uncommon-sense

Surrender?

2006-12-10T07:27:00.000-08:00

Now that the Iraq Study Group has issued its report, critics are using the word surrender to characterize its recommendations. The New York Post Photoshopped images of the faces of James Baker and Lee Hamilton onto the bodies of monkeys with the headline "Surrender Monkeys." And right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh offered the following criticism.

You know, bipartisan simply means Republicans cave on their core principles and agree with Democrats. That's why everybody is praising the stupid report. Because there's nothing in this about winning, there's nothing in this about victory. There's not anything in this about moving forward in a positive way. This is cut and run, surrender without the words.

As I've written before, I recognize a non sequitur when I see one, and it is a non sequitur to use the word surrender in this context.

1. We declared war on the government of Saddam Hussein. We defeated that Government and drove it from power. There's no one to surrender to in the old regime.

2. We helped institute a new government in Iraq, a government put in power as a result of the new constitution that was ratified by the Iraqi people and the elections that were subsequently held. We are in partnership with this government which, unfortunately, has not been able to consolidate its power. We can't surrender to the new Iraqi regime; that regime is perhaps the one group in Iraq that wants our presence.

3. There is currently armed conflict going on between extreme Sunni and extreme Shiite elements in Iraq. They are killing one another, and they are killing American soldiers, largely because our soldiers are attractive targets. But we cannot surrender to both sides in a civil war.

4. There are the Iraqi people. We are there for their sake, to help them build a free and democratic way of life. They responded by risking their lives to vote in the recent elections. They are the victims of the destabilized situation which exists. It makes no sense to surrender to the Iraqi people. We want them to win!

5. That leaves the situation itself, the reality that exists in war-torn Iraq ... the conflict, the chaos, the bloodshed. We can't surrender to reality itself, can we?

Or can we?

Perhaps in this sense, surrender would be a good thing: willingly to give up our denial, to see with open eyes the futility we have created, to acknowledge mistakes in judgment, to stare reality in the eye ... and not flinch from what we see.

To use religious language, perhaps the way forward is to repent of our sins, to ask forgiveness, to change direction, to seek the help of a higher power ... and to enlist the assistance of the world community.

So with this sense of the word (which, admittedly, is not what Rush or the New York Post had in mind), I am calling for surrender--giving up the delusion that the United States of America has any power by itself to affect the situation for the better. I am calling us to reach out to the hundreds of millions of moderate Moslems in the world and seek their help to mediate the intrareligious conflict between their Sunni and Shiite brethren. As a result, our standing in the world might just begin to be rehabilitated. And, more importantly, the suffering people of Iraq might have a decent chance to regain control of their own lives and their own country.

Iraq Study Group surrender Rush Limbaugh New+York+Post James+Baker Lee+Hamilton

What's your plan?

2006-11-03T18:30:00.000-08:00

So George Bush is out on the stump, campaigning for embattled fellow Republicans, trying to maintain a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. He's come up with a pretty clever little line:

"What's your plan?" he rhetorically asks his audience, challenging Democratic candidates who are not present to offer a plan for winning in Iraq.

"What's your plan?" the audience yells back.

"See, they don't have a plan," Bush says. "Harsh criticism is not a plan for victory. Second guessing is not a strategy."

But this line is nothing more than rhetorical sophistry. If his question were perfectly honest (which is a bit more than we can expect from any politician), he might pose it this way:

I have totally messed up Iraq. I ignored the wisdom that led my father to stop the first Iraq war after 100 hours. In ignoring that wisdom, I found out why my father made that decision. I have created a civil war. I have created a breeding ground of resentment towards America. I have created a training camp for future terrorists. As a result of my messing up, money and lives have been poured down the drain. Wasted. Gone forever.

I don't have a plan for victory, because victory is not possible.

So I respectfully ask my political opponents, do you have a plan? Do you have any good ideas for extracting us from the mess I have created? Because I'm out of ideas.

But George Bush is not honest enough to say this, even though saying something like this might just be the best thing he could possibly do. It might just rally the nations of the world, it might just motivate people of good will, to work to stop the bloodshed and horror that have resulted from Bush's mistake. As a good, pious Christian, surely he knows there is no forgiveness, no atonement, no new life apart from repentence.

But that's not what Bush is saying. He's challenging the Democrats, "What's your plan?"

He might as well be asking, "How do you propose to sweep the water back under the bridge?"

Bush victory plan Republican Democrat election campaign Iraq

a tiddlywinks contest: just as effective

2006-10-29T15:30:00.000-08:00

Digby on his blog Hullabaloo writes the following concerning criticism of the Iraq war:

I hate the Democrats who ... spout lie after lie: that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq; that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action; that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD; that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud; that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.

These lies, contradicted by reports, commissions, speeches, and public records, are too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut, especially when ignored by abetting media.

I simply point out that digby is misrepresenting the criticisms of many Americans--—Democrats, Independents, and Republicans as well--—who lament the disastrous mistake that took us into the expensive and counter-productive quagmire known as the War in Iraq. Let us examine in some detail the so-called "lies" that digby is attributing to Bush's critics.

that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq. This is not what critics are claiming. Bush undoubtedly believed there were WMD in Iraq. The criticism is that intelligence was poorly interpreted and "cherry picked" by neo-conservatives in the Administration. The President was misinformed by his own political appointees, appointees who served him and the nation poorly. Bush failed to question critically the interpretation of intelligence that was presented to him.

that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action. Bush made statements of fact that turned out to be erroneous. So did Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations. They did not lie (if a lie is defined as a purposeful misrepresentation of facts). The charge is that they believed the erroneous "intelligence" that was fed to them and passed it on as fact.

that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD. No responsible critic is claiming that the goal of democratizing Iraq was "invented" after the WMD rationale proved to be fallacious. The criticism is that after the original rationale for the preemptive invasion on Iraq proved to be vacuous (the self-defense argument), the Administration's P.R. machine changed its tune and said the invasion was about bringing Democracy to Iraq. Had that been the reason stated before the war effort began, Americans would never have supported the invasion, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud. Who has said the coalition was "a fraud"? That's not the criticism. I think John Stewart on The Daily Show said it best. When Bush named a minor northern European country high on a list of coalition members in response to a criticism voiced by John Kerry, Stewart asked, with a tone of incredulity in his voice, "Poland???" Other than Britain, the participation of other nations in the Coalition has been much more symbolic than real.

that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war. Well, digby, why don't we just rephrase this. Bush shunned weapons inspections in favor of war. We didn't need to fight a war to rid Saddam of WMDs. Therefore any other approach would have resulted in a WMD-free Iraq: a regime of weapons inspection, diplomatic negotiations, even a tiddlywinks contest between American and Iraqi schoolchildren.

