I fear that today may go down as the day that democracy died in the United States:
Mr. Leahy said the bill as written would allow the executive branch to hold any lawful immigrant in the United States indefinitely without charge. “We are about to put the darkest blot on the conscience of the nation,” he said, charging that the push for quick passage was purely for political gain.“There is no new national security crisis,” he said. “There’s only a Republican political crisis.”
Can you please wake me up when the nightmare is over?
Update: The bill has passed with 12 Democrats rolling over to support it. I just hope the Reichstag doesn’t burn down anytime soon, or we’re all cooked.
Where our $600 billion in annual military expenditures is not going: clean water for children:
More than 1.5m children under five die each year because they lack access to safe water and proper sanitation, says the United Nations children’s agency.
In a report, Unicef says that despite some successes, a billion people worldwide do not have access to safe drinking water from protected sources.
This is the opportunity cost of the U.S.’s Cold War-centric (read: spend lots of money on expensive military systems and then blow people up with them) approach to fighting terrorism. If a mere fraction of our annual military budget were diverted to facilitating access to clean water, serious progress could be made toward the U.N.’s goal of halving “the number of people without access to clean drinking water and sanitation by 2015.”
And it just might help fight terrorism, as well. Even the administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism lists “the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms” as one of the key underlying factors behind the spread of the global jihadist movement.
The fact is, not only are we, as the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet, morally bound to love our neighbors in the developing world, but doing so, combined with international police work to stop terrorism, may be the only way to actually win the war on terror.
It deeply saddens me that our Congress is debating exactly how much torture we can get away with:
The new measures provide defendants with more legal rights than they had under the old system, but it eliminates their right to challenge their detention and treatment in federal court.
The bill forbids treatment of detainees that would constitute war crimes - such as torture, rape and biological experiments - but gives the president the authority to decide which other techniques interrogators can use.
We have truly lost our way as a nation.
Talking Points Memo has a quote from a new Time article suggesting that the Bush administration is getting ready to go to war against Iran:
We must do everything in our power to stop this war. The fact is, Iran is years away from obtaining nuclear weapons, and real diplomacy - namely, face-to-face negotiations with all topics, including normalized relations, on the table - has yet to be tried. A war in Iran could be the fatal blow which would make the world five years hence unrecognizable from the world of today - sadly, almost certainly to the detriment of all of the world’s people (think World War I’s impact on Europe).Coupled with the CNO’s request for a blockade review, a deployment of minesweepers to the west coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed—but until now largely theoretical—prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.
Whoever DK from Talking Points Memo is, he/she keeps hitting it out of the ballpark:
If you were to pick the single greatest hypocrisy of the Bush Presidency, wouldn’t it have to be this: that the man who ostentatiously claims Jesus as his favorite philosopher (he of “do unto others as ye would have them do unto you” fame) would say, in all seriousness, “Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It’s very vague. “What does that mean, ‘outrages upon human dignity’?”
It saddens me deeply that there are large parts of the church in America who continue to support a man who is arguing over the definition of “is” when it comes to torture. Reasonable people can disagree when it comes to whether it is important to “stay the course” in Iraq or pull out, but I cannot find any reasonable basis for a Christian belief that torture, in any form, is ever justified.
DK over at Talking Points Memo expresses my feelings about the Congressional debate over the legalization of torture far better than I could.
Here is an excerpt, but read the whole thing:
I am beyond being able to assess the political implications, one way or the other, of this spectacle. Regardless of which version of the bill finally passes, this debate is a black mark on the soul of the nation. Of course passage of a pro-torture bill will diminish U.S. standing internationally and jeopardize the safety and well-being of U.S. servicemen in future engagements. But merely having this debate has already accomplished that. Does anyone honestly believe that if Congress rebuffs the President in every respect that the rule of law and the inviolability of human rights will have been vindicated? Of course not.
We still live in America, right? Right?
Joel over at connexions has a great post about what truly comprises theological liberalism. Here is his list of 22 items which he considers to be a part of “theological liberalism.” My comments are in italics next to each:
1. View of the Bible as inspired and not inerrant. I’m somewhere between inspired and inerrant. 1/2 agreed.
2. An understanding that some passages in the Bible are metaphorical or “myth based.” Agreed.
3. An emphasis on the need to apply human reason, experience and tradition in interpreting the Bible. Agreed.
4. Application of insights from the social sciences (which are also not
inerrant) is crucial to interpreting the Bible. As the social sciences
are themselves God’s revelation of truth, they complement rather than
compete with Scripture. Not sure.5. An emphasis on Biblical criticism and literary analysis. Agreed, to a point. I think I hold the scriptures in a bit higher regard than those who would throw out whole sections of it through Biblical criticism, but I do believe that there is value in these tools.
6. Scripture must be viewed through the lens of time and culture. Agreed.
7. Doctrines, church authority and Scripture cannot be divorced from subjective personal experience. Not sure.
8. Community wholeness in relation to God is as important as a personal
relationship to God through Christ. (“Shalom” creation.) Agreed.9. An understanding that the Bible contains “all things necessary for
salvation” but not necessarily all things related to salvation. Not sure.10. A refusal to make creeds a test of faith. Agreed.
