A form of godliness...

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." - 2 Timothy 3:1-2, 5

There really was a limitless array of verses I could have chosen to introduce this topic. But before I begin, let me say that the next few entries will tackle other subjects of some import to me than politics. The following writing is a good bridge between subjects, and it is one very important to me.

Most of my life has been spent in a loving, nurturing, Christian family; with good friends and a good community, it was an upbringing one could only hope for. Part of my experience growing up was to be deeply immersed in the sub-culture of Evangelicalism. Let me say at the outset that there are things about the Evangelical sub-culture that I admire, but there is one point especially that troubles me about modern Evangelicalism: the politicization of Faith. I could write for days on this subject, but I wish only to address one aspect of this disastrous tendency in modern Evangelicalism: this absurd assumption that President Bush and his administration are in any way “Christian.”

I understand that the campaign Public Relations machine produced hundreds of photos of Bush in prayer and speaking to Evangelical leaders. I also understand the Bush PR machine worked hard in 2000 to mobilize conservative Evangelical groups like Focus on the Family, though the results were not satisfactory to Karl Rove who declared there were at least four million evangelicals who didn’t vote in 2000, something he would remedy in 2004. [U.S. News and World Report, Gilgoff, 03/05/07]

For their part, Focus on the Family finally came out in force in 2004 in favor of the Bush campaign. I personally heard Dobson (during the Dobson Family Minute on my local Christian music radio station) call voters to go out and vote Republican (anti-gay, anti-abortion) with no mention of any other quality one should demand of a Presidential candidate. And why did Focus on the Family rise up in arms in 2004?

“ Officials inside Focus on the Family's public policy shop argued that they had been much less gung-ho about mobilizing evangelical voters in 2000 than in 2004 because candidate Bush was something of an unknown quantity; he promoted ‘compassionate conservatism’ and a ‘big tent’ GOP rather than play up antiabortion and antigay rights themes. ‘We didn't really know George Bush till he was inaugurated,’ said Focus on the Family public policy director Tom Minnery. ‘At that inauguration, he had Franklin Graham ... there were church hymns being sung. It was a Christian service was what it was.’” [ibed.]

Well, amen. So I guess the trappings of Evangelical Christianity is all it takes in the modern world to bring out millions of Christian/”Family Values”/”The Moral Vote” voters in favor of God’s very own candidate, George W. Bush. Does it matter that Bush didn’t touch either of the “Moral Vote” issues his first four years? Despite a blank check congress, Bush didn’t touch either of those issues. So how can we possibly address whether Bush (his PR campaign aside) acted even remotely Christ-like? Well, I may be a bit biased, but I'd like to think that when it comes to determining whether something is Christ-like or not, the Bible is a good place to start.

“Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right. The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them. (Proverbs 20:11-12)

Let us then look and hear. The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality in three places (Leviticus 18:12; 20:13; Romans 1:27). On the other hand, the Bible explicitly directs us to help the poor and widows hundreds upon hundreds of times. The Bible never explicitly mentions abortion, though there are three verses that could be used in an argument against abortion (Psalm 22:9-10; Isaiah 46:3-4; Jeremiah 1:4-5). On the other hand, Jesus explicitly calls for peacemakers, and the Bible demands social justice throughout the entirety of the Scriptures. The Bible clearly calls for humility over pride scores of times, and the Bible clearly urges accountability and responsibility in leaders of men.

I know how thorough the sub-culture of Evangelicalism can be, but it takes only a moment to look at the last six years of the Bush administration to see that Bush has made the wealthy far wealthier and the poor far poorer. He has embraced a policy of foolish pride since his first days in office, pride that has led to disasters of all kinds. He has started two major wars that have led to thousands upon thousands of deaths (only one of those wars is even remotely “just” by any standard). He nurtures incompetence, zero accountability amongst leaders, policies of deceit against the population he serves, and championing policies and lifestyles of ignorance, fear, and hatred of those who are different. He mocks those who seek peace and abuses horribly those who are truly helpless, enemies though they may be. If Christ were immersed in his mission today, he would most certainly be labeled by the Bush machine as anti-American, pro-terrorist, anti-troops, and weak-willed. Despite all this effort given to war mongering, perhaps Bush would reserve some effort to aid the helpless, give relief to the poor, care for the widows, etc. Well, Hurricane Katrina and Walter Reed sure cleared that up for us.

Again, I could write for days citing well-acknowledged cases of Bush’s actions clearly making him the least Christ-like president I’ve ever heard of. Rather than waste time doing that, I'd like to finish with a remark or two concerning the "moral vote." It amazes me that the PR whitewash by groups like Dr. Dobson’s can embrace such false Christianity and rally those people who only seek to do God’s will behind this truly puzzling “Moral Vote,” while what the Bible actually has to say is going largely ignored by the “Christian Right.” The reason for my passion in this writing is that I am a Christian, and it saddens me to think that the majority of the world now thinks of Christianity as this absurd parody of the Faith that is trumpeted by groups like Focus on the Family when it comes to politics.

