[Dialogue] SPONG FIRES A 16 INCH BROADSIDE!

[KroegerD at aol.com]

September 27, 2006 
Small Leaders in A New Dark  Age  
At the end of the first of the two debates that most recently captured  the 
attention of world opinion, a compromise was reached, but many people voiced  
their belief that the President of the United States would pay no more than lip 
 service to this settlement. At the end of the second debate there was an  
ingenious "apology" offered by Pope Benedict XVI that appeared neither to  
understand nor to address the hurt that his comments had created.  
When these two debates lost center stage or began to bore the media that  
needs fresh red meat daily, many were left with the haunting sense that the  
quality of leadership in these two offices, one the most powerful political  
office in the world and the other the most powerful spiritual office, was sadly  
lacking, indeed that midgets now stood where giants are needed.  
Most Americans never imagined that they would live long enough to watch a  
president of the United States publicly defending torture as an instrument of  
his foreign policy. Most of the people of the world also thought that we had  
evolved to a level of religious sensitivity in which no leader of one faith  
tradition would refer to another faith tradition as "evil and inhuman." We  
assumed that the imperialistic mentality of the crusading middle ages had passed  
away. Our minds reeled as we entered what sounded like the double-talk of 
George  Orwell's vision of 1984, a year that passed almost a quarter of a century 
ago.  How is it possible that the 21st century has arrived at a period in 
history that  looks more and more like the 'Dark Ages' revisited?  
The behavior of these two men, which St. Paul might have called "spiritual  
wickedness in high places," made it clear that in our time people of small,  
dated minds are now occupying key positions of world leadership. Their words  
reveal these occupants to be poorly equipped to stand where they stand. Both  
appear to be out of touch with reality without knowing it, which makes them far  
more dangerous. The elected president and the chosen pope seem to believe 
that  each possesses such superior wisdom that disagreement with them can only 
come  from those who are confused, ignorant, heretical, or hopelessly 
unenlightened.  When these two men act as they have done recently, we begin to sense 
that  differences between right and wrong are incredibly blurred and a leader's 
role  is no longer to call people to embrace and reflect a higher humanity, and 
to see  truth and honor as values that must be held at all costs and against 
every  challenge.  
Some may be startled at the harshness of this indictment. They may even  
dismiss it as an expression of either political partisanship or religious  
intolerance. It is neither. Let me examine the two episodes about which I speak  and 
ask you to draw your own conclusions.  
First, for days now, we watched this administration in which neither the  
President nor the Vice President have ever been engaged in military conflict in  
the service of their country, attacking as "soft on the war on terror" three  
leaders of their own party whose military records are quite distinguished. 
One,  Senator John McCain, is from a military family and was for five years a 
tortured  prisoner of war in Vietnam. The second, Senator John Warner, has served 
as the  Secretary of the Navy after a long career in the military. The third, 
Senator  Lindsay Graham, even today continues to build on his active military 
career as  an Air Force lawyer by being the only member of Congress serving 
in the National  Guard. These noted conservatives battled their president for 
the principles upon  which this nation was founded: justice before the law, 
fairness in seeking  convictions, and the conviction that human rights are of 
more value than short  term political goals. It was good that these three men 
stood firm because the  Democratic leadership had obviously been cowed by the 
Republican suggestion that  those who do not favor the tactics of torture are 
weak both on national defense  and homeland security. They did not want to be 
characterized in the Vice  President's words as "pre-9/11 thinkers in a post-9/11 
world."  
In this debate the President of the United States sought unilaterally to  
re-interpret the decisions of the Geneva Convention on the humane treatment of  
enemy combatants. He did not seem to grasp the fact that if the United States  
can redefine the meaning of torture, so can every other nation in the world. 
He  did not comprehend that in the course of world history, American service  
personnel, who become prisoners of war, would then no longer be protected by an 
 appeal to the Geneva Accords. This president has assured this nation that  
"America does not do torture." I do not any longer believe him. Neither do the  
leaders of the other nations of the world. The data giving birth to this lack 
of  belief is overwhelming. The world has seen vivid pictures of torture at 
Abu  Ghraib. It is now obvious that we tortured at Guantanamo. We have learned 
that  despite earlier denials, the CIA has operated torture centers in other 
countries  where the laws against torture are less stringent than they are in 
the United  States and where those carrying out these illegal procedures, are 
not subject to  criminal charges.  
When the Washington Post broke the story about these foreign torture  
chambers, President Bush's response was not to deny their existence but to  denounce 
those who revealed it as disloyal to this country. He insisted that the  
United States needed this program for our own security and asserted once more,  
without credibility, that this country "does not do torture."  
Then the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian background, broke  
into the news, validating every fear and suspicion that truth has now been  
sacrificed in this nation's quest for security. Maher Arar was kidnapped by  
American authorities at Kennedy Airport after mistaken intelligence identified  
him with a terrorist organization. With no due process this Canadian citizen 
was  put on a United States government plane, flown to Jordan, and then driven 
to  Syria, where he was tortured for a year, being forced to live underground 
in a  space the size of a grave. No connection between this man and terrorism 
was ever  established. The Canadian government finally secured his release, but 
Mr. Arar  has exposed the lies, if they still needed to be exposed, that this 
government  is not engaged in practices prohibited by the Geneva Accords. 
