.S. servicemen in all branches of the military who are at high risk of capture by enemy forces. Among the training they are given is training to resist torture tactics used to elicit false confessions to be used for propaganda purposes. If you guessed that those who go through SERE training are subjected to waterboarding, deemed by the folks who put together the SERE training as a potential torture method, give yourself a pat on the back. Obviously, the U.S. military views waterboarding as a form of torture, otherwise why subject servicemen to it in anticipation of its illegal use by enemy forces.

But here’s the bigger problem for the Bush administration: Look at the first two sentences of the last paragraph…go ahead. Take a look. The Bush torture policies were based on reverse-engineering of a U.S. military program designed to help servicemen resist torture techniques designed to elicit false confessions for propaganda purposes. Ponder that for a moment, if you will. In what world where the United States stands for truth, justice, and the American way does this country base its interrogation policies on those used by communists to elicit FALSE confessions? When did we turn into the Soviet Union all of the sudden and how in God’s name do we make it stop?

For the last 8 years, we have listened to the endless chorus of Republicans telling us that they would keep this country safe by any means necessary—even “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The ever popular “ticking time bomb” scenario was put before the American people, and we were told that if an attack was imminent, surely we would want our government to do whatever was necessary to foil that attack. (There’s a logical fallacy here, too, but I’ll get back to that in a minute.) Yet, all the while, their methodology was based on reverse-engineering a program designed to prevent false confessions for propaganda purposes. Seriously?

Did the Bush administration want actionable intelligence or did they want propaganda to help sell the American people on a phony war based on false pretenses? And if the answer to that question is the latter, what does that say about this country? Throughout her history, America has been cast as a “City on a Hill.” This is what we at the Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor call civil religion. America is good. America does good. God bless America. Far be it for me to speak for the Almighty, but my guess is that God doesn’t bless this kind of action. If this country, this wonderful, flawed place that we all love and call home, acts in such a way, how can we purport to be a country of freedom and liberty and justice and respect for the rule of law?

The ramifications of this debate include forcing America to take a long, hard look at what this country stands for. Are we a nation of law and justice or have we allowed this awful war to turn us into a country no better than the evil dictatorships we have fought so tirelessly to defeat throughout our history? During Spring Break, while in Jerusalem, I went to Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust Museum, and only a day after taking a trip to Bethlehem. On the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, a section of the “separation fence” being built by Israel between the West Bank and Israel-proper is visible. While walking through Yad Vashem, the irony of what I was seeing memorialized and what I saw in reality was striking.

Yad Vashem includes several exhibits extolling the virtues of the martyrs of the various eastern European ghetto uprisings, the most famous of which was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. These admittedly courageous men and women who rose up against the Nazis were resisting an unjust and brutal occupation by an enemy who saw the Jews as less than them. 60 years later, the oppressed have become the oppressors and are facilitating the ghettoization of the Palestinians who, since the 1987 Intifada started (non-violently, I might add), have been resisting an unjust and brutal occupation by an enemy who sees the Palestinians as less than them.

In the same way, has the United States, victim of the horrific events of 9/11, become the victimizer, exacting revenge and eliciting phony confessions from terrorists in the name of national security? The unfortunate answer to this question is most likely yes. It is an uncomfortable and unenviable position that the United States finds itself in currently. How can we claim any kind of moral superiority, any kind of mantle as the standard bearers of freedom and democracy if we resort to the same kind of depravity and malice that we find in our enemies?

To make matters worse, despite former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s continued assertion that torture works, there is no evidence to support that claim. The plot most often pointed to by Bush officials is the “Library Tower” plot. The use of advanced interrogation techniques, they claim, stopped that attack. This is not the case, however. The evidence gathered against those who were thinking about an attack on the Los Angeles landmark was gathered by FBI interrogators using conventional interrogation methods. In fact, so concerned was FBI director Robert Mueller about the potential legal ramifications for his interrogators if they got too close to these “enhanced” interrogations, that he pulled his interrogators out of the business of interrogating terror suspects altogether. Mueller has since conveyed his doubts about administration assertions that torture has yielded actionable intelligence.