You call the arguments of war critics as being "too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut." If you would only state the arguments as they are actually made by most critics, they are not at all preposterous. They are factual. And how, or why, would you want to rebut the true cost of this war? Thousands of American soldiers killed and tens of thousands of American casualties. Tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have lost their lives. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain. And ... zero WMDs found.

Iraq War Bush criticism digby Hullabaloo WMD intelligence cherry-picked Iraq+War

Flying Spaghetti Monsters

2006-10-14T07:00:00.000-07:00

There is a fascinating interview with Richard Dawkins on salon.com. Dawkins is a biologist and an atheist. Although his take on the role of faith and religion in human life differs from mine, he offers an interesting and significant point of view.

I would not argue with his logic; I would simply note his assumptions. In the opening question of the interview, Dawkins is asked why he became an atheist. "I started getting doubts when I was about 9," he responded, "and realized that there are lots of different religions and they can't all be right."

This is precisely the assumption with which fundamentalists begin. There is one God, one truth, and thus only one religion can be true. This assumption can take different forms.

• One can assume that one religion has all the truth and that the others by implication have less of the truth (example: Joseph Ratzinger's discussion of the lesser status of Protestant Christianity in Dominus Iesus).

• One can assume that there are certain fundamental nuggets of truth and that religions that deny those nuggets are false religions.

• One can assume that adherents of one's religion will have eternal life and "go to heaven" and that everyone else won't.

I start with a different assumption entirely. Any religion offers glimpses of what is true, what is real. Different religions provide different glimpses. We are enriched by the existence of all of our faith traditions because each contributes to our comprehension of the unknown, the mysterious, the holy.

The same is true with science. Biologists try to gain understanding of the mystery of the universe by studying living creatures, chemists by studying how different substances react with each other, physicists by studying motion and gravity. Different methodologies, differents fields of investigation, but each field of science contributes to our comprehension of the universe.

The interviewer asks Dawkins, "What is so bad about religion?"

"Well, it encourages you to believe falsehoods, to be satisfied with inadequate explanations which really aren't explanations at all. And this is particularly bad because the real explanations, the scientific explanations, are so beautiful and so elegant."

The real explanations? Science offers a final, true, and complete explanation of life and the universe? Why is reseach still going on?

So beautiful and so elegant? This is the language of faith! Yes, there is beauty and elegance in the discoveries of a Galileo, a Newton, a Darwin. But there is also beauty and elegance in the insights of the writer of Job, in the passion for social justice of the Hebrew prophets, in the wisdom of Hillel, in the spiritual genius of Jesus of Nazareth. And though I am less familiar with other streams of faith tradition, I acknowledge the beauty and elegance in the paths set forth by Mohammed, by the Buddah, by Taoism and Hinduism and by Native American spirituality.

So, Richard Dawkins, I agree with you that some expressions of religion are dangerous. I agree with you that unquestioned faith can blind rather than illumine its adherents. I agree with you that there is a beautiful, fascinating, still-to-be-understood world and universe out there for humanity to explore. And I would suggest that when you use the language of beauty and elegance to speak of the discoveries of our minds, you are acknowledging that truth is not just of the mind. Truth affects us at a deeper place of our own being. Call that deeper place what you will, I think we are essentially in agreement!

Mel Gibson

2006-08-02T17:00:00.000-07:00

“Please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite.”

With these words, Mel Gibson tried to apologize for anti-Semitic remarks he made upon being arrested for drunk-driving. He went on to ask for a meeting “with leaders in the Jewish community with whom I can have a one-on-one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.... I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display.”

I hope these words are more than just PR.

Where to begin that journey to healing? Gibson need look no further than the critique he received from his 2004 film The Passion of the Christ. Many thoughtful commentators, both Jews and progressive Christians, commented at the time on the implicit anti-Semitism in that film. Gibson rejected that criticism. “My detractors would say that [the movie] is going to promote hatred. I think that's utter nosense. The absurdity of that staggers me.” Hello! It was the same hateful theology reflected in that film that expressed itself in Gibson's druken rage.

Here’s the essence of the problem: Anti-Judaism is embedded in the Christian narrative. No, the teachings of Jesus were not anti-Semitic; Jesus was a faithful first-century Jew. But as the Christian movement moved away from traditional Judaism, theological conflict developed. This conflict was expressed in texts written during the first century. But when later readers studied those texts, they read the text out of its original historical context. They read a story that [unhistorically] gave first century Jews primary responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.

When the emporer Constantine subsequently made the cross the center of his imperial church’s orthodoxy, the anti-Jewishness of the passion narrative became wedded to the heart of christian theology. Millions of faithful Christians uncritically accepted the story and, along with it, the historical untruth that “the Jews killed the Son of God.” There’s a straight path of causality leading from this to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and to countless hateful actions committed against the Jews. The Passion of the Christ is yet another example of what happens when Christians uncritically accept the passion narrative as transparently historical.

Gibson trusted that his dad, who taught him the faith, didn't lie to him. Mr. Gibson, you dad didn't lie to you. He was just unquestioning of what he had been taught. Your dad is yet another uncritical believer who refused to question an anti-Semitic tradition. Like father, like son?

Gibson once expressed the belief that the holocaust never really happened. Mr. Gibson, you really need to ask yourself some hard questions: Where did that belief come from? Why was it so important for you to deny that Jews suffered so terribly at the hands of the Nazis?

You have apologized for what you said to the arresting officer. You have stated a desire to begin your process of healing. Please know that it will not be easy. You will have to go deep, deep to the heart of your faith. You will have to be willing to examine your assumptions. You will have to begin to question what you have been taught from the day you were born. You said it was absurd to think that your ultra-orthodox faith could lead to hatred. Maybe it’s not so absurd after all.

Protection

2006-06-08T00:46:00.000-07:00

"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected."

The above statement was made by Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, on June 7, 2006. The occasion of these remarks was the failed attempt in the U.S. Senate to cut off debate on a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.

I understand where the Senator is coming from, and let me try to acknowledge his views. In his heart of hearts, he believes that homosexuality is wrong. He bases this belief on his reading of the Scriptures. He sees a few verses in the Bible (very few, by the way) that seem to address the issue of homosexuality. Taking these verses as authoritative, the Senator concludes that homosexuality is against the Law of Moses (as per Leviticus) and the law of nature (as per Romans). He then (and here's his leap of logic) infers that gays and lesbians in committed relationships should not, in the United States of America, enjoy the same legal rights as committed heterosexual couples.

