[Dialogue] Spong on 2007 in US politics
KroegerD at aol.com
KroegerD at aol.com
Thu Dec 28 11:00:56 EST 2006
December 27, 2006
Facing 2007 with Grave Apprehension
The year 2006 began with an unresolved war in Iraq. It ended with that war
not just unresolved, but obviously deteriorating into the unmanageable chaos of
civil war and tribal violence. More American military lives were lost in
November of 2006 than in any month in over a year. On Monday, December 17, the
News Hour with Jim Lehrer did its weekly honor roll, listing 20 new deaths of
service personnel. The majority were less than 22 years of age.
At the same time, the war this President abandoned against Al Qaeda and its
Taliban supporters in Afghanistan, has become a major battlefield once again,
as unfinished wars almost always do. In between the first day of 2006 and
today, the American people have spoken powerfully through the electoral process
to say that the Iraq war no longer commands sufficient popular support to be
maintained. Despite an obvious attempt on the part of those, who originally
sought and promoted this military conflict, to portray those who spoke in
opposition to it as unpatriotic, cut and run "defeatocrats," the American people
voted for a change in Iraq policy. The resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, the
principal architect of the war, was accepted on the day after the election. One
thought the message might have been heard.
Prior to the election, as a result of political pressure on the President, a
special bipartisan task force was formed to study American options in Iraq.
This Task force, co-chaired by James Baker, a close confidant of the Bush
family, who had served as Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff for President
Reagan and Secretary of State for George H. W. Bush, and Lee Hamilton, a retired
and highly-respected Democratic congressman from Indiana, was made up of
highly regarded citizens, including retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor. No one could dismiss this task force as anti-Bush or even as partisan.
Hopes rose for a change in Iraq strategy when Robert Gates, a member of the
task force and a former CIA director was tapped by Mr. Bush to succeed
Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Perhaps this administration was finally ready to
listen to a broader segment of the nation than just the ideological
"neo-cons."
When this report was made public, however, the President began to distance
himself. In a series of carefully calculated photo ops and under the guise of
seeking "the fullest possible consultation," President Bush asked for a
military review and a State Department review to "balance" the Baker-Hamilton
report. It was hard to believe that he would receive objective advice from either
source since current military leaders are all Rumsfeld appointees and
Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, has from the very beginning been part of
the planning of the Iraq war that has turned disastrously wrong. In several
television venues former Secretary Baker warned the president gently but
consistently that no war can be successfully engaged unless it has the support of
the American people. This war has lost that permanently.
The President then announced he would make an address to the nation on the
war in Iraq before Christmas. Once more hopes rose only to be dashed again when
the President, signaling great confusion in his administration, postponed
this address until after the first of the year. "I will not be rushed," he
said. Ten more soldiers died in combat the next day.
One also wonders why, after three and a half years of war begun and fought on
America's timetable, so much time was now needed for a review. Did the
President not have the facts? Is he unfamiliar with the chaos? Does he not know
that people are dying while he dallies? Does he not realize that his tactics
have not brought the results he anticipated?
In that interim between the proposed pre-Christmas speech and the now
anticipated post New Year's Day address, the President began to float trial
balloons. None gave any indication that he would heed the recommendations of the
Baker-Hamilton task force. First, Secretary of State Rice announced that the
Administration would reject outright the recommendation that the United States
talk with Iran and Syria. This has been this President's consistent policy and
the results have been appalling. Refusal to talk to North Korea has
accomplished nothing except the testing of atomic weapons by the North Korean
government. Not engaging Iran led to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his present
threat to build atomic weapons and his hosting of an international
conference to declare the Holocaust to be "nothing but Jewish propaganda." Not talking
with Syria led to a war in Lebanon and the rise of the Syrian-trained
Hezbollah army. Mr. Bush does not seem to realize that talking to one's enemies is
not a sign of weakness. In his testimony before Congress, James Baker noted
that when he was Secretary of State he had talked with America's enemies,
including mortal enemies like the Soviet Union regularly.
Then the rumors began to fly around Washington that the new Bush strategy
might not be disengagement but escalation. Sending 20,000 to 50,000 additional
troops to "finish the job" was the rumor bandied about. The President began to
talk about honoring our fallen service people by sending reinforcements to
defeat these "enemies of civilization." No military spokesperson I know
supported that conclusion. No Republican leaders save for John McCain, saluted
this trial balloon. David Gergen, a highly respected Republican strategist, said
on national television that Mr. Bush was "doubling his bet." That is not a
wise thing to do when one is holding a losing hand. Others referred to him on
national television as "stubborn" or "headstrong." Many were haunted by the
President's earlier claim that he did not consult with his father on foreign
policy; he consulted with his "heavenly father." The only trouble with that is
that religious people seem to hear from God that which they already believe.
