[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