So here's my question: Why should a non-central tenet of the Law of Moses, a body of Law that the Apostle Paul seems to say that Christians are no longer subject to (by the way), a tradition that governs the covenental relationship between God and Israel, govern a modern, secular country such as the United States of America?

Sometimes it opens one's eyes to see one's views set in a different context. To ask a parallel question: Where does Sen. Brownback stand on the question of Islamic law requiring women to wear burkas? Should modern women living in an Islamic country be required by force of law to cover themselves in public? What does he think about the imposition of strict Islamic law on modern women who want to live a modern lifestyle? Is he aware, for instance, that women are not allowed to drive cars in Saudia Arabia, that the law protects the right of husbands to rape their wives or to prevent wives from travelling without their permission?

So this is my point: Religious people should be free to accept for themselves the dictates of their own tradition. But they should not assume they have authority to impose the dictates of their religious tradition upon other people. That's what modernity means. That's what the enlightenment bequeathed upon us. That's what the First Amendment to the Constitution is all about.

The last time I looked, the right of men and women to marry was well established under law. Nobody is proposing taking away that right. It's not hard to get a marriage license if you're a heterosexual couple. In some places (Las Vegas comes to mind), you can even get married on the spot; the law requires no time to reflect on the decision a couple is about to make.

"We're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected."

Heterosexual couples do not need their rights protected. If they want to get married, they are free to do so. If they want to spend their lives together, nobody is getting in their way.

It's the rights of gay and lesbian couples that is at stake here. Are they not Americans? Is this not, as Vice President Cheney once said relative to this subject, a free country? If two people love one another and want to spend their lives in a committed relationship, what business is that of Sam Brownback, or James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell, or you, or me?

If a religious community does not want to recognize the rights of gays and lesbians to live in a commited relationship, fine! But if government imposes that religious belief upon its citizens, it no different than insisting that women shroud themselves in public.

Why is movieguide.org so afraid?

2006-05-04T15:30:00.000-07:00

The website movieguide.org today has published a "white paper" concerning the May 19 release of The Da Vinci Code. It is safe to say that Ted Baehr does not like the movie. It is his right to feel offended by it and to encourage individuals to boycott the movie.

However, the White Paper's rhetoric seems a bit excessive. Listen to some of its statements:

The release of this movie is characterized as war on Christianity... a vicious attack on Christianity unprecedented in the history of Hollywood.

The Da Vinci Code, it asserts, presents blasphemous fiction as fact, ... denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, ... alleges Jesus married Mary Magdalene with whom [he] had a child, ... falsely claims the Christian church has historically hidden these 'facts' through deception, murder and conspiracy, ... [and] has already caused great harm.

Why is The Da Vinci Code so dangerous? Because many Christians are already theologically malnourished; how will they withstand the assault of distortions, lies and bigotry from The Da Vinci Code.... We must combat The Da Vinci Code's attack on Jesus, the Bible, and the very integrity of the Christian faith.

This sounds like the rhetoric of some very frightened people, and I very frankly do not understand Baehr's alarm. It seems to me that the Christian movement has withstood challenges far greater than a paperback novel over the past two millennia. Among these, to name just a few:

• The church survived the execution of Jesus of Nazareth by the Roman Empire just three years after he began his ministry. In all probability, the movement should have withered and died, right then and there...

• The church has survived the persecution and martyrdom of countless believers, not only in the first few centuries of the church but in other times and places when Christians have dared to witness to their faith and to speak unpopular truth in the face of unjust social conditions...

• The church has survived the co-option of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine who made it into a State Religion, who imposed onto it an orthodoxy formulated by the Council of Nicea, and who utterly changed the nature of its worship and lifestyle...

• The church has survived the unconscionable behavior of many unwise leaders of the church who instigated violence in the name of Jesus. Remember the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the bombing of family planning clinics?

• The church has survived the unbending rigidity of Christian fundamentalists who, like fundamentalists of all faiths, claim to possess the only faithful interpretation of the truth...

Such offenses have posed—and continue to pose—a far greater danger to the church, its faith, and its life, and yet somehow, by the grace of God, the movement begun by a Palestinian rabbi in the first century is still alive. If the church can overcome all of these assaults, some self-imposed and others imposed from without, surely it will survive the release of a Hollywood movie.

Allow me this brief theological commentary: The Da Vinci Code is just a novel. It is a good read, but it's fiction. It explores the imaginative possibility that Jesus might have been married, that Jesus might have fathered a child, that Mary Magdalene might have been his wife. The gospels are completely silent on the question of whether Jesus married. It is not impossible. It might actually be the case. It might not be the case. But whether or not Jesus was married, it does not affect his message in the least. It does not diminish the spiritual genius reflected in the Sermon on the Mount. It does not detract from the ethical imperative of the Great Commandment to love God and neighbor. It does not quiet the church's voice from speaking truth to power in our day. It does not prevent Jesus' followers from ministering to the hungry and thirsty, the naked and homeless, the sick and the prisoners. It does not stand in the way of our solidarity with those who are oppressed.

Why is movieguide.org so afraid?

Strategic Blunder

2006-03-15T16:30:00.000-08:00

When the history books are written about the first decade of the twenty-first century, I think historians will offer something like the following as a summary of the Bush Administration.

The United States, under the presidency of George W. Bush, badly miscalculated following the attacks of September 11, 2001, and committed a major strategic blunder in the decision to overthrow the government of Iraq. With its armed forces overextended in an intractable conflict, the U.S. was unable to use its military might to leverage diplomatic efforts to address major challenges posed by Iran, North Korea, and other problem nations. Facing ballooning costs from a war effort it could not pay for, the U.S. fell under the influence of China, to whom it grew ever more deeply in debt. The U.S. was ultimately forced to abandon the Iraqi people to a Civil War carried out by sectarian interests within Iraq and thereby lost its credibility as a major world power.

The purpose of strategic planning is to anticipate possible outcomes from different actions a country might take. The Iraq War represents a strategic blunder of immense proportions. There is no way out of this quagmire. If we stay, our army will end up in the middle of a Civil War that it will be unable to stop -- or defend itself from. If we leave, we will lose face ... and the country will still end up in an intractable Civil War. The only question is: How can we bring about the least bad outcome?

Some thoughts:

First, honesty is the only way to regain credibility. And though it can be costly to be honest, the cost will only increase the longer we wait.