This deliberately  misleading denial was only this government's latest assault on 
truth. It must be  placed alongside telling this nation that we went to war 
because Iraq had  weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bomb-making 
potential. Neither  claim was truthful. Both the President and Condoleeza Rice 
went so far as to  state that they did not want the "next terrorist attack to 
be in the form of a  mushroom cloud." Mr. Bush dismissed the outcry of the 
nations of the world about  abuses at Guantanamo. He proclaimed that Abu Ghraib 
was an aberration involving  low-level military personnel, but then he dodged 
any challenge to this assertion  by not recommending the general, under whose 
command the prison at Abu Ghraib  fell, for a promotion, since that would have 
required congressional approval in  the process of which questions would have 
had to be answered under oath and  contrary data revealed.  
President Bush continued his attempt to "redefine" the Geneva Accords in ways 
 that were illustrious of little more than political spin. This program "will 
not  go forward," he asserted at a very emotional press conference, "if I 
cannot  guarantee that government personnel are safe from the possibility of 
criminal  lawsuits when they do their work." What Mr. Bush obviously wanted to 
protect  were the illegal procedures, which were already part of his policy, and 
that  clearly fell outside the Geneva Accords. To buttress the appeal of this 
false  assertion further, he sought to make these redefinitions retroactive! 
Only one  who has already violated the Geneva Accords would work so hard to 
make his  reinterpretations "retroactively legal."  
While this was going on, Joseph Ratzinger, the German Cardinal who became  
Benedict XVI, was embarrassing the Christian world in his address on Islam. In  
this speech, in which he said his intention was to establish "the place of  
reason in inter-religious conversation," he condemned quite rightly religious  
violence. Yet his biased words implied that only Islamic fundamentalists had  
ever been guilty of religious atrocities. To introduce this talk he quoted a  
Byzantine Emperor from the 14th century, a time when the memory of the Crusades 
 was still in the public mind, who said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought 
that  was new and there you will find things evil and inhuman." Can anyone be 
so naive  as to think these words were not intended to be offensive, coming 
from one who  has publicly opposed the entry of Turkey, the world's lone 
democratic Islamic  state, into the European Common Market because it would 
"compromise the  Christian basis of European culture"? Trying to defend himself when 
Islamic  leaders reacted with criticism, Benedict simply dug a bigger hole. 
"These were  not my words," he said weakly, "I was only quoting someone else." He 
seemed not  to be aware that he had chosen this quotation and that by doing so 
he gave its  words renewed power. On the day before Cardinal Ratzinger was 
elected pope, he  lectured the cardinals on why Christianity must stand against 
all relativity.  Behind his words lay the incredibly dated conviction that the 
content of the  Catholic Faith has been received by Divine Revelation, and 
that anyone who  disagrees with it cannot be other than wrong. Violence, whether 
it be political  or religious, always begins with the claim that "my point of 
view is true and  anyone who disagrees is evil."  
Truth is far too precious to me to allow me to let these affronts of both  
state and church to go unopposed. Freedom and liberty are far too valuable to me 
 to allow them to become pawns in the service of either political or  
ecclesiastical expediency. One does not fight terrorism by adopting the values  of 
the terrorists; one does not serve truth by pretending to possess it.  
A new age of darkness is re-emerging in our time. I tremble for my nation,  
for Christianity and for the citizens of the world, who have leaders today with 
 such small minds occupying the seats of such great authority.  
John Shelby Spong  
_Note from  the Editor: Bishop Spong's new book is available now at 
bookstores everywhere  and by clicking here!_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060762055/agoramedia-20)   
Question and Answer
With John  Shelby Spong 
Graeme Moore from Canada writes:  
American response to American torture is perplexing. There can be no doubt  
that American government officials, military and civilian, torture. They may  
call it by other names but just as "a rose is a rose," so torture is torture.  
Setting aside for the moment the fact that the considerable evidence that  
most "information" obtained through torture is unreliable, or worse, there is a  
fundamental conflict between present day American Christian Christianity and  
torture.  
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Christ's commandment  
cannot be clearer. It is fundamental to Christian belief. It is the bedrock of  
the Christian way. Torture cannot be reconciled with Christ's commandment. One 
 cannot be both a Christian and a torturer. America's current President 
proudly  and readily announces he is a "born again" Christian. He is surrounded by  
persons of similar convictions. Many Christian "leaders" support him. The  
President, however, has authorized torture; he encourages its use even to the  
point of finding various dubious and devious ways and means to avoid any  
attempts to curtail torture by Americans or their proxies.  
Why do American Christians and certain American Christian "leaders" support  
torture? (Those people who torture and those people who order, advocate or  
tolerate torture are equally culpable.) Many Americans contend that America is a 
 Christian nation. It would appear so based upon utterances and statements of 
 America's political elite and on the number of Americans who profess to be  
Christians and belong to a congregation whose services they attend on a 
regular  and frequent basis. Can America be a Christian nation when it tortures?  
Why do American Christians not rise up to strike down those Americans who  
torture? When will American Christians demand an end to torture? When will  
Christian "leaders" take a public position, such as open letters against  torture? 
When will Christian preachers condemn torture from their pulpits? When  will 
Christian say loudly that torture is unchristian and un- American? When  will 
Christians demonstrate and protest torture in a manner similar to their  
actions against choice? If Christians can stir up a storm in Florida over the  
"right to die," when will they unleash a tempest in Washington against torture?  
The current silence of American Christian is eerily reminiscent of the silence  
of earlier generations against the evils of racism. Perhaps it is to be 
expected  that a people who lynched their fellow citizens because of their race 
would  torture their enemies.  
Dear Graeme,  
Thank you for your question. I invite my readers to write to me with their  
opinions on this issue. I will publish the best letters in the debate. My  
readers must know that they have a better chance of being included in the debate  
if they keep their comments succinct.  
John Shelby Spong
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060927/f3d31b9b/attachment-0001.html