The continued insistence of Bush administration officials that in the “ticking time bomb” scenario I mentioned earlier is reason enough to torture if necessary ignores some basic facts, namely that NO ONE who interrogates for a living thinks that torture works. Then again, the Bush administration made it a habit to ignore the advice of people who actually knew what they were talking about, but I digress. Torture doesn’t provide actionable intelligence. It provides copious amounts of crap. People will say almost anything to make the torture stop. I can personally say that if I were being waterboarded, I would confess to having Osama bin Laden’s love child if that’s what it took to make it stop. So if it doesn’t provide actionable intelligence AND it goes against the character of this nation…wait. Why, exactly are we torturing again? False confessions. Propaganda. That’s all we’ve got, folks. Not safer, not more secure, definitely not seen in higher esteem in Muslim countries. That’s what torture got us. Our descent into Soviet-style tactics must see the light of day. Only then can we confront our identity crisis and move ahead, learning from our mistakes and returning to the straight and narrow…at least for a few days.

More of Stephanie's greatest hits...

Yet another column that got me in BIG trouble on campus...And yes. I went there. You'll know what I mean when you read the column.

On slave reparations
Originally published March 7, 2002

Reparations. Few words make my blood boil like this one does. The very thought of something so vile and disgusting as reparations for something I didn’t like in the first place just makes me angry.

The idea of reparations has been bandied about for a while now, and I’m convinced that the reason nothing has been done is because it’s a such bad idea. Why? Oh dear, let me count the ways.

There are a myriad of logistical and logical problems to deal with. The logistics include why, how, who, and how much, and the logic involves the seeming lack thereof in the fact that these demands are being made in the first place.

Why, why, why, why, why?!?!?! I don’t like slavery. I think it’s a horrible, nasty, and morally repugnant institution, and I’m glad someone did away with it before I came into being because I just don’t have the time and energy to devote to the abolitionist movement.

There isn’t a soul who was alive during the Civil War living now, and there isn’t a soul living now who owned slaves or was a slave. With the possible exception of Strom Thurmond (who may very well have been alive during the Civil War), I don’t think anyone in this country would even fathom the idea that slavery is, was, or ever will be a good thing.

So why in God’s name should I apologize for something I didn’t do and don’t agree with? Furthermore, depending on how the powers that be plan to carry out this brilliant proposal, this could put me out some money that I really don’t have.

How exactly do blacks think they should be paid for the horrible injustice that got them to a country where they can publicly disagree with the government, not get caught in the middle of a nasty and violent civil war, and perhaps live past the age of 30?

Should all non-black people pull out their checkbooks and write a check to the “We want your money for something you don’t like” fund? That would surely go over like a lead balloon.

Then there’s the idea of giving blacks tax credits or exempting them from paying taxes altogether. If this is the way it goes, fine, but blacks better be prepared to give up a lot.

If they aren’t paying taxes, they shouldn’t be afforded any of the services that tax money pays for. We’ll neglect their roads, not pick up their trash, make them send their kids to private schools, and take away any hope of blacks getting scholarships to public colleges.

I hope there isn’t much violence in their neighborhoods, because the police, whose salaries they wouldn’t be helping pay, would be under no obligation to serve and protect those areas. No, that probably isn’t a good idea either.

I know! We’ll just have Uncle Sam cut a check to every black in the country. Of course, this too, would take money away from federal, state, and local programs that are beneficial to everyone, including blacks. So, maybe not.

This one’s for all the true cynics out there. We’ll all pitch in and buy any black who really feels like they’d rather go back to Africa a plane ticket to the Congo or Chad, where they surely won’t last a week.

Who should get reparations and who shouldn’t? Does there have to be proof of ancestors who were enslaved? What about people who may be the product of an interracial marriage? Does the presence of white, Asian, or Hispanic blood make a person ineligible to receive reparations?

What about the blacks who owned slaves? Yeah, that’s right. Blacks owned slaves too. Should the descendents of those people get some money too? All of these are questions to which I have seen no answers.

Furthermore, how much should people receive? Trying to put a dollar amount on a person’s suffering has always seemed a problematic idea to me. The value of life is cheapened the minute someone tries to put a monetary figure on it. Do you really want to do that to dear old Great-great Grandpa Joe?

What good are reparations going to do, exactly? Please, someone feel free to let me in on the secret, because I fail to see the logic to this absurd argument. Yes, slavery was a horrible institution, and the suffering of slaves was certainly great.

But it wasn’t my fault!! And insisting that I should somehow provide restitution for it will only cause a greater split between blacks and whites in America than already exists.

