Just War

[Margaret Ralph]

Following Rodd's message of 17 May, this is the view of at least one American.   Margaret   The Yankees, Iraq and Patriotism Bob Shepherd is the resonant Voice of the New York Yankees, heard over the public address system welcoming fans to Yankee Stations and to the YES Network. He exhorts the faithful at Yankee games to a moment of 7th Inning silence while we remember those who have died in Iraq "to protect our freedom and our way of life." I do not know Mr. Shepherd personally. I do not know whether he is making a political statement or is simply tied up in what I would call tribal, sentimental patriotism. In any event I find myself feeling compromised when I hear these words. My dis-ease at these words rises not from any lack in my own sense of patriotism. Indeed I am a strange person to many. I love my country in a total way. I do not feel that my taxes are burdensome. I think they are the biggest bargain in my budget. Look at what I get for my taxes: I get my freedom and the willingness of my nation to defend that freedom. I get food inspections so that I can buy with confidence both meats and produce from my local grocer. I get safety at the airports with full inspections. I get highways, bridges and tunnels that allow me to travel to see family, friends and especially our six grandchildren. Tax money gave me the education which has enabled me to pursue dreams far removed from that of my family of origin. I especially appreciated the bargain I received in my degree from a state university which is, by definition, a tax supported institution, for it enabled me to live in a world of thought and ideas that my mother, who did not finish the 9th grade, could never have understood. I am today well served by Medicare and by Social Security to which I certainly contributed during my working life, but which are nonetheless government supported programs providing me with security in the final years of my life. I appreciate my government's role in medical research at such places as the National Institute of Health that may some day save my life or the life of some one near to me. Where else could I purchase such great benefits at so low a premium? My taxes are a bargain. It is my pleasure as an American to pay them. It would not occur to me to lobby to be able "to keep more of my own hard-earned money," as the politicians refer to my taxes. Their responsibility is to maximize the benefits of my taxes, in order to build a just and fair society in this nation of opportunity. I will thrive if they do just that. For the benefits I receive, I do not believe I am over-taxed. My country does far more for me than I do for my country. Citizenship in this land is a cherished responsibility. I worry when both individual and corporate greed erode the trust upon which our national life rests. I worry about those individuals and corporations that take advantage of our freedom to create tax dodges with offshore headquarters in such places as Bermuda, or who are so quick to outsource production, securing the bottom line of their corporations, but not the jobs of middle income Americans. But even with these abuses of our freedom, this country is still a beacon on the hill among the nations of the world and I take second place to none in my gratitude for the privilege of living here. This patriotic fervor, however, does not mean that the policies of any particular administration must be supported in the name of patriotism. The cruel attempt on the part of the members of the present Bush Administration to equate opposition to this present war in Iraq with being unpatriotic or with failure to support our troops is a cheap political attempt to curry support for failed policies. Of course, I support our troops! Of course I want them to have all the equipment and supplies necessary to give them maximum protection and to better their chances of survival! Of course I appreciate their willingness to serve, their courage under fire and their professionalism. Of course I am outraged when my fellow citizens like Daniel Pearl or Nicholas Berg, both Jewish Americans I might add, are beheaded by terrorists attempting to intimidate my country. This commitment is not just empty rhetoric on my part. I have a loved one at risk. Contrary to the Bush family and the vast majority of Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United States, I have a child in the Armed Services of my country. This person has already served one tour of duty in Iraq in the spring of 2003, leaving only after our Commander and Chief landed on the aircraft carrier to announce, "Our Mission is Accomplished." Because that mission was so clearly not accomplished, this person is now scheduled to return to Iraq for a second tour of duty on August 1. So I do not listen with either patience or toleration when I am told that if I want to support our troops I am required, in the name of patriotism, to support either the decision to go to war in Iraq or the way this war has been conducted. My long memory, instead, recalls administration officials promising that the people of Iraq would welcome us as liberators, but so disastrously has this war been conducted that current polls indicate that among the Iraqi people today we are overwhelmingly regarded not as liberators, but as occupiers. I remember the promise from Secretary Rumsfeld, that by the end of 2003 we would have only 30,000 troops in Iraq. That projection is off by only 500 per cent as we have at this moment close to 150,000 troops and most military leaders do not feel that even that number is sufficient. I remember that the justification for the Iraq adventure was to remove the weapons of mass destruction, which included chemical, biological and nuclear warheads, for which we are still searching one year after victory was proclaimed. I also recall that it was our noble purpose to stop the abuse of prisoners carried out by the regime of Saddam Hussein, only to discover that this administration has allowed, perhaps encouraged, a flagrant violation of human rights in Saddam's former torture prisons, but this time perpetrated by American troops. I find it pitifully inept when this administration, which in so many instances from Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, has indicated major disdain for civil liberties, now tries to suggest that these incredible acts of abuse and degradation are an isolated episode carried out only by a few enlisted personnel who were improperly trained. One knows instinctively that this is not so. It is a face-saving attempt to perfume embarrassment and it will fail. The real culprits will be identified and it will reach to the very top of this administration. As that investigation grows more intense Republican congressional leaders complain that it is diverting our military leaders from the war effort, a well-known cover-up technique. Even current Bush supporters like the drug-compromised Rush Limbaugh who thinks this abuse is to be likened to "fraternity hazing," or the strange rhetoric of James Imhof, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma who seems to believe that American outrage over these scandals is simply politically motivated, will not be able to make this blot on our national character go away. So when I listen to Bob Shepherd of the New York Yankees urge his stadium audiences to observe a moment of silence while we honor those who died in Iraq "to protect our freedom and our way of life," I