Our current leadership is incapable of exhibiting honesty. George Bush will never admit the obvious, that he screwed up big time. It is up to us, the people of the United States, to admit the truth.

And what is that truth:

(a) We need to recognize that our nation has perpetrated an illegal and unjust war. The stated reasons for this war (that Iraq possessed WMDs and that Saddam was supporting terrorism) were not true.

(b) Though we did overthrow a despicable tyrant, his overthrow has served neither our national interests nor the interests of most Iraquis. About the only "winners" from the debacle have been (a) Iran and (b) the cause of terrorism.

Second, we need to get out. Our presence there is not helpful. We are incapable of affecting the outcome of events.

I suggest that we set a date for withdrawal (December 31, 2006) and that we pursue negotiations with the government of Iraq and with the United Nations Security Council. The question on the table: what it is that will happen when the United States military leaves Iraq?

One possibility: replace our military with a United Nations peacekeeping force. There should be major representation of soldiers and diplomats from the world's most populous nation and its coming superpower, China. Why would China want to get involved? It's no secret that they need oil as much as we do.

And why should all that oil go to China and not to us? Well, we made a strategic blunder ... and perhaps that's the least bad outcome that we can hope for.

This Land Is My Land

2006-01-05T15:30:00.000-08:00

Pat Robertson seems to have an endless capacity to make theological assertions that boggle the sensibilities of most people, and today he made another. Robertson made the following assertion on his television show, The 700 Club, concerning the grave condition of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon:

I am sad to see him in this condition. But I think we need to look at the Bible and the Book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those that "divide my land." God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible, he says, "This is my land," and for any Prime Minister of Israel who decides he's going to carve it up and give it away, God says, "No, this is mine."

[Sharon] was dividing God's land, and I say, Woe unto any Prime Minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations, or the United States of America. God says, "This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone."

You can see and hear Robertson's full statement here.

It all gets back to hermeneutics. What is the Bible's bottom line? What is its central, irreducible message? Certainly some believe God's gift of Israel to Abraham's descendants to be the essential promise of Scripture. For them, Genesis 15:18-21 describes the divinely mandated geographical boundaries of the land. Certainly there have been many who have held onto this conviction throughout history. During the first century CE, a time when "God's land" was occupied by Roman armies, this faith led to fervent apocalyptic expectation on the part of many, the hope that God would soon break into human history in a dramatic way and restore God's land to God's people.

Significantly, this hope does not seem to be central in the teaching of one prominent Jewish rabbi of the time, Jesus of Nazareth. For Jesus, the bottom line was an ethical one. The greatest commandment, according to Jesus and many others, was to love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus' take on the Torah (that its central message is primarily ethical in nature) was one that was held by many in Israel. In fact, the hermeneutic of ethical monotheism became the basis of rabbinical Judaism. This, rather than claims about ownership of "the land," is what motivated the rabbis whose debates are recorded in the Talmud and in later writings.

But there are others--Pat Robertson, some fundamentalist Christians, and some ultra-Orthodox Jews--for whom the land is what it's all about. While respecting their right to hold this view, I want to pose a question that I would hope Robertson and others would be willing to address.

Is God as territorial and nationalistic as Robertson believes? Is God's primary concern about lines on a map? Is God's fundamental desire about the political and religious identity of those who would exercise governmental control over Israel? Is God's central passion about issues of political sovereignty? Or is God's agenda centered more around the quality of the life lived by the people who dwell in God's land, that they do justice and love mercy, as God says through the prophet Micah?

What does it mean to say that Israel is God's land? Consider the fact that Jerusalem is seen as a holy place by Jews, Christians, and Moslems alike. Here is one vision of what it might look like to put flesh on the conviction that Israel is God's land:

We honor Israel as "God's land" when we work to make it a place of peace, shalom, salaam.

We honor Israel as "God's land" when we seek to transcend myopic concerns for the well-being of one people and have faith in the prophetic vision that the one God cares for the well-being of many nations and peoples.

We honor Israel as "God's land" when we share the passion that God spoke through the prophet Amos that "justice roll down like waters;" the conviction that all people are children of God; and the commitment that everyone is entitled to full equality in the political, economic, and social dimensions of life.

We honor Israel as "God's land" when we realize that God is the owner of the land and that those who inhabit the land are but stewards of God's gifts, called to care for the land and ensure that all peoples can enjoy its bounty.

We honor Israel as "God's land" when we are filled with the hope that peoples of all faiths can live together in mutual respect in Israel ... or anywhere on earth.

Shameless Conflation

2006-01-01T15:16:00.000-08:00

First Ever Thomas Kinkade Illuminated Nativity Tree!

Aglow with the true spirit of Christmas!

Plays the cherished melody
of Silent Night

The holy family looks radiant
under the soft glow of the illuminated Crèche
[Actual advertising copy. Parade, January 1, 2006, p. 17.]

Thomas Kinkade should really get the services of a qualified biblical scholar on staff. Consider this reading of the New Testament birth narratives (and I quote):

The Thomas Kinkade "Glory To The Newborn King" Illuminated Nativity Tree is entirely hand-crafted to retell the blessed event step by step, from the Three Kings' journey to Bethlehem, to the heavenly angels bringing good tidings and praise, to the night Jesus was born [emphasis mine].

What is wrong with this ~~biblical scholarship~~ advertising copy?

Besides getting the events in reverse chronological order, Kinkade has shamelessly conflated the Lukan and Matthean versions of the nativity story.

Luke's narrative stresses the humility and lowliness of the birth story. The baby Jesus is born in a manger (a feeding trough for cattle) in a barn because his parents lack the funds, social status, and/or foresight to have secured them a room in the inn. The angels sing, but their song is heard by lowly shepherds in the field, watching their flock by night. (Shepherds are at the low end of the social scale).

Not so Matthew's story. Jesus' birth draws the panicked attention of the mighty and powerful. Kings (or are they magi, or astrologers?) from the east come to Jerusalem seeking "the child who has been born king of the Jews." This language (with its allusions to the hoped-for military leader who would overthrow the Roman occupiers and reestablish the Davidic kingdom) draws the concerned reaction of none other than King Herod, whose job it is to prevent such an uprising from occuring. He asks the magi to inform him of the child's location, but respecting the child's fourth amendment rights, the magi return home without providing Herod with the intelligence he has sought. [Perhaps if Herod had requested a warrant, history would have gone differently]. So trying to snuff out the threat, Herod orders that every male born in Bethlehem during the past two years be executed.