I believe that good can come from bad. Yes, your ancestors may have had to endure the degradation of slavery, but because they came to this country, you have been blessed with infinitely more opportunities to survive and thrive. Maybe I should apologize for that too.

God Gave Me a Brain and a Big Mouth, or: The Feminism of Stephanie

I called my parents tonight and spent some time on the phone with my father (a very important detail, as you will soon see). He informed me that he had found something online that I should read, but warned me that it might make my blood boil. That something was a post on Wade Burleson’s blog (note: Wade Burleson DOES NOT make my blood boil, FYI). I’ll let you, gentle readers, take in the meat of what Rev. Burleson was discussing. I wish to take my own thoughts in a different direction—what it means to be a strong, independent, Christian woman.

One of the people referenced in this blog entry of Rev. Burleson’s is Doug Phillips of Vision Forum. Phillips’ “vision” is one of “Biblical” patriarchy—and I use the term “Biblical” very, very loosely. Simply put, Phillips believes that men are the head of the woman in marriage in every way. Here is a synopsis of what Phillips thinks and what I think about his views (or in some cases, how I would obviously be a heretic to him).

1. Women are called by God to serve their patriarchs (fathers) until married when they will then serve their husbands.

· If you were to ask my father (the very same who suggested that all of this nonsense would make my blood boil), I think you would find that he feels his job as a parent was to equip me with the tools (morals, education, etc.) to be a successful, intelligent, productive member of society. Once that was done, he and my mother (from whom I learned much about not taking crap off of anyone…SINNER!!) kicked me out of the nest, confident that I could make my own way in the world. Translation: I, in my condo in Waco, TX, am the head of my household. Okay, that’s a lie. My cat, Sassy (also female…once *GASP*) is the head of the household, but I’m the one who pays the bills. My father is no longer my head. I’m not sure he ever REALLY was. You see, my parents raised me to be an independent thinker. I need neither their permission nor their forgiveness to act on my own behalf. I alone am responsible for my actions. That does not stop me from asking them for advice, nor does it mean that I don’t want their approval of my choices in life. I just don’t believe it is necessary for me, a 25 year-old woman, to ask mommy and daddy for permission to…I don’t know, go to Egypt for a year, maybe.

2. Women are not to speak in a church setting, but are to ask their husbands any questions they may have and remain silent in the presence of men.

· First of all, you all must realize that until recently, the church I am a member of was the largest Baptist congregation with a female senior pastor. Now, granted, I started attending Calvary Baptist Church after Julie Pennington-Russell left to pastor First Baptist, Decatur, GA, but the church she left behind is as spiritually vibrant and alive with the love of Christ as any church I have ever darkened the door of, and she was largely responsible for that. Secondly, while I could speak at length about context in Biblical passages (I know, I know, context is a four-letter-word to fundamentalists like Phillips), I won’t because that’s not my area of expertise. I will say however, that the first creation account in Genesis (6-days, etc.) states that God created male and female at the same time. Furthermore, before painting Paul a misogynist, one might want to consider the problems of temple prostitutes, fertility cults, and early Gnostics which the churches in Corinth and Ephesus had to contend with at the time Paul was writing to those churches—and to Timothy. Also keep in mind the pattern of the Pauline epistles: where there was too much freedom, Paul preached restraint (Corinth and Ephesus), and where there was too much legalism, Paul preached freedom (Galatia). Context…right next to Godliness….

3. Women are not to work outside the home for any income, but are to be housewives and homemakers within the home.

· Shall I expound upon my belief about women and work…and everything else for that matter? Of course, I shall. It’s my blog, after all. Here it is: God blessed me with a brain and a big mouth. If he didn’t want me to use either, he would have blessed me with neither. How am I respecting the blessings God has bestowed upon me by placing them under a bushel basket, rather than letting them shine for all the world to see? I have been blessed with intellect, passion, and opportunity to pursue my life’s ambitions. Should I just turn my back on those blessings, thumb my nose at God and say, “No thanks?” I don’t think so. My parents taught me that. They also taught me that I have an obligation to share what I know about Islam (yes, a heretic AND an infidel. God have mercy on my soul) with others so as to clear up stereotypes. This leads us nicely to…

4. Women are never to teach a man anything, but are to learn from men in a quiet and submissive spirit.

· Let me be blunt (yeah, I know. Like I haven’t been blunt thus far). I know more about Islam, specifically Islamism and jihadism than a very large portion of Americans. I study this stuff. It’s my life’s work. I can quote Sayyid Qutb, Osama bin Laden, and a whole host of other interesting characters. I can explain how Egyptian Arab Socialism gave rise to the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood and its more radical offshoots. I can give a timeline of the formation of al Qaeda from the Afghan jihad to the present. This is important information. And if people ask (not just women, men too), then I have an obligation to explain what’s going on in the world to those who ask in a way that is accessible and as fair and balanced as I can make it. That means I teach men plenty. And I’m completely unrepentant about it.