want to untangle his rhetoric. Yes, I honor those who died in Iraq. I live in dread that some one I love very dearly might some day be numbered in that honor role. I grieve every time I watch the silent pictorial salute on Jim Lehrer's News Hour of those who have died in action serving their country in Iraq. I look at their ages 18, 19, 20, 21. They are barely grown. They have made a sacrifice that is ultimate. But they did not die in Iraq "to protect our freedom and our way of life." That is to propagandize this war. They were asked to die to enable this administration to rewrite history and to overcome the ultimate failure of the first George Bush to topple the cruel Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein when he had him on his knees. They were asked to die as a part of a personal vendetta because as our President once stated: "That man tried to kill my DADDY!" They were asked to die because the ruling oligarchy of Saudi Arabia informed the Bush Administration after 9/11 that they could not survive politically unless American military bases and personnel were removed from Saudi Arabia. This nation, therefore, needed a Middle Eastern outpost in which to house this military presence, and so we conquered Iraq. All of our military bases and personnel were removed from Saudi Arabia to Iraq before Mr. Bush declared that our mission was accomplished. They were asked to die in the service of the interests of big oil, that poured millions of dollars into the Bush campaign and to make possible very profitable contracts for Halliburton, where Vice President Cheney was formerly CEO. Is that the way our freedom and our way of life is protected? I don't think so. As I view history both our freedom and our way of life are far more vulnerable today than they were before the Iraqi war began. The threat of terrorist attacks is heightened. The sacrifice of some of our cherished freedoms has been the price of increased security. Outside of John Howard in Australia and Tony Blair in the United Kingdom, there are few other heads of state in the world that are supportive of this war and both the Australian and British voters might well topple those two leaders for their willingness to support the "Bush War" which is overwhelmingly unpopular in both lands. The United States is more hated throughout the world today than it has ever been in my lifetime. America is also more alone. No Mr. Shepherd, I will honor our troops, support them in any way I can, grieve when they die and appreciate their service. But I do not believe they have died in Iraq to protect our freedom and our way of life. They have died rather in the service of a misguided and inept administration. There is a vast difference. -- John Shelby Spong Question and Answer With John Shelby Spong Jim from Sacramento asks: How can we keep the Church without having to keep all the doctrines, dogmas and creeds of the religious past? How can we encourage that minority of people who remain inside the Church's fundamentalist majority to stay there? How can we encourage the "Church Alumni Association" members to return, if what they have to come back to is the very thing that made them want to leave? Dear Jim, You sound discouraged so let me try to give you hope. In the great centers of Christian scholarship, the things that I am talking about are commonplace. This does not mean that all academically qualified people will spend their careers challenging fundamentalist thinking; many of them will simply ignore it. It does mean, however, that some of them will and ultimately this will trickle down and will begin to show up in the training of local clergy. Please remember that for many people religion is not a search for truth but a search for security. I am always amazed at how fundamentalists and evangelicals try to put an academic face on their rather poor evangelical education. They trot out their teachers and show off their Ph.D.s, even their Ph.D. from places like Oxford or Cambridge. What the gullible public does not know is that Oxford and Cambridge have evangelical theological colleges as part of the university complex and an Oxford or Cambridge Ph.D. from one of these theological colleges is not a sign that the holder has a Cambridge or Oxford Ph.D. so much as a degree from an evangelical college at Cambridge or Oxford. England also gives a lesser degree called a D.Phil that Americans do not quite know how to evaluate. It may be the equivalent of a Masters degree in the United States. Beyond these suspect practices, there are degrees from evangelical schools like Bob Jones, Oral Roberts and Liberty Baptist that are worth something only to those who value the kind of education one receives in such a place. I remember seeing a teacher's contract at Liberty Baptist College that told the teacher what he or she could not teach, like evolution, for example. Denominational theological colleges or seminaries are also frequently under the purging control of headquarters so that scholarship is seriously diminished. Roman Catholic theologians are removed if they do not affirm the church's teaching. I remind you of what happened to Hans Kung or Charles Curran, These schools and the Church leaders who put pressure on them are infected with the idea that they both know the truth and possess it. This means you do not admit into your world anything that challenges your version of truth, which is the process through which a teacher becomes a propagandist rather than an educator. But behind this facade of education, there is still a great deal of competent academic training that is available. Evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics attack this as "liberal" scholarship and, by implication, suggest that they possess "conservative" scholarship. Once again that is self-serving propaganda. There is no such thing as conservative or liberal scholarship. There is only competent and incompetent scholarship. Competent scholarship may be interpreted in a liberal or conservative direction but the scholarship itself must be competent. Once you recognize that you are not alone and that you are not crazy, you have other options. You can make noise in the local congregation. Ask for more than you are getting. Seek to start a study group that will look at books that are outside the box. There are many popular authors from whom to choose. When you speak up in your church you accomplish two things: you give your minister courage and you raise a flag that other people will salute. The crucial role in a congregation comes when a new minister is chosen. That is a vital assignment that you should seek, since that decision will shape your church for the next five to ten years. Look at where and under whom your prospective minister studied above all else. If you cannot change your whole congregation, then work to change one part of it to make it more appealing to those who ask questions and seek new understanding. Start a Sunday class, a weekday study group, a Wednesday evening class, something that will announce to the alumni that this church is able to listen to new possibilities. People who have left the Church will hardly be attracted to come back to the same old thing that repelled them in the first place. They will come, however, if they hear new sounds coming out of that congregation. The Church will either adapt to new knowledge or it will die. So don't be discouraged, be proactive. Lots of people hope you will. -- John Shelby Spong