But none of this literary texture shows up in Kinkade's artwork [sic] or advertising copy. Rather, as the ad blathers on...

Hand-painted scenes and figurines nestle cozily within its lush, sculptural greenery. Reflecting a warm, holiday glow, the tree and structures illuminate with just a flick of the switch, and plays the cherished Christmas carol, Silent Night.

Oh, yes. Just one more thing. Why, if this piece of priceless Christmas kitsch (well, actually, it's $135, payable in four convenient installments of just $33.75 ... plus $14.99 shipping and service) is to play Silent Night ... do they call the thing "Glory To The Newborn King." Those words come from Charles Wesley's Christmas hymn Hark! the Herald Angels Sing.

Just more shameless conflation.

Powered by AC adapter (included) or 3 "AA" batteries (not included).

The strange case of Gordon James Klingenschmitt

2005-12-21T17:30:00.000-08:00

“Jesus is taboo for U.S. military chaplains,” reads the sensational headline on the Drudge Report. The headline links to an article from the conservative Washington Times, itself owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church. Rev. Moon, the politically conservative head of this denomination, is proclaimed by the “Moonies” to be God’s Messiah.

While I would not doubt the ability of the U.S. military, or any large bureaucracy, to issue nonsensical directives, I’m not sure that this is the case here. It seems to me that Chaplain Klingenschmitt, an ordained priest in the Evangelical Episcopal Church, is not quite up to the theological and pastoral flexibility necessary to minister in the ecumenical setting of the United States Navy.

Military regulations, as I understand them, allow chaplains free rein in leading chapel services for their own stream of religious tradition. The Rev. Klingenschmitt is a Protestant chaplain. However, when their work takes them beyond their own religious constituency, chaplains are encouraged to exercise ecumenical sensitivity. When praying before a religiously pluralistic group, chaplains are to use theocentric language, praying to “God” and avoiding references to Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Trinity, Allah, or other expressions of God specific to particular faith traditions. According to Navy spokeswoman Lt. Erin Bailey, “Navy chaplains are encouraged to be sensitive to the needs of all those present” at public events.

Klingenschmitt believes he is being persecuted “because I pray in Jesus’ name” and is beginning a hunger strike in front of the White House to protest his treatment. His side of the story is presented at this website.

It seems to me that Klingenschmitt and his supporters are a bit over the line.

Seventy-three members of Congress signed a letter stating that military policy disenfranchises “hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers in the military who look to their chaplains for comfort, inspiration and support.”

The Rev. Billy Baugham, executive director of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, complains that while Protestant chaplains have been told not to pray in the name of Jesus, no “rabbi [has] been rebuked for making references to Hanukkah.”

Both statements are non sequiturs.

To the 73 members of Congress, I would ask this: How are Christians denied comfort when chaplains, in a mixed religious context, proclaim the grace of our one God and avoid the christological affirmations peculiar to Christian faith?

To the Rev. Baugham, I would offer this reminder: Referring to a holiday such as Hanukkah (or Christmas or Ramadan) is one thing; it makes no religious claims. On the other hand, proclaiming that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God strikes in the face of the religious sensibilities of Jews and Muslims. And depending on how that proclamation is made, it also may not resonate with progressive Christians.

when it's an undue burden to get a judge

2005-12-20T11:00:00.000-08:00

Now let's get this straight. The Founders of our Nation structured a Constitution to ensure that We the People would not suffer the kinds of abuses of power that King George committed against his subjects. Our Founders structured a system of Government that accomplishes this by two significant means.

First, there is a division of powers in our Government. The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary each have set powers, defined by the Constitution. Our Government is organized this way to create a system of checks and balances. If one branch overreaches its power, the other two can "check" it.

Second, we have a Bill of Rights guaranteeing citizens certain rights that the government cannot violate. In particular, the Fourth Amendment reads:

     The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
     papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
     shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
     probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
     describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
     to be seized.

This isn't just arcane legal theory. This is the basis of our freedom as a people. It is the fullest expression of the genius of American Democracy. The ultimate beneficiaries of our Constitutional form of Government are "We the People."

This is also the heart of conservative political philosophy. We minimize the power of government in order to maximize the personal freedom of individual Americans.

But now we hear that the President of the United States gets to decide when he can disregard the Fourth Amendment rights of We the People. Now we hear that in his Constitutional role of Commander in Chief, he is not bound by the Constitution or by the law of the land. If, in his judgment, he feels that our democratic system of law jeopardizes our security, he can decide that the law doesn't apply to him.

Funny, I never heard this in any of the civics courses I took in school. Where is President Bush going to find activist judges to support this reading of the Constitution?

But let's take the President's logic one step further. The Bill of Rights grants the Executive the ability to conduct a search (which includes conducting wiretaps and intercepting email) if he obtains a Search Warrant from a Judge. (This is a fine example of our checks and balances in action). In fact, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 even gives the Executive the right to conduct the search first and get the permission of a secret court afterwards, within 72 hours (three days). But President Bush believes there are times when it's an undue burden to get a judge.

Let's apply that same logic to the hypothetical case of a fourteen year old girl who has an unwanted pregnancy, who fears the reaction of an abusive parent if he learns about her situation, and who wants an abortion. The Bush Administration would argue that it's an easy enough matter for the girl to go before a Judge and so bypass the need for parental notification. But what fourteen year old girl has lawyers on staff who can advise her and draw up the necessary papers? What fourteen year old girl knows how to negotiate the legal system? What fourteen year old girl has the legal sophistication to even know where to begin? And we don't even give the fourteen year old the option of getting her abortion first and then appearing before a judge within seventy-two hours.

If it's not an undue burden to ask a fourteen year old girl to get on the docket of a busy Court in order to exercise her Constitutional right to privacy, then why is it an undue burden for the President? He's got dozens of lawyers working for him full-time. He's got an entire Justice Department with immediate access to the courts. He's even got a secret court set up just for this purpose, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Surely if the President expects that the typical fourteen year old girl with no legal experience can get her case before a judge in a timely manner, the President of the United States can accept the same obligation for himself. He is a citizen, subject to the Law, just as any of us are.

And this is the point. We live in a nation of laws. We are governed by the Constitution and by the properly enacted Law of the land. We are not subject to the arbitrary whims of whomever happens to be the present leader. We are a Democracy. We do business differently than did, say, King George of England or ... Saddam Hussein.

May Tookie rest in peace ...

2005-12-12T16:00:00.000-08:00

... and may Arnold have trouble sleeping at night.

