Foreign policy from the Eighth Dimension
There are times when I wonder whether the denizens of the Naional Council of Churches ever stick their heads out the window and connect to the real world. Here they are talking about the third anniversary of 9/11:
The NCC's general secretary, Dr. Bob Edgar, recalls that "in the first few hours and days after September 11, widespread empathy and solidarity with the U.S. held out the real possibility that our country could be part of a global community working for justice.
"But blinded by fear, a large portion of our population did not recognize this great opportunity," he says. "Instead we, as a people, allowed a unilateral and first-strike war, the weakening of civil rights of our own citizens, and the denial of due process to many foreign nationals."
As I recall, America's first response to 9/11 was in Afghanistan, where we had Security Council backing, French and German support, and specific al-Qaeda and Qaeda-connected targets. It was anything but "a unilateral and first-strike war," but that didn't matter–Bob was against that action, too. Apparently the NCC definition of a "global community working for justice" is on in which terrorists may kill with impunity, never having to fear military retaliation.
"The U.S. has gone from Afghanistan to Iraq, and may be on the way to other wars, without the national dialogue that is the hallmark of a democracy," notes the Rev. Dr. Eileen W. Lindner, NCC Deputy General Secretary. "No one wants to minimize security–I certainly don't," she says. "But there is a fine line where security ends and aggression begins."
Lindner has apparently just woken up from a three-year nap. If what we've been doing over the last three years, and especially in the two since Congress gave the President the authority to use force in Iraq, is not a "national dialogue," I'm sure I have no clue what would qualify.
Talking about an NCC propaganda piece curriculum, Lindner goes on to say:
"There are strong and competing visions of America's role in the world, ranging from the go-it-alone mentality to an approach that is multilateral and aims at lasting peace through cooperation," Lindner says. According to "before and after" attitudinal surveys that were a part of the test phase, congregants who engaged the curriculum "showed a substantial change of mind," Lindner reports. "The shift is toward an understanding that we actually have better control of our national destiny when we cooperate with others in the world community."
Though the NCC has virtually no unifying theology, it does have a foreign policy, one that it is positively evangelistic about. What the source of revelation is for this is a mystery.
"Most of our ecumenical colleagues overseas still clearly distinguish between the American people–who are seen as good natured, generous and faithful–and the Administration, whose policies they call arrogant, callous and so self-centered that it is as if the opinions of the rest of the world do not matter," [Dr. Tony] Kireopoulos reports.
I wonder if the "ecumenical colleagues" to whom Kireopoulos refers include any Iraqi Christians, or for that matter Afghan women. I'm sure that arrogance, callousness, and self-centeredness are positively defined by freeing 50 million people from two of the most repressive regimes on the planet. Why would we have wanted to go and do a thing like that?
September 11 had the effect of pushing the U.S. in a dangerous unilateral direction, Premawardhana says. For Christians concerned about this development, better interfaith relations are an important part of the "multilateral paradigm" that is the world's best hope for peace, and it is time to spread this message, [Dr. Shanta] Premawardhana says.
I guess these folks think that if they repeat the mantra of "unilateralism" often enough, that will make it true. As of August 30 the U.S. has thirty-one other countries fighting for freedom in Iraq. Over 100 members of the British, Italian, Spanish, South Korean, Australian, Polish, and other armed forces have died in that fight. Others like Israel and Pakistan support what we are doing though they haven't contributed troops. Among the nations fighting alongside America are former Communist states Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine. Among the European Union nations in the effort are Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Great Britain. (Source: Global Security.) Maybe the NCC doesn't like the numbers of troops these nations have sent, but to keep saying that the U.S. is acting unilaterally is an insult to the brave men and women from these and other countries that are seeking to bring freedom, justice, and peace to Iraq.
Athanasius on 09.08.04 @ 09:54 PM EST [link]
Just shut up
Is there any way Illinois and its Senate election can be sealed off from the rest of the nation? I would love to do just that, given the propensity of Alan Keyes to say things that are profoundly embarrassing to the rest of us:
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes declared Tuesday that Jesus, if he were able to vote in Illinois this year, would oppose Democrat Barack Obama because of votes Obama has cast in the state Senate against anti-abortion legislation.
"Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved," Keyes said.
Keyes is welcome to his opinions about how the merely human among us should vote given Obama's record. I wish he'd keep his efforts to enlist the Almighty on his side to his prayer cabinet.
Athanasius on 09.08.04 @ 05:15 PM EST [link]
Old-time nonsense
Columnist Linda Valdez, in a column published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, trots out the usual clichés about the sinister link between the Republican Party and conservative Christians:
The platform promises that old-time litmus for judicial appointments.
Translation: I'm not referring to the litmus test whereby no person, no matter how qualified, gets a confirmation vote from Senate Democrats if they even hint that they think Roe v. Wade isn't holy writ.
It calls for constitutional amendments that define life and marriage according to one religious ideology.
Translation: I know this is so because of course no one who is not a fundamentalist Christian is in favor of either one. Marriage was only defined as between one man and one woman for the first 200+ years of American history because of the stranglehold that fundamentalists had on the legal system. And groups like Feminists for Life are oxymoronic, and so must either not really exist or be secret fronts for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
It even says faith-based organizations that accept public money should be able to discriminate in hiring practices. Holy–and I do mean "holy"–cow!
Translation: Because there's no conceivable way any organization, no matter how religious, should have control over such matters as whether their personnel actually reflect that organization's views. I mean, they let members of the religious right sit on the governing board of Planned Parenthood. Don't they?
I have nothing against fundamentalist Christians.
Translation: I do, however, think they are troglodytes who keep their women barefoot and pregnant, want to kill gays, and would probably reintroduce slavery if they got half a chance.
They have every right to their beliefs.
Translation: I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own homes. They should, however, be totally excluded from the marketplace of ideas.
But America is not a theocracy, and America's founding document should not be amended to reflect the views of a coalition of like-minded religious groups.
Translation: The Constitution should only be amended when it reflects the views of like-minded secular people.
Athanasius on 09.08.04 @ 05:01 PM EST [link]
For Muslims only
The movement to accomodate Islam just got another assist:
A member of the group of Portland-area Muslims convicted of conspiring to wage war against the United States won't be subject to additional prison time, despite his refusal to testify in front of a grand jury, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
But U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones also ruled that the time Patrice Lumumba Ford recently served in the Multnomah County jail will not count toward his 18-year prison sentence, imposed in November 2003.
Ford, who was convicted of attempting to join the Taliban in late fall 2001, was subpoenaed in July by a grand jury in Portland. Beyond confirming his name at grand jury proceedings, Ford refused to answer any questions, saying that his religion prohibited him from implicating a fellow Muslim.
"I find his beliefs in good faith," said Jones. "Mr. Ford's beliefs are sincere—he will not be coerced to testify."
As I recall, Christians are not supposed to take their disputes to court. Does that mean that if a person who happens to be a member of a Christian church sues me I don't have to respond? It also makes for an interesting situation nationwide. Potentially there are millions of people who won't have to ever testify against one another when they have knowledge of a crime. Me, I can only count on my wife.
As far as I know, granting a religious exemption to the rule that one must provide evidence of a crime to a grand jury when asked is unprecedented. Anyone who knows otherwise, please let me know.
(Thanks to Dhimmi Watch for the information.)
Athanasius on 09.08.04 @ 03:24 PM EST [link]