5. Women cannot have communion unless given to them by their husband or, in the case of an absent husband, an elder from a 'normative' family or, in rare cases, a mother can be served be her son if he (the son) is old enough to walk and carry the host and is present in worship with her.

· Well, considering that we took communion this morning at Calvary Baptist Church (intinction, by the way), and not only did I take it for myself, but I received communion from two women, we’ll just walk away from this one.

6. Women are to cover their heads as a sign of their 'submission' to their husbands and to God.

· It should be noted that this is not a tenet of Phillips’ theology, but Bruce Ware, a professor at the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville. And it’s a stupid, stupid thing to argue about. Just as it is in Islam. If you want to, do it. If not, don’t. End of story.

7. Women are not to attend a university or any institution of higher learning for the purpose of pursuing a career.

· Another one I’ll walk away from. I’m currently sitting in my office where two degrees from institutions of higher learning are proudly displayed while studying for my PhD.

8. Women are not to vote, but are to let their husbands speak for them.

· On the contrary, my parents (especially my mother…that crazy sinner) have told me repeatedly that should I choose to shirk my duty as a responsible citizen, I also forfeit my privilege to complain about the outcome.

9. Women are never, for any reason, to use birth control.

· You know, it’s funny. I always thought that a woman’s choice to use birth control was between her doctor and her…husbands also count, just not for me because I’m still single. You see, my doctor and I decided that because my menstrual cramps were downright incapacitating, the Pill was the way to go. And reading this is the first my father knows of that decision. Know why? Because it’s none of his business. Well, and also because he doesn’t really want to know. Ignorance is bliss for my dad when it comes to female problems. See? Didn’t consult him. Don’t care what his opinion is (no offense, Dad). When a man has to deal with the multitude of reasons a woman can choose to use birth control, then he may comment. If the woman is his wife, he may comment, but ultimately, the decision is the woman’s in consultation with her doctor, especially if the Pill is being used for medical purposes and not contraceptive purposes.

Correction: It has come to my attention that my father did, indeed, know about my female problems. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that the decision to start on the Pill was none of his business and he wasn't consulted.

10. Women are to respond to abuse in a quiet, gentle and submissive spirit.

· Okay, ladies, listen up. Abuse is about power. Submission to power only exacerbates the problem. Abuse should not be dealt with quietly or submissively. As for gently, let me say that should a man abuse you physically, you should insert your knee gently into his groin until he cries like a baby. Then you should kick him to the curb. Should a man abuse you emotionally or mentally, you should tell him that he is NOT allowed to talk to you that way, then gently tell him not to let the door hit him in the butt on the way out the door. See? Nothing quiet or submissive about that.

Stephanie’s Special Comment: True Support for Our Troops

I remember distinctly what I was doing when the war in Iraq started. My mother and I were coming back from North Carolina where we spent Spring Break visiting family and checking out colleges. Upon deplaning in Atlanta on our way back to Oklahoma, we were bombarded by images on the CNN Airport Network of “Shock and Awe,” which had begun in earnest in Iraq. I could only shake my head at what I saw as the senseless nature of this war. I still think this war was unnecessary and has irrevocably harmed our national interests and compromised national security. But that is not the reason behind this special comment. This special comment is the result of all of the bullshit we’ve heard about supporting our troops and how the people spouting it have failed miserably to do so.

The costs exacted by this war have been extreme. At present, almost $5 trillion has been spent on the war in Iraq. But more importantly than that is the human cost: over 4,000 American deaths, between 35,000 and 53,000 injuries, depending on whose count one chooses (the military doesn’t count injuries that don’t require air transport to a military hospital), close to 400 amputations as a result of IEDs. The military has gotten too good at saving the lives of its soldiers, it seems. Forward operating hospitals and the technological advances of miniaturization of medical equipment, as well as better body armor, have led to a survival rate of over 90% for injuries suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even the best body armor can’t protect against traumatic brain injuries, which plague many veterans whose bodies had to deal with the concussive blast of IED explosions.