As this drama was unfolding prior to Christmas, Anderson Cooper of CNN was
hosting a series of telecasts on the subject, "What is a Christian?"
Evangelical clergy were interviewed who believed that the Book of Revelation both
predicted and justified the war in the Middle East. They read this late 1st
century book as their guide to contemporary history. They also stated that the
Bible was quite clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. These were men, well
dressed, apparently well educated, not confined to a mental hospital, being
interviewed on national television by a mainstream network. Viewers were
presumably accepting these comments as rational, even worthy of serious attention.
There was something about these two scenes: President Bush talking about the
war and these preachers talking about the Bible that seemed to be eerily
reminiscent of each other. Both cited their authority in such a way as to imply
that it was not capable of being challenged. The President followed his own
intuition, informed by his interpretation of God's will. These clergy followed
their own intuitions, informed by their interpretation of the Bible as an
expression of God's will. Perhaps 500 years ago these attitudes would not have
seemed strange, but in a post-Freudian world, people do not dismiss the
inability to make different decisions on the basis of new data as "stubbornness,"
they recognize it as delusional. In a world where critical biblical
scholarship is more than 200 years old, no rational person would treat a book written
between 1000 BCE and 135 CE by a wide variety of individuals as if it
contained the secrets of the end of the world, a blueprint for the human disaster
that is called the Iraq War and no one, except a mad man, would accept the idea
that this ancient book, devoid of the medical and scientific data developed
in the past hundred years, actually prescribed divine rejection of
homosexuality.
Because someone perfumes both ignorance and prejudice in religious jargon
does not make it less ignorant or less prejudicial. To claim authority for
either a failed war or an oppressive religion is a sign of serious mental
illness. To have minds closed to any possibilities save those within the comfort
zone of a certainty-creating religious or political wisdom is to be incapable of
living in the real world. The preachers, when revealed for what they are, can
always retreat into their religious ghettos and sing their hymns and say
their prayers to the God who does not require that they think or grow. However,
when the President of the United States acts in that fashion, the destiny of
the entire nation and even the world is placed at risk. Delusion can be
tolerated in the private arena. It cannot be tolerated in the public arena. Yet if
the president refuses to follow the advice of his bipartisan task force,
co-chaired by the man who made him President by getting the Supreme Court in
2000 to stop the Florida recount, and instead of altering his now demonstrably
failed war policy simply escalates the conflict by sending in additional
troops to seek a victory that no number of troops can ever achieve, then it would
not be out of bounds to name this behavior as no longer in touch with
reality! Insanity is the act of continuing to do again and again that which has
never worked and expecting a different result.
This nation does not want or need another impeachment trial, even if there
have been high crimes and misdemeanors such as lying about the reasons for
going to war, manipulating intelligence reports, allowing and concealing the
abuse of prisoners in defiance of the Geneva Accords and violating the rights of
citizens by the use of unauthorized wiretaps. While ignorance is not an
impeachable offense, these violations of the law and of the Constitution are.
This nation does need, however, to recognize that there is something worse
than the trauma of impeachment. That is to allow a delusional man unable to
face reality to serve as our leader for two more long and dangerous years. Those
are our choices if this President opts to escalate troop levels in his
attempt to rescue with the blood of our armed services personnel this disaster of
his own creation.
We await the New Year with apprehension. We await the President's decisions
with hope but not with confidence. John Shelby Spong
Question and Answer
With John Shelby Spong
Monika of Toronto writes:
My husband and I really enjoyed "Sins of Scripture." We were both raised
Catholic and now belong to what you so accurately refer to as the Church Alumni
Association. My family consists of Polish immigrants, so they are what I call
"fundamentalist Catholics." Think Irish Catholic...it is that sort of fervor
and dedication to the Church and the belief that the Catholic Church is the
only true Church. The Poles are not different.
We are now facing a dilemma. We did not get married in a Catholic Church,
which you can imagine caused a lot of grief. We have "lost" some family members
as a result, who are no longer speaking to us. We just had our first baby,
and the pressure is on to have him baptized immediately.
