Reading an article about Senator McCain and his campaign for presidency I realized that as much as Catholic's can be criticized for their orthodoxy and their "submission" to the Pope, there are Candidates out there, like McCain, who are in need of the Catholic vote to win the presidency.
This article points out that 25% of registered voters are Catholic and for McCain to stand a chance against the Democratic nominee he needs the Catholic vote. I thought at first that this might not be so hard because many Catholics seem to be one-issue voters and the pro-life cause wins the votes, but then I thought how stereotypical this was in my head and I realized that this election really might breakdown barriers for all different social groups, especially the Catholic Church.
It seems to me that Catholics are thinking twice about just casting the pro-life vote, and maybe this is because I, myself, and thinking twice about it. The pro-life vote is not just held in the Republican party anymore simply because although they may be anti-abortion and the Dem's are generally pro-choice, the Democrats hold many pro-life ideals that Catholics are beginning to see. For example, is the Republican position on immigration really pro-life? Sure, they are against abortion but at the same time, is anything being done about it? It just reinforces that this single-issue of pro-life is not as singular as people make it out to be.
So, if Catholics really educate themselves and cast their vote in November with Catholic ideals in mind we can make a difference! It is an empowering thought. In a society where I constantly hear, "my vote doesn't really matter because...(insert excuse here)" I am finally hearing a call to go out and vote, and not just because I am a citizen but because I am a Catholic.
Catholic's make up 25% of the voters in this country and we, if properly educated, could choose a faithful citizen to run our country.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Problem of the Lie
In Joan Vennochi's article yesterday in the Boston Globe online, Honestly, candidates, stop the truth-parsing, she mocks the "selective memory syndrome" of all three of the presidential candidates right now, which, she concludes, "turns into outright lying. And for any presidential candidate, that's no laughing matter." The article comes in the wake of Hilary's unfortunate (and outright) lie about her not-so-scary entrance into Bosnia in 1996. While it highlights numerous other lies on her part, it also mentions incidences by Obama and McCain.
Obama has been having these "memory problems" regarding his experience with the now-famous Reverend Jeremiah Wright:
McCain isn't perfect either. Back in November, he said "Everybody says they're against the special interests, but I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to," when, in reality, Vennochi explains, "lobbyists or former lobbyists [have] raised money for him."
In fact, a USA Today/Gallup poll rated public opinion of whether candidates are "honest and trustworthy," and discovered McCain to be most trusted at 67 percent, Obama in second place at 63 percent, and Clinton, unsurprisingly, in last place with 44 percent.
The problem, though, goes further than the pointed confusion of facts. What does this dishonesty say about each candidate as a person? Are we willing to support and live under a president who is not even going to fulfill the basic moral duty of honesty? If they hide this small stuff, what other skeletons may creep from the closet?
I believe honesty to be the beginning of the moral life. As I read somewhere recently, if there is anything true about lies, it is that the second one is easier than the first. In the same way, the willingness to lie can lead to a greater openness to more serious sins in the future, which is a serious matter for all, including, with special importance, our president. The "trustability" of a president absolutely must be taken into account when we enter the poll booth, or we risk incalcuable problems in the years to come.
Obama has been having these "memory problems" regarding his experience with the now-famous Reverend Jeremiah Wright:
"In the speech on race he delivered on March 18, Obama said: "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." Yet, in a March 14 posting on Huffington Post, Obama wrote: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach."
McCain isn't perfect either. Back in November, he said "Everybody says they're against the special interests, but I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to," when, in reality, Vennochi explains, "lobbyists or former lobbyists [have] raised money for him."
In fact, a USA Today/Gallup poll rated public opinion of whether candidates are "honest and trustworthy," and discovered McCain to be most trusted at 67 percent, Obama in second place at 63 percent, and Clinton, unsurprisingly, in last place with 44 percent.
The problem, though, goes further than the pointed confusion of facts. What does this dishonesty say about each candidate as a person? Are we willing to support and live under a president who is not even going to fulfill the basic moral duty of honesty? If they hide this small stuff, what other skeletons may creep from the closet?
I believe honesty to be the beginning of the moral life. As I read somewhere recently, if there is anything true about lies, it is that the second one is easier than the first. In the same way, the willingness to lie can lead to a greater openness to more serious sins in the future, which is a serious matter for all, including, with special importance, our president. The "trustability" of a president absolutely must be taken into account when we enter the poll booth, or we risk incalcuable problems in the years to come.