Capital punishment is an awful thing. It is an awful thing, knowingly, to take another's life, even if one could know with certainty that the condemned one was guilty of the grievous crimes that were committed. Killing in the name of the State serves no positive purpose. It does not protect society at large. It does not function as a meaningful deterrant. Countries without capital punishment have lower rates of violent crime than does the United States.

Capital punishment is applied haphazardly and inequitably. A person of color who murders a white person is statistically more likely to face execution than a white person who murders a person of color. A poor individual who cannot afford good legal representation is more likely to face execution than a wealthy individual who can afford the best lawyers money can hire.

Capital punishment is the ultimate consequence that can be meted out by a criminal justice system that is, shall we say, human and subject to the fallibility of human judgment and emotion. Judges, witnesses, criminologists, attorneys, and juries are all fallible, flesh-and-blood human beings. Our courts are susceptible to error. Our law grants the Chief Executive (the President, the Governor) the power to check the final judgment of the courts, partially in recognition of this fact.

California law also gives the Governor the power to grant clemency as an act of mercy. Implicit in the law is the belief that there are appropriate occasions for mercy to be granted. If Tookie Williams is not deserving of such mercy, then to what purpose was the Governor given this power?

All of these are familiar arguments. Let me put forward what may be a new thought:

Arnold wrestled with this decision for four days, for 96 long hours. News reports indicated it was an agonizing decision for Arnold to make. Let me put forward this proposition: If Tookie's clemency decision was agonizing to make, then Arnold's decision was really a no-brainer. If there is ever a plausible case to be made for sparing someone's life, then we need to choose life. Every time. This should be a familiar argument to the Christian Right.

Arnold played a movie character (the Terminator) who wasted dozens or even hundreds of other characters in his films. These were just make-belief deaths. Death and violence were depicted onscreen, but none of the actors actually died.

Arnold is now serving in a position in which his life-and-death decisions really do matter. Forever.

It was the will of countless Californians that clemency be offered to Tookie Williams. But only Arnold has the power to grant clemency, and the will of millions of Californians is powerless to affect the outcome of this case.

It was the feeling of countless Californians that reasonable doubt still existed in the case. We have no iron-clad guarantee that the California courts convicted the right man of four horrible murders. Substantial questions still exist, and just because the courts don't want to reexamine those issues, this does not guarantee that those haunting questions are not without merit.

Which brings me back to where I began this blog: May Tookie rest in peace ... and may Arnold have trouble sleeping at night.

In fact, may all of us have trouble sleeping at night, as we realize the fallibility of human judgment, as we contemplate a society that finds itself unable to grant mercy.

The ethics of political debate

2005-11-19T14:39:00.000-08:00

Let me first state, as simply as possibly, the ethical principle that this essay is calling for: When engaged in political debate, accept it as your responsibility to represent your opponent’s opinion in a way that your opponent agrees is faithful to his or her point-of-view.

I want to make explicit my assumptions about how democracy is supposed to work.

(1) Democracy works when the public is engaged in open and honest debate around those issues for which no clear consensus exists (in other words, virtually any issue that matters).

(2) Open and honest debate benefits everyone. No one individual, philosophy, or political party has a monopoly on truth. Our perception is skewed by our assumptions, and the other side can remind us of things we have failed adequately to understand.

(3) Parties who differ are valuable resources for one another. There is a synergy that takes place when we take the effort necessary for open communication. The process of debate and amendment leads to perfected legislation. (This is why the initiative process, lacking as it does a means for a debate that can shape the language of a proposal, often serves the public badly.)

(4) We need to be mindful of the ethics of debate in order that our political dialogue be productive and benefit the public. The principles are very simple. Never demonize an opponent. Never assume that you “know” the motivations of the other party. Accept it as your responsibility to ensure that you have clearly understood your opponent’s position. Accept it as your responsibility to represent your opponent’s opinion in a way that your opponent agrees is faithful to his or her point-of-view.

This is not rocket science. This is Interpersonal Communication 101. These simple principles can help any conflicted relationship, be it between friends, enemies, marriage partners, or members of Congress.

Ethical and effective political debate is not happening within our society, and this failure is a terrible shame. Let me be clear in asserting the failure is not that of a single political party. Political attack ads are the poster child for the violation of this principle, but most examples of “hardball” politics violate this principle of open and honest debate.

Two recent examples:

Opponents of the Bush Administration have accused the President of “lying” to the American public about the reasons for going to war. In making such accusations, they are assuming that the President, Vice President, and others knew that their claims about WMD in Iraq were not factual. Accusations of “lying” only provoke defensive counter-attacks such as the one Dick Cheney made when he called his opponents “dishonest.” Such rhetoric deflects the participants from open and honest debate.

Rep. John Murtha (R-PA) recently gave a speech in which he stated, quite articulately, his growing misgivings about our current military engagement in Iraq. He proposed the following resolution:

     The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress,
     is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at
     the earliest practicable date.

     A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S.
     Marines shall be deployed in the region.

     The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
     through diplomacy.

Whether you agree with him or not (and I do agree with him), this was a serious proposal presented by a retired U.S. Marine who has enough knowledge of military affairs to speak with authority.

But what happened? Republicans put forward a resolution that resembled but failed to capture the intended meaning of Congressman Murtha’s resolution: “It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.” Some claimed this was “close enough,” but Murtha’s anger—and the anger of Democrats—made it clear that he had not been understood.

Back to the ethical principle I proposed: accept it as your responsibility to represent your opponent’s opinion in a way that your opponent agrees is faithful to his or her point-of-view. If our elected representatives in the executive and legislative branches could bring themselves to adopt this principle, it would go a long way to healing the political polarization that has bedeviled our nation. If political candidates could accept this ethic of political dialogue, it would result in campaigns that would enrich public discourse and attract citizens back into the political process.

It might even make it easier for us to address our real conflicts and discover workable solutions our problems. Imagine that!

Parallel universe? Dick Cheney, meet Spiro Agnew

2005-11-16T21:14:00.000-08:00

Back in the year 1970, the Vietnam War was raging, and the anti-war movement was beginning to get traction. The Nixon Administration was challenged in those days with the (ultimately futile) task of maintaining public support for the war effort. In those dark days, Nixon turned to his Vice President, a former Governor of Maryland by the name of Spiro Agnew, to serve in the role of attack dog. Agnew delivered a number of colorful speeches that were written by speechwriters William Safire and Patrick Buchanan.