And those who have been lucky enough to come back in one piece and with their brains unscrambled have a different kind of problem. The Montgomery GI Bill, which was last updated 20 years ago, only pays approximately half of the cost of the average college tuition, making it difficult for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to afford college. And the benefits are even less for reservists and National Guardsmen, who have constituted up to 60% of the troops in Iraq at some points. Over 80% of all reservists and National Guardsmen have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and 20% of those have been deployed more than once. While a decent proportion of these “weekend” warriors have attended college and now have jobs, there are still plenty who could reap the benefits of the GI Bill, assuming it was actually beneficial to them.

One of the first things Jim Webb (D-VA) did upon being sworn in as a United States Senator was introduce the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S. 22), co-sponsored by Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and John Warner (R-VA), all of whom, including Webb, were recipients of GI Bill benefits. Despite the bi-partisan support the bill enjoys from former members of the armed forces, only half of this country’s senators and a quarter of congressman have endorsed the measure.

Here’s what S. 22 does: It guarantees that the federal government would pay the highest in-state tuition rate to public institutions plus books and fees, as well as providing a cost-of-living allowance. It would also increase benefits to Guardsmen and reservists and create a matching funds program with private colleges that chose to participate.

Notably absent from the list of senators supporting the measure is John McCain, who has said in the past that the bill seemed like a good idea, but has yet to speak out in favor of it. I realize the man’s running for president and everything, but Hillary and Barack both support the measure, so there’s no excuse for McCain not to say something nice about the bill.

But more importantly, officials in the Bush administration oppose the measure, calling it a “retention-killer.” They apparently fear that if soldiers are given an easier time getting an education, they’ll be less likely to want to put up with crappy pay, endless deployments, and the world’s most dangerous working conditions. Even still, these are the same assholes who have been telling us all that our troops need our support for the last five years. I agree. But apparently, my opinion of supporting the troops and the Bush administration’s are far different. Seems to me that supporting the troops cannot end with the right equipment, the right weapons, and the right body armor on the battlefield (none of which, by the way, this administration has felt the need to supply the troops with anyhow, but I digress). Supporting the troops must also mean taking whatever measures necessary to help them readjust to civilian life, including helping them get a college education without amassing huge amounts of debt. Doesn’t their service, their sacrifice, their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way mean anything? Shouldn’t these men and women be afforded the full benefits of the GI bill as the Greatest Generation was after World War II?

Then there are those who suggest that the estimated $2 billion a year it would require to fund this measure is too expensive. You gotta be bloody kidding me! We’ve spent $5 trillion on this war! The health care costs for the 90% of injured soldiers who have survived their injuries could climb into the hundreds of billions of dollars over their lifetimes. And we’re going to get uppity about $2 billion?!? This country has got to pull its head out of its ass and realize that this war and the men and women who fight it are our responsibility. And not just the ones who have died, not just the ones who have been injured, but all of them. They are all our responsibility. We owe it to these men and women to help them in any way we can, including paying for their college education. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have a list of those senators who support S. 22 and the representatives who back the corresponding House resolution. If your senator or representative is not listed, call them, e-mail them, annoy the hell out of them, anything to get their attention. Tell them you support the troops in every way.

I'm Ba-ack!!

More of Stephanie's Greatest Hits. This is perhaps the most rewarding column I ever wrote. I got so much positive feedback from if and from all corners of OSU society--guys, girls, Greeks, independents, professors. It's definitely my favorite of all of the columns I've ever written.

Confessions of an "Ugly Girl"
Originally published February 26, 2002

"Oh, Stephanie, you’d be so pretty if you…” Fill in that blank with any number of things: dressed up more, wore makeup, did something different with your hair. And that’s the short list. Few phrases grate on my nerves like this one does. I don’t hear it so much anymore, but in high school, there were times it seemed that was all I heard.

My friends told me that all the time, meaning well, but missing the obvious inference. The same could be said for my parents. Then there was everyone else, the people whose opinions don’t really matter much to me. I don’t have self-confidence issues, and I probably never will, but I couldn’t miss the implication in this statement. “Gee, Steph. You could look very attractive if you changed everything about your appearance, but right now, you’re kind of ugly.” Oh, I realize this isn’t what my friends and family meant, but after awhile, one does start to wonder if those closest to you are trying to tell you something.