“Why do we believe the next ten states won’t matter?” a panelist asked on Larry King Live March 28th. And that’s what I’d like to know.
Talk that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the sake of the party is nonsense according to 62 % of Democrats who say that they want the voters to decide. So why are Senators Leahy and Dodd calling her to call it quits?
Arguing that the tight competition causes party discord, disunity, and even abandonment, Leahy and Dodd say Hillary’s presence in the Democratic primary is harmful. According to CNN.com “Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, issued the most unvarnished statement Friday, saying Clinton "has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to."” Sounds like more elitist interference to me.
“Obama has said it is not for others to say when a candidate should get out of the race” CNN.com reports and Hillary notes that “There are some people who are saying, you know, We really ought to end this primary; we ought to just shut down, …There was a poll the other day that said ... let people vote.”
So if the candidates and more importantly, the voters, are clamoring for drop out noise to end, where’s the issue? I take issue with the attitudes of party leaders, neutral watchers, and others who want Hillary to bow out because stifling the democratic process is never the answer.
Talk that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the sake of the party is nonsense according to 62 % of Democrats who say that they want the voters to decide. So why are Senators Leahy and Dodd calling her to call it quits?
Arguing that the tight competition causes party discord, disunity, and even abandonment, Leahy and Dodd say Hillary’s presence in the Democratic primary is harmful. According to CNN.com “Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, issued the most unvarnished statement Friday, saying Clinton "has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to."” Sounds like more elitist interference to me.
“Obama has said it is not for others to say when a candidate should get out of the race” CNN.com reports and Hillary notes that “There are some people who are saying, you know, We really ought to end this primary; we ought to just shut down, …There was a poll the other day that said ... let people vote.”
So if the candidates and more importantly, the voters, are clamoring for drop out noise to end, where’s the issue? I take issue with the attitudes of party leaders, neutral watchers, and others who want Hillary to bow out because stifling the democratic process is never the answer.
China and Sudan - Can Americans do anything about it?
In our class discussions, we rarely discuss international issues outside the War in Iraq. So, I'd like to focus this blog on an incredibly pertinent international humanitarian crisis: the War in Darfur. Particularly, I'd like to discuss the role of future Olympic host, China, in the crisis. As the U.N. begins to take some decisive action toward the genocide and mass displacement of Darfurian civilians, China in fact seems to be in a position to place immense pressure on the Khartoum government to end its atrocious behavior. As the largest purchaser of Sudanese oil (70% of Sudanese oil exports go in China), a large donor to Sudanese government infrastructure projects, and a major arms dealer with the regime, China is in a unique position to pressure the al-Bashir government to end this horrible humanitarian crisis that has displaced 2.5 million people and has left over 400,000 dead. China, however, has come up short in any meaningful attempts at pressuring Sudan for peace.
Until mid-2007, as a UN Security Council member, China effectively acted as a stop-block for nearly all U.N. attempts to intervene, however modest they were. Though they may have approved the recent UN troop deployment, the country is coming up horribly short in its actions when compared to what it could do.
As citizens of a different country, but members of a global church, we are in an interesting position. I think politically, there is very little we could effectively do to spur China to proper action. However, these are children of God that are suffering these catastrophic injustices, and in that regard I do think we must act in such a manner that seeks to affirm and uphold the justice of their lives.
However, the 2008 Summer Olympic Games has given the entire world to have an effective voice in pressuring the Chinese government to action. Specifically, would a boycott of the games – be it either a national boycott or an individual decision not to watch them – be a necessary action for the sake of justice. For an event that idealizes world peace and cooperation, if we were to watch them would we be supporting China’s gross human rights record?
This is a question that has been grappling me for some time now, and I thought it particularly relevant to the course – do we have a moral obligation to boycott the Olympics? An individual boycott may not be particularly affective, but, then again, as Mother Teresa says, we are not necessarily called to be successful, only faithful.
Until mid-2007, as a UN Security Council member, China effectively acted as a stop-block for nearly all U.N. attempts to intervene, however modest they were. Though they may have approved the recent UN troop deployment, the country is coming up horribly short in its actions when compared to what it could do.
As citizens of a different country, but members of a global church, we are in an interesting position. I think politically, there is very little we could effectively do to spur China to proper action. However, these are children of God that are suffering these catastrophic injustices, and in that regard I do think we must act in such a manner that seeks to affirm and uphold the justice of their lives.