Those speeches, notably, did not address the substance of what the war protestors were saying. Rather, Agnew engaged in ad hominem attacks against war protesters in general and the “liberal press” in particular. In colorful alliterative language, Agnew accused these critics of being “nattering nabobs of negativism.” He appealed to the anti-intellectual bias of some of his political base. “A spirit of national masochism prevails,” he stated, “encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”

Fast forward to November, 2005. The Iraq War is still raging. As of today, some 2,077 Americans have died in conflict, over 93% of them after Bush’s Mission Accomplished speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Over 15,000 Americans have been injured according to official figures, many suffering loss of limbs. Over 60% of the American public disapproves of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. Republicans in the Senate have begun to question publicly their President’s conduct of the war. The United States has lost its reputation as a champion of human rights because of the kinds of abuses uncovered or suspected at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and “secret” CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. And as if this is not enough, it is clear that the grounds on which this war was “sold” to the American public—Saddam’s so-called weapons of mass destruction—were based on an intelligence analysis that, at best, was dead wrong and that, at worst, represented intentional distortion. And wrapping all of this up, this was a government so intent on intimidating those who would question its intelligence analysis that senior members of this Administration “outed” the name of Valerie Plame.

With its support dissolving, with its war efforts going badly, with the prospects discouraging, and with the next electoral cycle coming up, the Bush Administration has decided to attack. And the attack dog du jour? Vice President Dick Cheney. “Now Cheney Fights Back,” says the current headline of the Drudge Report.

But as in the year 1970, fighting back does not consist of refuting the facts posed or the arguments made by those in the growing majority opposed to the Iraq War. Fighting back, as in the days of Spiro Agnew, consists of ad hominem attacks.

Cheney refers to “the suggestion … that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence,” characterizing it as “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.” A close reading of Cheney’s statement leads to this conclusion: it is the reference to purposeful misleading that the Vice President finds “dishonest and reprehensible.” I am willing to grant that the President sincerely believed what he was telling the American public. But the claim that the intelligence was wrong and misleading is a strong one. Notice that Cheney neither acknowledges nor addresses the intelligence failures to which he was a party. Cheney does not refute the substance of the criticism. Instead, he attacks his opponents as being dishonest and reprehensible.

Cheney alludes to the Republican “talking point” that many of the war’s critics are “politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein.” This is a half truth. Those politicians—Democrats and Republicans alike—voted to give Bush authority to use force against Saddam as a last resort. They trusted Bush’s assurance that he would give the weapons inspectors and diplomats every chance to successfully disarm Saddam. As we now know all too well, because of the work of weapons inspectors and diplomats, because of economic sanctions and a no-fly zone, our policy goal had already been accomplished. There were no WMDs to be found in Iraq. Notice again that Cheney does not refute the substance of the charge … because the charge is, in fact, correct. Instead, he attacks his opponents as political opportunists.

Cheney charges that “our people in uniform have been subjected to … cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.” What are those falsehoods? They are, according to the Vice President, the suggestion that our soldiers “were sent into battle for a lie.” I recognize a non sequitur when I see one. The only “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” of which I am aware were the claims that Saddam possessed WMDs. Some might call this a “lie;” to this Cheney objects. Others might term it a tragic misjudgment. Any way you see it, the results have been tragic. Thousands have died. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The war has further alienated the Islamic world to America. But whether it’s a lie or a misjudgment, Cheney avoids the substance of the charge; all he can do is attack his opponents as cynical and pernicious.

Oh, and by the way, war critics are not directing their arguments at our soldiers. The criticism, dear Mr. Cheney, is directed at yourself and your boss.

One final point. Cheney accuses war critics of trying to rewrite history. As the New York Times itself noted in a recent editorial, the only party trying to rewrite history is the Bush Administration. How many different rationales for this war are we up to now?

Vice President Cheney is repeating the rhetorical strategy that Vice President Agnew undertook thirty-five years ago. This was an unsuccessful strategy then, and it will be unsuccessful now. The Bush Administration seems blind to the fact that the American public has serious and substantial concerns about this war, that the American public wants its questions taken seriously and addressed honestly.

Why have Bush and company chosen to attack the integrity of those who would criticize the disastrous choices that have left us in our Iraqi quagmire? Why has Dick Cheney chosen to call us dishonest, reprehensible, opportunistic, cynical, and pernicious? Does this attack speech simply reveal the desperation of an Administration that has sunk completely into the quagmire of Iraq?

Getting to the heart of the matter (finally) ...

2005-11-08T12:37:00.000-08:00

Sexual orientation has been the divisive issue in Christian churches in recent years. Debate in the United Methodist Church has dealt with two issues in particular. One issue concerns ordaining and appointing “self-avowed and practicing” gays and lesbians. The other issue concerns the prerogative of pastors to perform “holy unions.”

These issues have been the subject of legislation written by the General Conference, a representative body meeting once every four years that is comprised of delegates elected from each Annual Conference in the denomination. Delegates come from all over the United States, but there are additional delegates who represent African annual conferences that are a part of the denomination. African Christians, who tend to be culturally much more conservative than Americans, have voted with delegates from more “conservative” regions of the U.S., providing a narrow (but narrowing) plurality in favor of disallowing full equality to our gay and lesbian members.

This has been the most vexing issue facing the denomination for many years. Sexual orientation has divided the church at all levels, including the Council of Bishops whose silence has been deafening. They have not even been able to make a statement as simple as this: “We confess that we are not of one mind on the issue. Nevertheless, we are committed to listening to and respecting one another in our disagreement ... and we urge the church to do the same.” There has been little constructive conversation around the issue of sexual orientation.

Until now.

A gay man was refused membership in the South Hill United Methodist Church in South Hill, VA. He had been singing in the Choir and attending worship, and he expressed a desire to become a member of the church. The church’s senior pastor, the Rev. Ed Johnson, was not willing to receive the man into membership because of the candidate’s self-avowed, practicing homosexuality. The congregation’s associate pastor filed a complaint against Rev. Johnson, and ultimately Rev. Johnson was placed on involuntary leave by an 80% vote of the clergy session of the Virginia Annual Conference.

The Judicial Council (the “Supreme Court”) of the United Methodist Church disallowed that disciplinary action, ruling on the narrow grounds that the local church pastor—not the District Superintendent or Bishop—has the prerogative to discern readiness for church membership. It ordered that Rev. Johnson be reinstated and that he receive back salary that he had forfeited.