Even so, I haven’t done anything to change my appearance any. I still go for comfort over style. I avoid dresses at all costs, opting instead for jeans, t-shirts, and my favorite pair of tennis shoes. I don’t wear makeup, and my hair is always pulled back in a pony tail. I really don’t give a damn what other people think, but the insecurities are still there.

I’m sure my ex-boyfriend thought I was crazy when I asked him how he could possibly be attracted to me, but I was serious. I’m cool with the way I look, but I’d come to accept the fact that others were not. I couldn’t fathom the possibility that someone could find me even remotely attractive. If you think this is a hard problem for me to deal with, imagine what it does to girls with less self-confidence.

The root of this problem seems to lie in the way men react to women, especially really skinny women. Here’s a newsflash, boys. Most girls aren’t a size 4 and perfectly proportioned. In fact, the average dress size for women in the US is a size 10. And yet, guys the world over stop and drool over all the 36-24-36 women while the rest of us are left envious of the attention skinny girls with big boobs and no waist receive. Even the nicest, most upstanding guys are guilty of this.

I know so many guys, good guys, who will fall all over themselves when the “perfect chick” walks by, but rarely take 5 seconds to tell their girlfriends that they look nice today. They don’t do it to be mean or rude. After all, men can’t help the fact that sometimes the “little brain” takes control. That doesn’t change the fact that it can really mess with a girl’s head. I’ve seen first hand what can happen to a girl when her self-confidence is trampled on by a man. My best friend was, in high school the quintessential jerk magnet.

If there was a jerk within five miles, she was guaranteed to find him and date him. These guys messed with her self-esteem to the point that she was very nearly anorexic at one point. She wouldn’t eat anything but raisins and she only drank water because she was convinced that her boyfriend wouldn’t cheat on her anymore if she were skinnier. So she lost a lot of weight, made all of her friends worry about her, and in the end, still lost the guy to another girl.

Girls, there is a lesson to be learned here. No man, no person really, is worth this kind of torture to yourself. People who really care about you don’t care that you don’t have the “perfect” body.

There’s a little “ugly girl” in every woman, some more than others. We’re all guilty of thinking we’re not pretty enough, skinny enough. That’s okay. As long as there are people around to tell you that you look nice or that you’re beautiful just the way you are, everything will be fine.

When the “ugly girl” starts to take over is when the problems start. This will more than likely happen when there are people telling you that you’d be so pretty if…(fill in the blank). Confidence comes from within, not from without, but what other people say does matter, and anyone who says differently is lying. Don’t let the “ugly girl” win. Boys, you can help keep the “ugly girl” away too. Take the time to tell your girlfriend, your female friends in general, that they look nice. You might just make someone’s day.

Okay, weird, random idea...

So, since I've been horrible about updating lately, I thought I'd do something a little different for awhile. I call this "Stephanie's Greatest Hits." These are some of my favorite and/or most controversial columns from the two years I spent writing opinion columns for the OSU student newspaper, the Daily O'Collegian. Each column will be presented as it was submitted, which means that anything that was edited out for publication will be included. I will also make note of the original publication date. However, the titles, in most cases, will not be retained. We start with my first opinion column in the O'Colly. What can I say? I like to start out with a bang.

Thoughts on a Black pledge of allegiance
Originally published January 22, 2002

Silly me. I’d always been under the impression that there was but one pledge of allegiance in the US, the one we’ve all recited since we were in elementary school. Apparently, I was wrong. Last week, Channel 5 in Oklahoma City reported that a black pledge of allegiance is posted on the Millwood Public Schools website.

It states, “We pledge allegiance to the red, black, and green, our flag, the symbol of our eternal struggle, and to the land we must obtain, one nation of black people with one God for us all, totally united in the struggle for black love, black freedom, and black determination.” While I have my suspicions, I don’t know the exact origins of this pledge, but it is one of the most bizarre and separatist things I’ve ever seen. Breaking it down line-by-line provides a clearer picture of its meaning and probable origins.

“We pledge allegiance to the red, black, and green, our flag…”

Excuse me? I don’t know what you’re pledging allegiance to, but the last time I checked, we all live in the US and are represented by a flag that is red, white, and blue. However, if you really feel the need to pledge allegiance to a flag that’s red, black, and green, there are 9 African countries whose flags have those three colors as their principle colors. But you should know that seven of them are experiencing civil unrest or civil war. The other two have been ravaged by floods for several years. All of them are mired in poverty, and many have been ravaged by AIDS. In spite of all of this, should you decide that’s where you really want to go, I’m sure any of these countries would welcome you with open arms.