However, the 2008 Summer Olympic Games has given the entire world to have an effective voice in pressuring the Chinese government to action. Specifically, would a boycott of the games – be it either a national boycott or an individual decision not to watch them – be a necessary action for the sake of justice. For an event that idealizes world peace and cooperation, if we were to watch them would we be supporting China’s gross human rights record?
This is a question that has been grappling me for some time now, and I thought it particularly relevant to the course – do we have a moral obligation to boycott the Olympics? An individual boycott may not be particularly affective, but, then again, as Mother Teresa says, we are not necessarily called to be successful, only faithful.
Faith and Politics--A More Perfect Union?
By now we've all heard or read Barack's speech “A More Perfect Union,” which addressed both race and religion--two topics most often found on the “do not discuss at the dinner table” list, not to mention in the political arena.
In his attempt to draw a picture of his experience in the black church, Obama brought up one very difficult reality: people are angry. Not just black people, but lots of people. And the amount of racially-fueled resentment that lurks beneath the surface is astounding. It is not all that uncommon to hear that anger expressed when racially homogenous groups get together around the kitchen, the water cooler, or even in the pews. My experience living in New Orleans and working with and worshipping alongside mostly African Americans offered me just a taste of this reality.
The speech, as a response to the controversial sermons of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was successful; meaning, he managed to disconnect himself from Rev. Wright's politics of anti-Americanism and the belief that racism is endemic in the United States. At the same time, he clarified that the true nature of their relationship was spiritual: “He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.”
A NY Times editorial interpreted Obama's speech as one that drew a pretty clear separation between religion and politics:
and again,
However, I'm not so sure that I completely agree. While distancing himself from the rampant anti-American sentiment of Rev. Wright, his language around the “racial stalemate” certainly included a fair amount of religion. Overtly, Obama claims that he has
His vision of a more perfect union includes a necessary commitment to the common good and solidarity:
and again,
Ultimately, Obama claims, it's about the Golden Rule:
Personally, I find Obama's honesty about the “racial stalemate” refreshing and his vision for encouraging the US beyond that stalemate one that cracks away just a bit at the American ideal of individualism. Don't get me wrong, Obama upholds that age-old notion of self-help and personal responsibility; however, he simultaneously calls us to be one another's keepers, to believe that our neighbor's grievances are our own, and that “the children of America are not those kids, they are our kids.” For Obama, these beliefs were strengthened by sitting faithfully in the pews of his church, despite his disagreement with the political beliefs of his pastor.
But does any of this religion stuff even matter? Earlier I quoted the Chicago Tribune article, in which the author says that Obama's religious beliefs/connections are none of our business. Again, religion is viewed as belonging only in some sort of private sphere. Perhaps this is because I was raised Catholic, and like Stanley Hauerwas says, Catholics don't really understand how to separate church and state; but how can we possibly expect someone's personal beliefs to NOT influence into their careers? And certainly ones that are service-oriented (a politician's job is technically one of service to the country).
While Obama tried to clarify and describe his relationship with his pastor, I'm not so sure he so clearly delineated his faith and his politics. And I'm, quite frankly, okay with that.
In his attempt to draw a picture of his experience in the black church, Obama brought up one very difficult reality: people are angry. Not just black people, but lots of people. And the amount of racially-fueled resentment that lurks beneath the surface is astounding. It is not all that uncommon to hear that anger expressed when racially homogenous groups get together around the kitchen, the water cooler, or even in the pews. My experience living in New Orleans and working with and worshipping alongside mostly African Americans offered me just a taste of this reality.
The speech, as a response to the controversial sermons of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was successful; meaning, he managed to disconnect himself from Rev. Wright's politics of anti-Americanism and the belief that racism is endemic in the United States. At the same time, he clarified that the true nature of their relationship was spiritual: “He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.”
A NY Times editorial interpreted Obama's speech as one that drew a pretty clear separation between religion and politics:
On Tuesday, Mr. Obama drew a bright line between his religious connection with Mr. Wright, which should be none of the voters’ business, and having a political connection, which would be very much their business. The distinction seems especially urgent after seven years of a president who has worked to blur the line between church and state.
and again,
Mr. Obama’s eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright since there is nothing to suggest that he would carry religion into government.