In response to this ruling, the Council of Bishops spoke. Finally. They made a pastoral statement. They gave a word of guidance to the entire church. They found their voice:

     While pastors have the responsibility to discern
     readiness for membership, homosexuality is not a
     barrier... We call upon all United Methodist pastors
     and laity to make every congregation a community
     of hospitality.

The Bishops quoted the Book of Discipline:

     God’s grace is available to all, and we will seek to live
     together in Christian community. We implore families and
     churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members
     and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and
     with all persons.

We have gotten to the heart of the matter (finally). As significant as are ordination and marriage, baptism is a much more significant place to begin a theological conversation. Baptism is the sign of the inclusive love of God who created us and loves us all. Baptism is the sign of God’s acceptance of us flesh-and-blood humans. God loves all of us, even though we fall short of the goal of keeping God’s law.

Please keep in mind the primary expression of God’s law. According to Jesus, it is the commandment to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Who among us is able, always and everywhere, to love our neighbor, to act towards our neighbor in the way we would hope our neighbor would act towards us? The gospel affirms that despite our continual falling short of keeping what Jesus called “the greatest commandment,” we are still loved by God.

Here is a place to begin the conversation: with the mystery of God’s grace, with the affirmation of baptism, with the hope of a church as inclusive and loving as God.

Thou shalt not bear false witness

2005-10-29T07:33:00.000-07:00

Perjury, according to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas), is just a technicality. These were her words on Meet the Press:

     I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says
     something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime
     and not some perjury technicality.

Seems to me that the Christian Right has a blind spot when it comes to the Ten Commandments. Christian Conservatives are very invested in putting the Ten Commandments in public places. Roy Moore’s stubborn insistence on displaying the Decalogue in his Alabama courtroom led to his being elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He was later deposed from the same position because of his stubborn refusal to remove them when so ordered by Federal courts. This is the political movement that won recent Supreme Court approval to keep a granite monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol.

Conservative politicians use the Ten Commandments to win political support from the Christian Right. Only trouble is… has anyone bothered to read the document lately? Last time I looked, the Ten Commandments included the following: “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20). This commandment specifically addresses the importance of telling the truth in a judicial setting. Telling the truth when giving witness in a court of law is essential to a just and moral society. How can a court render a just verdict unless it hears “the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth”?

     • When witnesses tell lies under oath, the innocent are convicted
        and the guilty are exonerated.

     • When witnesses withhold the truth they know in order to protect
        friends, they deprive injured parties of the justice they deserve.

     • When witnesses are less than candid with the truth they know,
        they distort the justice system.

A just, moral, and stable society depends upon witnesses telling the truth in courts of law. This is not some mere technicality. This is an essential biblical insight.

Is it acceptable, in Sen. Hutchinson’s considered opinion, that Scooter Libby made “materially false and intentionally misleading statements and representations, in substance, under oath,” as he is charged with having done?

Is it acceptable to bear false witness in order to protect those individuals who decided to punish Joseph Wilson by outing Valerie Plame? Aren’t Wilson and Plame entitled to justice? Aren’t we entitled to a Government that honors and protects the civil rights of its citizens?

Point of fact: had members of Bush Administration told “the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth” to the FBI and the Grand Jury, the investigation would have been completed very quickly. We would know the individuals responsible for the crime that was committed. Justice would already have been done. But because of “technicalities” like perjury, making false statements, and obstructing justice, we have to hire a team of investigators and prosecutors to fight to learn the truth.

This Administration, it seems, has a culture of silence, not a culture of truth telling. They give lip service to the law of God, but they obey the law of omerta.

It's a sad day when...

2005-10-28T17:37:00.000-07:00

In his statement on the resignation of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, President Bush noted that “we’re all saddened by today’s news.” While I can understand the President’s feelings of sadness, I am disturbed by what the President did not bring himself to say.

Yes, it’s a sad day when a trusted and hard-working colleague, with whom you have labored for nearly five years, is indicted for multiple felonies. But that sadness needs be put in context.

It was a sad day when members of the Bush Administration chose to respond to the whistle-blowing op-ed column of Joseph Wilson by retaliating against his wife.

It was a sad day when Libby and, presumably, other unnamed individual(s) chose to “out” an undercover CIA agent, putting into danger her life and the lives of her contacts.

It was a sad day when the Administration chose to react to Wilson’s column instead of attending to his warnings about faulty intelligence.

It was a sad day when the Administration chose to act on that faulty intelligence, intelligence asserting that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat to the United States of America.

It was a sad day when the Bush Administration refused to allow United Nations inspectors to search for said nuclear weapons, choosing warfare instead of diplomacy.

It was a sad day when the United States engaged in preemptive warfare against a threat that turned out to be nonexistent.

It was a sad day when the first of thousands and thousands of soldiers and civilians began dying, and suffering devastating injuries, as a result of that war.

It was a sad day when each of thousands of American families, when each of tens of thousands of Iraqi families learned that the life of a son or daughter had been lost.

It was a sad day when the “liberation” of Iraq was undone because the Administration chose to disregard the advice of senior military officers concerning the number of troops required to secure the peace and safeguard the stability of Iraqi society.

It was a sad day when the same Administration chose to disband the Iraqi army and the Baath Party, alienating the very parties in Iraq whose help could have been so helpful.

It was a sad day when the Republican-controlled Congress chose not to conduct investigations into the faulty decision-making processes that led to the present catastrophe.

“We’re saddened by today’s news,” said President Bush. Yes, but the sadness of today comes at the end of a series of many unfortunate choices made during many sad days. It is a sad day when the life and career of a highly intelligent and devoted lawyer and public servant comes crashing down as a consequence of choices he made. It is a sad day when any individual finds himself or herself in legal trouble because of lapses of judgement, because of unethical acts, because of untruthful words, because of a lack of candor when testifying to a Grand Jury.

But the saddest case of all is that of Mr. Bush who, to date, has not understood or appropriated the lessons of the Nixon and Clinton presidencies: The President must admit mistakes and accept responsibility if he wants to be able to move on. Otherwise his Administration will be trapped in a growing morass from which there is no escape. These are the words I would like to hear him say:

“The leaking of the name of Valerie Plame to the press was an unthinkable, unethical, and presumably criminal action. It violated the first amendment rights of Ambassador Wilson, ended the career of a devoted CIA employee, and put at risk the lives of her contacts. Any members of my Administration who were responsible for perpetrating this leak, or attempting to protect the identities of those who did, or for failing to be completely truthful and forthcoming to me or to the Grand Jury will be brought to justice. That is the lesson of today’s indictment and of any future indictments. It saddens me personally, but I take responsibility.”