“…the symbol of our eternal struggle…”

And what eternal struggle would that be? Human nature? Stand in line. The desire to be accepted? If that’s the case, I’ve got news for you. Stuff like this only makes it harder on yourselves.

“…and to the land we must obtain…”

And what land would that be exactly? If you want ten acres west of town, I’m sure any realtor in Stillwater would be happy to show you some fine plots of land. However, if this is the Nation of Islam rhetoric I think it is, that is a call for land for a black state, one already exists. It’s called Liberia, located on the African west coast, and just as an interesting side note, its flag is also red, white, and blue.

“…one nation of black people…”

Been there, done that, and they call the land Liberia.

“…with one God for us all…”

Working under the assumption that “us” refers to black people, this baffles me somewhat. Does this mean that blacks are so separatist that they don’t even want to share God with anyone?! Where does that leave the rest of us? Are we pagans? Devil worshippers?

“…totally united…”

So that’s why a lawsuit has been filed against Jesse Jackson, his son, and members of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, by a black man who claims he was assaulted and his civil rights were violated at a coalition meeting because he asked a question that they found offensive. That’s one interesting view of total unity.

“…in the struggle for black love…”

Which is surely what caused members of the Nation of Islam to assassinate Malcolm X.

“…black freedom…”

Which has been around since slavery was abolished 140 years ago. Or, if you don’t buy that argument, the civil rights movement happened 40 years ago.

“…and black determination.”

The determination to what? Speak out of both sides of your mouths? How can you possibly decry discrimination in one breath, and advocate separatism in the next? It is this attitude that helps perpetuate abysmal race relations in this country. Are whites blameless? Certainly not. But as long as blacks parade around saying a black pledge of allegiance and crying for reparations for slavery, a policy that is widely considered reprehensible and that none of us living now were involved with in any manner, they won’t help their cause any.

Ending discrimination isn’t a one-way street, and waiting for whites to come to you just means you’ll be waiting for a long time. Unless everyone, including blacks, accepts that we all have to play our part in ending discrimination and accept each other, differences and all, things will only get worse. The black pledge of allegiance is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Instead of one nation of any racial group, trying to distance themselves from everyone else, I prefer “one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for ALL.”

Long Time Gone...

*Sigh* Reports of my death have, again, been greatly exaggerated...but not by much. Last semester was no fun at all, but I survived. And now I'm taking classes I actually give a damn about. Yea me!! I'll try to post my musings more frequently, I promise.

Saving the World from Fundamentalism…Three Teenagers at a Time

As I was leaving work today, I noted with amusement a friend of mine from the political science department being questioned by three teenagers who couldn’t have been more than 14 or 15 years old. They were questioning him about his faith (he’s a good Catholic) and salvation and what happens when we die. I listened to the conversation with equal parts horror and amusement as these kids continued to spout rhetoric they had heard from others, even in the face of someone who was intellectually gifted enough to refute their views pretty easily.

Once they left, I asked my friend what that conversation was all about. He handed me the pamphlet they had given him, from an organization called Worldview Academy (their website says they are “a non-denominational organization dedicated to helping Christians to think and live in accord with a biblical worldview so that they will serve Christ and lead the culture.”)

This pamphlet was a step by step manual on what to say to people given their various answers to the question “What happens when you die?” He and I, as well as a friend of his, continued to talk for a while when more of these kids approached. They asked if they could have a few minutes of our time to which I readily agreed. Knowing what was coming, I had an answer to their first question: “Do you know what happens when you die?” My answer: “No. And neither do you.”

Of course, they took exception to me saying that and assured me that they did, in fact, know the answer because the Bible told them. “The Bible,” I said. “Huh. So, whose Bible? And whose interpretation of the Bible?” They informed me, pagan that I am, that there was only one Bible and one interpretation, because the Bible is the infallible word of God. “So who wrote the Bible?” I asked. “And why should I believe them?”

Lots of people wrote parts of the Bible, I was told. “Okay, so let’s start small. Who wrote the Pentateuch?” Moses. Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Even, apparently the parts written after his death. That Moses was a pretty talented dude. Imagine these kids’ surprise when I suggested that there might be four authors of Genesis alone. But to their credit, that didn’t phase these kids much. The force was strong with these, I could tell.