However, I'm not so sure that I completely agree. While distancing himself from the rampant anti-American sentiment of Rev. Wright, his language around the “racial stalemate” certainly included a fair amount of religion. Overtly, Obama claims that he has
...a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
His vision of a more perfect union includes a necessary commitment to the common good and solidarity:
it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans.
and again,
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
Ultimately, Obama claims, it's about the Golden Rule:
Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.
Personally, I find Obama's honesty about the “racial stalemate” refreshing and his vision for encouraging the US beyond that stalemate one that cracks away just a bit at the American ideal of individualism. Don't get me wrong, Obama upholds that age-old notion of self-help and personal responsibility; however, he simultaneously calls us to be one another's keepers, to believe that our neighbor's grievances are our own, and that “the children of America are not those kids, they are our kids.” For Obama, these beliefs were strengthened by sitting faithfully in the pews of his church, despite his disagreement with the political beliefs of his pastor.
But does any of this religion stuff even matter? Earlier I quoted the Chicago Tribune article, in which the author says that Obama's religious beliefs/connections are none of our business. Again, religion is viewed as belonging only in some sort of private sphere. Perhaps this is because I was raised Catholic, and like Stanley Hauerwas says, Catholics don't really understand how to separate church and state; but how can we possibly expect someone's personal beliefs to NOT influence into their careers? And certainly ones that are service-oriented (a politician's job is technically one of service to the country).
While Obama tried to clarify and describe his relationship with his pastor, I'm not so sure he so clearly delineated his faith and his politics. And I'm, quite frankly, okay with that.
For someone so critical about honesty....
I am sure that everyone has heard about Hillary Clinton's misstatements regarding her trip to Bosnia as the first lady. If you have not heard about it, Hillary recalled landing in Bosnia under sniper fire and having to duck and run to the car, missing out on the planned reception. However, there is taped footage of Hillary walking rather relaxed towards a large reception including young children, and none of the video footage shows anything even close to sniper attacks. This video shows the speech where she discussed the event and the original footage of the actual event.
Normally, I do not pay too much attention to issues such as these in the political arena. I tend to get frustrated when the media latches onto a problem like this one and circulates it over and over again. However, this really bothered me because of Hillary's judgment of Obama throughout this entire campaign, attacking him left and right with any piece of negative news she can find. Here, she flat out lies at a speech and after she was caught stated that she says millions of things each day and she must have misspoke. Misspeaking is one thing, fabricating a story that did not take place to somehow look like a political hero is another. Hillary seemed particularly offended when Obama used words form Deval Patrick in his speech, and perhaps rightfully so since the words were not his own. I am assuming that Hillary felt that this plagiarism represented a kind of dishonesty that she felt does not belong politics. However, if you are going to take the moral high ground in such a situation you should probably make sure not to blatantly lie on national television. As we all know, this is not the first time that this has happened and Hillary has been called out for lying on several occasions. Yet, I have not seen Obama using these stories to tear Hillary down as she often does to him, but then again that is apparently "just politics." I do not think Obama feels it necessary to say too much about this event, because clearly, Hillary has said enough.
Normally, I do not pay too much attention to issues such as these in the political arena. I tend to get frustrated when the media latches onto a problem like this one and circulates it over and over again. However, this really bothered me because of Hillary's judgment of Obama throughout this entire campaign, attacking him left and right with any piece of negative news she can find. Here, she flat out lies at a speech and after she was caught stated that she says millions of things each day and she must have misspoke. Misspeaking is one thing, fabricating a story that did not take place to somehow look like a political hero is another. Hillary seemed particularly offended when Obama used words form Deval Patrick in his speech, and perhaps rightfully so since the words were not his own. I am assuming that Hillary felt that this plagiarism represented a kind of dishonesty that she felt does not belong politics. However, if you are going to take the moral high ground in such a situation you should probably make sure not to blatantly lie on national television. As we all know, this is not the first time that this has happened and Hillary has been called out for lying on several occasions. Yet, I have not seen Obama using these stories to tear Hillary down as she often does to him, but then again that is apparently "just politics." I do not think Obama feels it necessary to say too much about this event, because clearly, Hillary has said enough.
Listening to and reading various texts of Stanley Hauerwas has helped me to reconsider this topic of the common good and the role Christians should play in this concept. The message I recieve from Hauerwas directed me in a way that presented Christianity as the path to the common good. During an interview over one of his many intellectual works, Hauerwas states:
"Of course we [as Christians] believe that God is God and we are not and that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit but that this is not a set of propositions — but is rather embedded in a community of practices that make those beliefs themselves work and give us a community by which we are shaped."