We have gently told my family that there will be no baptism. They are beside
themselves. It is one thing to deny ourselves the Kingdom of Heaven they say
but to cast our own child into the pit of hell because of our own sin and
stupidity, well, it is unforgivable in their eyes. Friends of my father have
urged him to "take the matter into his own hands," by which I think they mean to
simply baptize our son without our consent. My father turns a bright
red/purple with rage when the topic comes up and I fear he is going to give himself
a heart attack...at which point I feel intense guilt and think maybe I should
just give the man peace of mind that his grandson will not wind up in hell
for all of eternity. I think it is absolutely absurd that anyone would
characterize the perfect loving God I experience as this scary monster throwing
unbaptized children into hell, or even purgatory, which are concepts I don't
believe in anyway...you get the point, this is why I "dropped out" in the first
place.
So, I come to you with a request. Since we do not have the wealth of
theological knowledge to back up our feelings about God, and they (the
fundamentalist Catholics) have the backing of the Pope, the Bishops and the "Church," my
husband and I often stutter out a bunch of "We believe...statements which just
irritate the fundamentalist Catholics even more because, in their eyes, it
does not matter what "we believe," it matters what "the Church" thinks.
Can you advise us on how we can gently help my fundamentalist Catholic family
members to respect our decision? We really need your help on this because
I'm afraid we are about to lose more family members and, instead of losing
them, we would really like to live in harmony and mutual respect with them.
Dear Monika,
Thank you for your letter. There are two things operating in your letter that
need to be separated before I can respond to your questions.
Your family issues seem to rotate around religious questions, but they are
also issues of immaturity and control, authority and rebellion, your own
individuation and your place as individuated people in a controlling family
structure. Your family's inability to allow you to make your own decisions about
your life and your child and their apparent need to threaten you with hell,
guilt and even your father's physical health are symptoms of your family's
dysfunction. Your inability to escape their clutches, because you have to choose
between being controlled by your family and losing your family, indicates that
you have not yet achieved the level of emotional separation that maturity
requires. These issues need to be looked at by a competent family counselor or
therapist.
There are no theological books that will help you because theological
knowledge never meets emotional issues. You have to decide whether the price of
having your family's love is worth compromising your integrity. That is a
terrible choice, but inside the dynamics of your family that is the choice you must
make. Given these dynamics, if you bow to your family's wishes now, you may
be certain that another issue will arise in the future that requires the same
bending to their will. So whether you fight this battle now or later is the
issue you face.
Try to understand that your family has itself been so bruised by their
religious upbringing that they are also scared. They are acting out of emotional
fear because they have made peace with a controlling religious mentality that
they believe and have been taught gives them security and the promise of
heavenly reward. When you stand against their values, you force them to examine
those values, which apparently they are not able to do. So their chains simply
rattle and their fear increases.
What will be the result in your life - in your child's life - if you declare
your independence of this emotional tyranny now? What will be the result in
your life - or your child's life - if you do not? Is it better to make your
stand now or later? What will it do to your relationship to bide your time
until your parents die?
None of these decisions are about religion. In this instance, religion is
simply being used to perform family emotional violence. No matter how you
decide, all of you will bear scars. Someday we might recognize that religion is
consistently used by people as a weapon of human distortion. That is a long way
from John's statement about Jesus' purpose to be the one who brings life and
brings it abundantly.
I wish you well.
John Shelby Spong James Keenen via the Internet writes:
Please comment on the very recent book by John Danforth, "Faith and Politics:
How the Moral Values Debates Divides America" I realize it will take a while
to get to this, but I eagerly await your views on his views.
Dear James,
John Danforth is a rare combination in American politics. He has been a
Republican senator from Missouri, the ambassador to the United Nations and an
ordained priest of the Episcopal Church. He actually served as the clergy chair
of the Committee to nominate a new Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of
Missouri just a year ago. As a senator, he stood in that wing of the moderate
Republican Party that gave us Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, Thomas Kean,
John and Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow. His one departure from
that noble tradition was a significant one when he served as the Senate
floor manager for the nomination of Clarence Thomas for his seat on the Supreme
Court. Justice Thomas has been undistinguished at best and out of the
mainstream at worst.
Senator Danforth's book states what I believe are the core values of this
nation but he develops them in contradiction to the "values" that seem to
emanate from America's vocal religious right. His faith is deeply informing of his
life and of his public service, but the narrowly focused religious agenda
that marks today's Republican party is the target of most of his book.
I believe that the Rev. John Danforth has been an effective and competent
public servant in both his Church and his political career. His is the voice of
reason and sensitivity. He escapes the stridency of today's brand of
politicized religion that repels me as deeply as it repels him. His book is a solid
contribution to the current religious and political debate. I wish Christ
ianity could produce more John Danforths and fewer Pat Robertsons. I wish the
Senate had more John Danforths and fewer Sam Brownbacks.
John Shelby Spong
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20061228/11d574e5/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list