11. Openness to “finding Christ in the culture.” Not sure.
12. Doubt is not inherently the enemy of faith, but can be used by God to engage that very faith. Agreed.
13. A strong commitment to social justice. Agreed.
14. The idea that self-reflection is a necessary component of faith. Agreed.
15. Acceptance that the Bible incorporates an intentional tension
between “universal” and “exclusive” salvation. (To remind us that God
alone judges?) Agreed.16. The possibility that not only may we acquire new understandings of
God’s revelation but that it is possible that God is still revealing. Agreed.17. Humans, while tending toward depravity, are capable of responding to divine grace. Agreed.
18. As “imitators” of Christ, we must engage the essential unity of faith and works. Agreed.
19. That Christian existentialism is criticized but effectively
practiced by the “orthodox” and fundamentalists but honestly admitted
to by many liberals. Not sure.20. Rejection of an over-emphasis on a “personal relationship with
Christ” that fails to adequately place faith in the context of
community. Agreed.21. A strong emphasis on “corporate sin” as being as evil and destructive as personal sin. Agreed.
22. That while miracles happen, God does not ordinarily suspend the laws of nature. Agreed.
That puts me with 15 agrees, 2 half-agrees, and 5 not sures. Which, it seems to me, would put me rather firmly in the theologically liberal camp if his definition holds (and here I always thought I was a theological conservative since I hold to rather orthodox views of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and so forth). I’ll be interested in following the discussion which develops on their site.
In George W. Bush’s America, apparently religious freedom does not extend to those teachings which contradict the policies of his administration:
“Stepping up its probe of allegedly improper campaigning by churches, the Internal Revenue Service on Friday ordered a liberal Pasadena parish to turn over all the documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year with references to political candidates… The IRS investigation was triggered by an antiwar sermon delivered by its former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, at the church two days before the 2004 presidential election. The summons even requests utility bills to establish costs associated with hosting Regas’ speech. Bacon was ordered to testify before IRS officials Oct. 11.”
Christians may disagree over the specific implications of Christ’s teachings, but it is hard to argue that those same teachings at least require us to question the applicability of war in various situations. This is all that All Saints Episcopal Church was doing in this instance.
And it’s not as if their position was exactly outside of the mainstream of Christian thought. The Pope signed on to their position. A significant number of churches throughout the world agreed with it.
And yet, apparently, in America, if you don’t agree with the policies of the emperor, you get thrown to the lions.
The BBC has a surprisingly amusing line about al Qaida today:
“But then al-Qaeda is also not what it was. It used to be a tight little group of secretive plotters.
It is now a franchise, like a militant version of Kentucky Fried Chicken with Bin Laden as a kind of evil Colonel Sanders.”
Evil Colonel Sanders! That line could have been lifted straight out of an Austin Powers’ movie!
But on a more serious note, the article makes what I consider to be a factual mistake later on:
“But the energy spent on tracking down the world’s most wanted man over the last five years has sucked vital resources from ensuring that the climate that allowed for the creation of al-Qaeda in the first place did not return.”
Is it really the energy spent tracking down Osama bin Laden which has contributed so much to the instability in Afghanistan, or the fact that the Bush administration sucked all of the nation-building resources out when it launched its optional war against Iraq? My money is on the latter.
They are two sides of the same coin. It could be argued that the U.S. didn’t catch bin Laden and at the same time allowed Afghanistan to slide back into chaos for the very same reason: Bush took his eye off the ball to settle his score with Saddam Hussein.
One of the things that struck me at the conference this weekend (of the many) was the way that fear has controlled our country since 9/11. The Republicans have been masterful at playing on this fear to gain electoral victory and advance what is on the whole, a rather unpopular agenda. But the fear goes deeper than this, and it has affected my life as well.
Even during the conference itself, I thought about Beslan in Russia and how easy it would be for terrorists to burst in, take the 1000 of us hostage, and then murder us all. I can never board a plane without the fear in the back of my mind that this might be the one with the bad guys on it. And even driving through downtown brings up occasional thoughts of a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke detonation thoroughly ruining my day. I suspect most Americans have some level of fear, although at times I wonder if mine is a bit more neurotic than most.
In any case, Richard Rohr addressed this issue head-on, and it made me think. Here is my liveblog from that section of his talk today:
“Survey that people are more fearful now than they were five years ago immediately after 9/11. This is a very clever way to keep people enslaved. Keep the self afraid, and you keep the self split. You can’t bring your wholeness, you can’t say “Here I am.”
While I can’t expect the country as a whole to be able to move beyond the fear in this way, I CAN expect the church to do so. It seems to me that the church in our country, myself included, has failed to realize that it has total freedom in Christ. The freedom to take risks that seem foolish. The freedom to not be afraid in the face of fear. The freedom to die because death is a doorway to complete wholeness in Christ.
But our flesh keeps us dwelling upon fear. It keeps us split, so that we cannot bring our wholeness to God and say “Here I am.”
The goal for me this next year is to stop walking in fear and instead walk in faith.
But this needs to be the goal for the church as a whole. The church needs to lead our country past our fears. We need to show Americans that there are alternatives to the fearful responses to terrorism presented by the current administration, and very likely, even the Democrats if they gain power. We need to present fearless strategies which can overcome terrorism - yes, with suffering, as that is the call of the church - through the strength of our love.
But it has to start with me. It’s time for me to stop responding to fear and strive to respond only to God. I want to bring my wholeness to Him so that he can use me to bring wholeness to others. But I need to be whole to do that, and my fear prevents that. The world is an incredibly frightening place in the 21st century, but the world is ultimately not to be feared. We have a God who is much stronger than anything the world can throw at us. Even if it throws us our death.