Community, as understood by Hauerwas, is only capable with God. As he spoke about in class, society is not possible without God. This Christian God is who our lives and communities must revolve around for naturally God is embedded in our communities. This reacts against the pluralistic secularism strongly emerging in American religious life. Instead of seeking tolerance for inter-faith communities, Hauerwas is reminding us that there is only one truth for us to be concerned with, the truth of the revealed God.
As revolutionary as these ideas seem, I would argue that this has been the challenge of Christians since the beginning of the Church. We have forgotten the message of Christ to be disciples, spreading the Christian message throughout the world. We have been silenced by pluralism. While it is important to be knowledgeable and respectful of other religions, we must not keep our truth hidden, but share it with the world so that everyone may have the chance to share in the life of Christ.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Pastors and Politics...Church and State...is there really a separation?
When I was watching the news over the weekend Chris Matthews was covering the story of John McCain's endorsement from Pastor John Hagee, an evangelical Southern preacher. Chris commented, after reflecting on this story in light of the recent controversy from Obama's former pastor, Reverend Wright, on the fact that it is interesting that it is religious leaders who have become detrimental to these candidates.
We all have heard about Obama's former paster, Reverend Wright and his highly controversial statements about America. The statements included things like, "God Damn America" and "The US KKK." These statements are obviously extreme and represent a racism that is uncalled for and off base. Obama responded to these comments from his former Reverend with a speech on race that many have said is unprecedented. CNN pundits called it the best speech since " I have a dream" and Kieth Olbermann thanked Obama for speaking to Americans as adults about the issue of race. I think the speech is definitely worth watching because it validates both sides of the racism that is still prominent in American society. However, Obama is still sufering the consequences of his ties to Reverend Wright and even Hillary caught some of the flack when pictures were released of her husband with Reverend Wright at a conference when he was president.
Senator McCain has also been under attack given a recent endorsement from Pastor John Hagee. It was reported that McCain sought out this endorsement, which presumably was to help pull in some of the evangelical conservative voters. Some of the statements that John Hagee has made in the past make him a controversial choice for McCain to seek out for endorsement. I think there has been less coverage of this story because McCain is the presumptive nominee, so that it perhaps does not have as great affect on his campaign as it does on Obama who is in such a tight race with Clinton. Even so, I think it is worth looking at why Senator Hagee's endorsement has become so controversial. I will list some of the quotes that Hagee has made below:
So, the point is, it is intersecting that it is these religious figures that are playing such a large role in the political sphere. It is funny that for a country with a supposed separation of church and state that these figures cause such a political stir-up. I agree that both of these figures present real problems for the candidates and outline outlandish ideas, but I just think it is interesting that these problems are arising. If there truly were a separation of Church and State would these religous figures have such weight in the political sphere?
We all have heard about Obama's former paster, Reverend Wright and his highly controversial statements about America. The statements included things like, "God Damn America" and "The US KKK." These statements are obviously extreme and represent a racism that is uncalled for and off base. Obama responded to these comments from his former Reverend with a speech on race that many have said is unprecedented. CNN pundits called it the best speech since " I have a dream" and Kieth Olbermann thanked Obama for speaking to Americans as adults about the issue of race. I think the speech is definitely worth watching because it validates both sides of the racism that is still prominent in American society. However, Obama is still sufering the consequences of his ties to Reverend Wright and even Hillary caught some of the flack when pictures were released of her husband with Reverend Wright at a conference when he was president.
Senator McCain has also been under attack given a recent endorsement from Pastor John Hagee. It was reported that McCain sought out this endorsement, which presumably was to help pull in some of the evangelical conservative voters. Some of the statements that John Hagee has made in the past make him a controversial choice for McCain to seek out for endorsement. I think there has been less coverage of this story because McCain is the presumptive nominee, so that it perhaps does not have as great affect on his campaign as it does on Obama who is in such a tight race with Clinton. Even so, I think it is worth looking at why Senator Hagee's endorsement has become so controversial. I will list some of the quotes that Hagee has made below:
Hagee on Hurricane Katrina "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]Taken from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html. These comments seem radically un-Christian and controversial, yet McCain wished to have Hagee's endorsement. This may prove to cause some trouble for McCain, just as his close alignment with George Bush is causing.