So then we moved back to the idea of whose Biblical interpretation we were talking about. I pointed to my friend, the Catholic. “What about his interpretation of the Bible? Is it legit?” Well, of course not. He thinks that works are required for salvation. They then quoted me Ephesians 2:8-9. Naturally, they neglected verse 10 which certainly points to the idea that works are an integral part of the regenerative experience. Oops. “So who’s right? Which one of us is telling the truth?” They weren’t sure, having admitted that none of them were God.

Then I took the argument a step further. “The Bible’s a pretty small book, right?” Yes, yes. They agreed to that. “And God is really big. Infinitely big, even.” No problem there. “So can God really fit into the Bible?” Nope. All three of them agreed that God is probably bigger than the Bible.

So I upped the stakes. “So let’s consider more holy books. Stack the Bible, the Qu’ran, Hindu scriptures, Confucianism, Taoism all together. God still bigger than that stack of books?” Yep, yep. They agreed. God can’t fit into all of those books put together. So we were back to the beginning. Who knows what is true? After all, if none of us is God, then none of us can say for sure that we have all the answers.

I threw in some stuff about other religions too. “What about Islam? Muslims have their own opinion of what is true. After all, the Qu’ran was a corrective to the Jewish and Christian scriptures that had strayed from Allah’s original message.” They weren’t sure. They hadn’t studied Islam much. But by God, they knew that they were right and Muslims were wrong.

So as they got ready to leave, probably to pray for my soul, I let them in on the joke. “In the interest of full disclosure,” I told them. “You should know that some of your friends came by earlier, so we knew what to expect from you. Also, I have a master’s degree in religion.” This was, I explained to them, an exercise in questioning conventional wisdom. Religion is an imprecise science, because if there is an absolute truth, surely no one but God can fathom it. Because of that, it’s important to remember that no one has the market cornered on truth, and anyone who tells you they do is surely a liar.

As they walked away, my friend asked if I thought anything I told those kids would sink in. My honest answer was “I don’t know.” But if anything I said makes them think and question and examine what they really believe versus what they’ve been taught, then I did some good—and at the same time, did my part to save the world from fundamentalism…three teenagers at a time.

Reports of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Okay, so it’s been almost six months since I’ve updated this thing, which means…I have a lot to say. I just won’t say it all now. I’d like to enjoy my first night of freedom after the semester ended. So, let’s talk about…Iraq. Hmm…now there’s a shocker.

General Petraeus is telling us to wait till September before we judge this troop surge. Funny…we’ve been told to wait before only to be told to wait again. Anyone else seeing a pattern here? We’ve got some serious problems in Iraq, and General Petraeus know it. He is, after all, the man who literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency.

The Army's counter-insurgency strategy, co-written by Gen. Petraeus (Army Field Manual 3-24 if anyone's interested) calls for 25 troops per every 1000 civilians to stabilize a country. For most of the Iraq War, we've been operating at 7:1000 (see Thomas Hammes, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century.)

Furthermore, FM 3-24 states that the military operations should only account for 20% of the activity in counter-insurgency done right. The other 80% should be economic and political reform, rebuilding infrastructure, etc. On this, we have screwed the pooch.

We've been told over and over again that we can't win the war on terror militarily, yet that's all we've tried. It's all we've tried because it's really all we have to try. Without adequate troop support to stabilize Iraq, none of these other things can happen.

In On War, Clausewitz said that the most important decision a commander or policy maker had to make was to determine the kind of war they were fighting and not try to make it something that it was not. From the beginning, the Bush administration tried to make the war in Iraq something it was not. It was never a war that could be won quickly and with a small number of troops. Rebuilding a country that has been so devastated by tyranny and despotism does not happen overnight, yet that is what they believed and tried to do.

Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure that the situation in Iraq will be any different if we leave five months from now or five years from now. Four years of mistakes and miscaluclations and porous borders may be too much for the military to overcome. The only way it could work would be to reimplement the draft, dramatically inflate the numbers of the mlitary and send another 200,000 troops to Iraq to do what it takes to secure the country. And we all know that won't happen. At this point, I think withdrawal is our only option if we want to reduce troop casualties.

Stephanie’s Special Comment: Taking the War to the Enemy…

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.

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.

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....