Only a week ago I was speaking with a co-worker (who happened to belong to the Assemblies of God denomination) who learned that I was a Christian. He said with a conspiratorial wink, “Then can I safely assume that you’re a Republican?” I said I wasn’t specifically a member of any political party, so he went on, “But you’re looking for a good, moral, Christian man to be the next president, right?” The emphasis was on the word moral, and I knew exactly what he meant by it. I can’t tell you how sad it made me that he thought of Christianity in terms of depriving homosexual Americans of legal rights and projecting an opinion against abortion but having absolutely no intention of doing anything about it. That, apparently, is the "moral vote" he and others have been duped into supporting based on their faith.

I have often had occasion in the past to wonder why Republicans never actually do anything in terms of “family values” unless it is guaranteed to fail and the G.O.P. needs to energize its base. For all its lip service, why does the G.O.P. , Bush in particular, never actually do a thing about homosexuality/abortion? I think the answer is quite simple. If Roe v. Wade were overturned or legislated into irrelevance, and if homosexual marriage were banned under the constitution, then the Republicans would lose the “moral vote.” They would actually have to look at real moral issues; issues Jesus truly cared about. Suddenly making the rich richer and the poor poorer would be at the forefront. Destroying the environment that we are stewards of in the name of making more money might be frowned upon. One might be forced to ask some tough questions about how the lone superpower in the world should act in the face of terrorism. The danger is that the “moral vote” might actually become a moral vote. And there is no way this modern "form of godliness" could stand up to that standard.

Deus Misereatur

"It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness." - Proverbs 16:12

I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to VP Cheney, was convicted Tuesday of lying to a grand jury and to F.B.I. agents investigating the leak of the identity of a CIA operative in the summer of 2003. Much more revealing during the course of the trial was how it became obvious that Libby was simply a fall guy for Cheney. Even the jury was asking why the obviously guilty Cheney wasn't before them, lamenting that they had to go through with convicting the sacrificial lamb (there seems to be quite a few people taking bullets for and from Cheney these days). Not that this sacrificial lamb was without blame, but it is further shameful activity from the most powerful VP in American history with alarming implications concerning the president as well (declassifying top secret information for Libby to distribute to whomever based on the VP's demand).

Maybe it is because of my nine years spent in army intelligence, but I take the leaking of an undercover CIA agent's name as a means of political manipulation very seriously. Yes, I'd like to see Cheney imprisoned, but the reality is that this administration will just go on with business as usual.

By "business as usual" I mean the systematic deception of the American people to cover up failure after failure of the administration. Of course, they now have an opposition congress that won't give a blank check to support and cover up Bush's incompetence from Katrina to Walter Reed. Not that the Bush administration is solely responsible by any means, but it is a by product of going to war without sufficient resources. "Surely it can be no surprise that the war's wounded have been hidden away in the shadows of moldy buildings by an administration that refused to let photographers take pictures of returning coffins. Or a White House that keeps claiming victory in this failed and ever more costly war is always just a few more months away." (NYT 03/07/07) Amen. And the Wilson/Plame situation is yet another criminal disgrace that is hardly shocking from this administration.

While the White House was pressuring intelligence collectors and warping intelligence to justify their primary reason for invading Iraq (Iraq seeking WMD material), career diplomat Joseph Wilson was sent to Africa to discover if British intelligence that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa was legitimate or not. Meanwhile, his wife was undercover for the CIA in the area of nuclear proliferation. When Wilson realized the Bush administration was ignoring him when he declared those intelligence reports to be illegitimate, he decided to write an Op-Ed article in the Times, stating these claims the White House was using to take the nation to war were entirely false. At this point, the administration had the option of making one of their rare good decisions. The diplomat sent to evaluate the WMD claims and his CIA wife with a specialty in WMD trade are declaring there is no validity to the assertion that Iraq is seeking WMDs in Africa. Instead of listening to this couple, Cheney leaks through Libby Valerie Plame Wilson's status as an undercover CIA agent, thus endangering her life and ending her career. The Bush administration's message to American intelligence professionals and American diplomats all over the world was clear: if you aren't going to say exactly what we want to hear, then don't say anything at all or we'll jeopardize your career and life.