Hagee on Islamic Beliefs
Fresh Air host Terry Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]Hagee on African-Americans
The San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:"Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, 'The Cluster.'
"The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." [San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96]
Hagee on Catholicism
"Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." [Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee]Hagee on Women
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." ["Bible Positions on Political Issues," John Hagee]
Hagee on LGBT Americans
"The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]Hagee on Iran
"The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty," Hagee wrote [in 2006] in the Pentecostal magazine Charisma. "Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide." [The Nation, 8/8/2006]
So, the point is, it is intersecting that it is these religious figures that are playing such a large role in the political sphere. It is funny that for a country with a supposed separation of church and state that these figures cause such a political stir-up. I agree that both of these figures present real problems for the candidates and outline outlandish ideas, but I just think it is interesting that these problems are arising. If there truly were a separation of Church and State would these religous figures have such weight in the political sphere?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Moral Obligations: Living Out Catholicism in Today's War
In the wake of 4000 deaths in Iraq, it is clear to all of us that the upcoming election will bring a president who will make changes, whether it be Barack, Hilary, or John. Each candidate has his own ideas about what Bush did wrong and how we can fix what is happening in Iraq. The question is: who do you trust to take care of Americans and Iraqis, and to do so in a Catholic, moral way?
Let's focus, for a moment, on Obama and McCain. In Peter Wehner's article, Obama's War, he traces the history (from his apparently conservative, but quite researched, point of view) of Obama's comments about this war. (Because the article is lengthy, I picked out a lot of quotes for you all, as well as used some bold print to help out rushed readers.) Wehner begins by reminding us of the candidate's insistence that he has been 100% consistent on this issue, and responds:
In fact, he began to speak like Gerard Powers, former director of the Office of International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (of America Magazine's FANTASTIC article, Our Moral Duty in Iraq), when Obama "re-stated his belief that, having gone in, we had an obligation to 'manage our exit in a responsible way—with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.'”
Powers, speaking from a Catholic perspective, says: "The Iraq intervention may have been an optional, immoral war; but given the U.S. government’s shared responsibility for the ensuing crisis, its continued engagement is not an optional moral commitment."
Obama's brief statement, and Powers well-written article, state well my concerns about this candidate's (and his current female foe's) war policies. How are we to trust a president who is willing to walk out on a country that Bush's America left unstable and dependent on U.S. protection, when it is clear we now have an obligation to help these people?
Whether or not we, as individuals, agree with the war, it is happening, and now that we are in, we have a responsibility to deal with it. Period. Walking out on the people of their country is selfish and unCatholic, in my humble opinion. What about their need for protection? Do you, as a Catholic, trust a president who is willing to send troops home (yes, to their struggling American families- my Dad's a vet too) at the expense of the lives of the unstable Iraqi people? And to what purpose does this bring the deaths of the 4,000?
Rather than flee with relief that war is over, we need to consider the morality of our presence and our possible departure. Powers' article articulates this far better than myself:
Powers, the Catholic writer, also comments on the efficacy of Barack and Hilary's plans:
He best summarizes his ideas in this way:
Thus, now that we are immersed in this lesser publicized "Catholic viewpoint" on the war, Wehner continues discussing this subject, quoting Obama, then commenting in his own words:
It means voting for a president that you believe actually knows what he or she is doing, someone we trust to pull soldiers out after creating a more stable place for the Iraqi people. Is this dreaming? Perhaps. But among the three candidates, we must pick one who will be "Catholic" and serve Iraqis with a sense of solidarity and preferential service to those most in need.
Wehner goes on:
Let's focus, for a moment, on Obama and McCain. In Peter Wehner's article, Obama's War, he traces the history (from his apparently conservative, but quite researched, point of view) of Obama's comments about this war. (Because the article is lengthy, I picked out a lot of quotes for you all, as well as used some bold print to help out rushed readers.) Wehner begins by reminding us of the candidate's insistence that he has been 100% consistent on this issue, and responds:
Obama was not yet in the Senate, and the Senate had not yet voted to authorize the war, when, in a speech delivered in Chicago on October 2, 2002, he announced his view of the matter. Granting forthrightly that the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein had “repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity,” and that he “butchers his own people,” Obama nevertheless held that, despite all these well-proven crimes, Saddam posed no “imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors.” What is more, he added, “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”Thus, we see an early difference in opinion from his current war policy. I don't want to spend too much time discussing this inconsistency (a minor point, for this post's subject), but I will quickly show you more of Wehner's research on the matter:
Almost as soon as the war began in March 2003, Obama had second thoughts about his opposition to it. Watching the dramatic footage of the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, and then the President’s speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, “I began to suspect,” he would write later in his autobiographical The Audacity of Hope (2006), “that I might have been wrong.” And these second thoughts seem to have stayed with him throughout the entire first phase of the occupation following our initial combat victory. As he told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”He inched toward a somewhat bipartisan, and in a sense, "open-minded" view, when Obama, "in September 2004, in the heat of his campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama said (according to an AP report) that even though Bush had 'bungled his handling of the war, 'simply pulling out of Iraq 'would make things worse.'"
In fact, he began to speak like Gerard Powers, former director of the Office of International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (of America Magazine's FANTASTIC article, Our Moral Duty in Iraq), when Obama "re-stated his belief that, having gone in, we had an obligation to 'manage our exit in a responsible way—with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.'”
Powers, speaking from a Catholic perspective, says: "The Iraq intervention may have been an optional, immoral war; but given the U.S. government’s shared responsibility for the ensuing crisis, its continued engagement is not an optional moral commitment."
Obama's brief statement, and Powers well-written article, state well my concerns about this candidate's (and his current female foe's) war policies. How are we to trust a president who is willing to walk out on a country that Bush's America left unstable and dependent on U.S. protection, when it is clear we now have an obligation to help these people?
Whether or not we, as individuals, agree with the war, it is happening, and now that we are in, we have a responsibility to deal with it. Period. Walking out on the people of their country is selfish and unCatholic, in my humble opinion. What about their need for protection? Do you, as a Catholic, trust a president who is willing to send troops home (yes, to their struggling American families- my Dad's a vet too) at the expense of the lives of the unstable Iraqi people? And to what purpose does this bring the deaths of the 4,000?
Rather than flee with relief that war is over, we need to consider the morality of our presence and our possible departure. Powers' article articulates this far better than myself:
Others calling for U.S. withdrawal acknowledge the ethics of exit, but give too much weight to an ethic of efficacy (Is U.S. intervention working?) over an ethic of responsibility (What do we owe Iraqis?).
Efficacy must be part of any moral analysis of Iraq. At a forum sponsored by Fordham’s Center on Religion and Culture and Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute, the ethicist Michael Walzer, a vocal opponent of the Iraq intervention, argued that “we are consequentialists for the moment. Neither staying on nor leaving Iraq is a categorical imperative”.
Unlike many in the debate, Walzer is clear about the breadth of moral obligations that exist in Iraq and thus the range of consequences that matter morally. According to Walzer, “We have to figure out a strategy that produces the least bad results for the Iraqi people, for other people in the Middle East, and for American soldiers."
Arguments for withdrawal tend to give most weight to what is good for U.S. soldiers (and, I would add, U.S. interests). It would be morally irresponsible not to take into account legitimate U.S. interests, not least our moral obligations to the small percentage of Americans who are helping to shoulder the burden in Iraq, and the moral costs of spending more than $2 billion per week on the war while other pressing needs go unmet.
Moral clarity about what we owe ourselves is often not matched by moral clarity about what we owe Iraqis. The Catholic Democrats and presidential candidates who rally antiwar support by equating a withdrawal of U.S. troops with “ending the war” in Iraq define the “ought” mostly without reference to the Iraqi people. Proposals to de-authorize and stop funding the war and to set strict timetables for redeployment might “end the war” for Americans. But would they end the war between Sunnis and Shiites? Would they end the insurgency, the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks or the widespread criminality in Iraq?
Powers, the Catholic writer, also comments on the efficacy of Barack and Hilary's plans:
The leading Democratic presidential candidates are clear that protecting civilians is not a U.S. obligation, despite abundant evidence that Iraqi security forces cannot do it alone. The inadequacy of such minimalist goals is clearer when tied to early deadlines for withdrawal. Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, argues that such deadlines would force Iraqis “to look into the abyss” of a civil war.Instead, he says we have four responsibilities, which have not been addressed by the Democrats candidates we remains nameless or by the current president in practice:
(1) not to end all political violence, but to ensure that an Iraqi government can maintain a reasonable degree of security for the whole country and minimize the threat of chaos or civil war;
(2) not to impose a Western-style democracy, but to facilitate establishment of a stable, fairly representative government that respects basic human rights, especially minority rights;
(3) not to promote a U.S.-style capitalist economy, but to restore Iraq’s infrastructure and a viable economy that serves Iraqi needs, not U.S. interests, especially not U.S. oil interests; and
(4) not to stay without the consent of a legitimate Iraqi government, or, lacking that, the United Nations.