When an administration cuts off all input but what they want to hear, only disaster can follow: disaster in New Orleans, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, Sudan, and the UN. What type of idiocy drives the administration to fire or remove generals who oppose Bush's plans, U.S. attorneys who dare to think differently from the VP, intelligence professionals and diplomats who are far more qualified than anyone in the administration to speak about security matters but happen to disagree with the party line. Before invading Iraq, the only official kept in the dark about the majority of operations was the only person who had any claim at all to knowing what he was doing in war-related matters, Colin Powell. The best leaders I've known in my army service or outside the military were those who surrounded themselves with very smart people who thought differently than the leaders. From Abraham Lincoln to Robert Kennedy, great American statesmen have shared that very same trait.

It shames me to think this is my country's leadership. It makes me afraid that these reckless, criminal, incompetent people will be in the White House for another two years. And I am
saddened that there are still Americans who believe all the lies.
Deus misereatur.

Tony Blair and a battle for global values

“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." - Isaiah 1:15

As I was reading through the current (Jan/Feb 2007) Foreign Affairs journal, I came upon an essay written by Tony Blair entitled "A Battle for Global Values." He essentially declares that the battle against "global extremism" cannot be won in any sort of conventional way; rather, this battle will be won as the Good Guys demonstrate that their values are far superior to the values of the Bad Guys, thus converting the moderate population at large to the side of the Good Guys. Who are these Good Guys? He goes out of his way to say that they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. who all "believe in religious tolerance, in openness to others, in democracy, in liberty, and in human rights administered in secular courts." I have to wonder if Tony Blair ever looked across the pond at his ally and wondered just how much any of these traits truly apply to him or those who still adore him.

In the article's introduction, Blair declares, "We will never get real support for the tough actions
that may well be essential to safeguarding our way of life unless we also attack global poverty, environmental degradation, and injustice with equal valor." I only wish that Bush were on the same page as Blair when it comes to the global war on terror, but this essay just cemented my opinion that the Blair and Bush alliance is one of necessity. Blair sees his own goals clearly, but he is entirely incapable of working toward those goals without finding a larger ally moving in roughly the same direction.

Of course Blair is right when he says that the credibility and Values capital of "The Coalition of the Willing," hinges on the unrelenting demonstration of religious tolerance, openness to others, democracy, liberty, and human rights administered in secular courts. Every Abu Ghraib; every introduction of religious extremism into the courts of Iraq, Afghanistan, or the United States; every time the United States embraces the hubris of "go it alone" statecraft; every time Newt Gingrich makes headlines talking about the need for limiting free speech in the name of security the war on Values is lost to a few thousand more of those moderates around the world who are watching the Coalition of the Willing so closely. And he rightly recognizes that the War on Terror is doomed to fail unless we attack global poverty, environmental degradation, and injustice with equal valor.

Blair's essay made me sad that the War on Terror looks absolutely nothing like the one he describes.

“Power without oversight” or “What I learned from the frogs”

"Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night... So teach us to number our days, that we might apply our hearts unto wisdom." - Psalm 90

Yesterday (Thurs. Jan 11th) evening, I watched President Bush blatantly ignore the will of 80% of the voting public, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and a number of his own generals (many of whom have found themselves promptly reassigned) as he escalated American involvement in the Iraqi civil war. His wildly delusional assessment of the situation in Iraq and his subsequent bull-headed decision to add over 20,000 troops to the forces in Baghdad is disheartening.
This type of reckless decision-making is to be expected from the President, and I'm not sure why I was holding out hope that he'd take note of those around him who are far more qualified to be making these decisions than he is. I'm not sure why I continued to hope that he'd take note of an overwhelming majority of American citizens, those who he theoretically serves.

I taught in France for one year, and I never thought I'd miss that which I am longing for now: the ability of the people to check an official gone amok. I witnessed multiple general strikes and an active citizenry bring a Prime Minister to his knees. They didn't have to wait until the next election to check their leader.
Despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and gaining office only through a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision, President Bush ran wild as if he'd won in a landslide of public support. Despite the most embarrassingly failure-ridden and corrupt administration in recent memory, the President did not hold a single relevant official accountable during his first six years of office (until the American people pummeled the Republicans in 2006 and Rumsfeld was justly fired the next day). Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the President continued to insist the war in Iraq was being won until only weeks ago as the region teeters on the brink of unrestrained civil war. And yet, thanks to 52% of the voting public in 2004, we must endure two more years with absolutely no say in Bush's erroneous policies.
I can't say that I necessarily enjoyed the immediate effects of the combined student protests, limited strikes, and general strikes. The demonstrations around government buildings were fun, but I was rather annoyed by having to walk everywhere and wake up every day wondering whether it was time to go back to work again or just strap on my walking shoes and see where the demonstrations were that day. In spite of the inconveniences, I can now look back with longing at the power the French people reserve as a right; the power to check their elected leaders immediately for direct results.
Lacking any such power in the United States, I can only pray. I pray that this Iraqi nightmare is soon past my country. And I pray that the future leaders of the United States will be people who apply their hearts unto wisdom.