He best summarizes his ideas in this way:
The United States has seriously failed Iraq; but past failure need not beget future failure, nor does it absolve us of our obligations. Given what is at stake, the Bush administration (and its successor) must do more to put Iraqi interests first, to commit the necessary resources (especially for protection of Iraqi civilians and for reconstruction), to engage Iraq’s neighbors and the international community, and to pursue new approaches that offer a better chance of meeting U.S. obligations.Thus,
Those who say that it is too late and too costly to fix what we have broken must not forget what we owe Iraqis, lest they too readily impose on Iraqis alone the risks of a serious humanitarian, security and political crisis if the U.S. withdraws too soon. The antiwar position must find a better balance between an ethics of efficacy and an ethics of responsibility, between meeting U.S. needs and interests and Iraqi needs and interests.And Powers ends his article:
The moral question is: What policies and strategies best serve the interests of the Iraqi people?
Thus, now that we are immersed in this lesser publicized "Catholic viewpoint" on the war, Wehner continues discussing this subject, quoting Obama, then commenting in his own words:
"As commander-in-chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
To wonted illogic this added both ignorance and disingenuousness. By his statement Obama may have intended to project a certain tough-mindedness in dealing with new threats, but as Senator John McCain pointed out in a devastating riposte, al Qaeda is already in Iraq. That is why its forces there are called “al Qaeda in Iraq” (or, to use the terrorist organization’s own nomenclature, “al Qaeda in Meso-potamia”). What is more, if Obama had had his way in 2007, our troops would have been out of Iraq by March of this year, leaving it naked to its enemies. If we were to withdraw them in the early months of an Obama presidency, al Qaeda in Iraq could be counted on not only to form “a base” but to take over large swaths of the country. Having overseen such a withdrawal, and having thereby unraveled all the gains of the surge, Obama would face the prospect of ordering them to return under far more treacherous conditions of his own making.
A frightening thought? Taking into account even Wehner's quite unnecessary biases (I think it weakens his trustability-which, by the way, is not a word), it seems clear to me that American foreign policy under Obama is not as safe and peaceful for the American and, in particular, the Iraqi people as we might think when we watch (and yes, sometimes giggle) at his "O-BAM-A" commecials, his celebrity endorsements, and his hopeful and inspiring speeches.
It means voting for a president that you believe actually knows what he or she is doing, someone we trust to pull soldiers out after creating a more stable place for the Iraqi people. Is this dreaming? Perhaps. But among the three candidates, we must pick one who will be "Catholic" and serve Iraqis with a sense of solidarity and preferential service to those most in need.
Wehner goes on:
This piece speaks for itself, I think. We have a responsibility, and we have to live it out, or lives will continue to be lost. Finally, like Powers, he makes a liberal concession:The columnist Charles Krauthammer once characterized this disposition as the “broken-telephone theory of international conflict”—i.e., the belief that if nations fail to get along, the fault is to be found in some misunderstanding, some misperception, some problem of communication that can be cleared up by “talking.” In Obama’s case, the syndrome is compounded by unfeigned confidence in the power of his own personal charm to bridge whatever differences may separate us from those who hate us.
Thus, when it comes specifically to Iraq and its implacably hostile neighbors, he refuses even to entertain the possibility that diplomacy might fail, or to consider what steps would be necessary should that in fact happen. [.....] Such willful innocence, in a President, can be lethal.
So, as Catholics interested in leading moral lives, the question is: which president is ready to play his or her cards right?It is perfectly legitimate to argue, as Senator Obama does, that the war to liberate Iraq was ill-conceived and has cost us much more than it has been worth. It is also perfectly legitimate to argue, as Senator McCain does, that the war was eminently worth waging but that the Bush administration massively mishandled the phase following the ousting of the Baathist regime.
It is another matter entirely to argue that because the decision to go to war was wrong, we should now simply withdraw and wash our hands of Iraq in hopes of starting over. There is no starting over in world affairs. We are where we are, and the next President will have to play, one can only hope wisely, the hand he will have been dealt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)