More News

It's that kind of morning. First, some "church related" news:

The local Catholic archbishop and immigrant rights activists want to roll up the welcome mat before the Minutemen arrive to patrol for illegal immigrants in Houston.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, an organization working to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, announced this week that it would send observers to watch day laborers in Houston beginning in October. Previous plans called for placing patrols only along the Mexican border.

But Archbishop Joseph A. Fiorenza said the Minutemen would not be welcome in Houston.

"We stand against any attempts of outsiders to come into Houston to abuse and intimidate our immigrant communities," Fiorenza said in a statement issued Friday.

....
"For every Minuteman patrolling, we will have at least 10 people patrolling them," said Maria Jimenez, a longtime local activist now associated with the Central American Resource Center, or CRECEN.

Jimenez and CRECEN leader Teodoro Aguiluz threatened to file a lawsuit if they observe the Minutemen doing anything illegal.

"We will respond to your organization with our organization," Jimenez said to the Minutemen. "We're not shy about it."

....
Jimenez estimated that there are 50 informal labor markets in Houston where day laborers gather looking for work from contractors. She said pro-immigrant groups would have at least 10 observers at each site.

I live literally within walking distance of an "informal labor market," probably so informal it falls below the level of the "50 sites" mentioned here. In fact, Houston is so big, and so spread out, that I would imagine there are hundreds of such "markets," most of them, like the one I'm near, parking lots of small locally-owned convenience stores in working class and working poor neighborhoods. The idea of having any impact on immigration in Houston by patrolling even 50 such markets is so ludicrous as to be laughable.

The other bit I can't yet find a link to, but I was listening to BBC World Service this morning, and caught a discussion between Tarik Ali and a professor from the London School of Economics. This article indicates the basic premise they both seemed to agree on: no one yet knows who was responsible for the bombings in London. This struck me as interesting if only because American media would surely conclude by now that "Al Qaeda" was responsible, and sneer at any suggestion that the evidence was not yet in by now. The British, apparently, even the media, even commentators who disagree as strongly as the two men did on World Service this morning (the London School of Economics professor argued it didn't matter who they were, because they were simply "murderers," and who cared what their "excuse" was), aren't willing to presume facts not in evidence.

Maybe this has always been true of America. Maybe it's just getting worse. I can't decide anymore.

Your Morning Headlines

Because the day's news intrigues me, but I don't feel like thinking too hard about it:

(1) The Tightening Noose:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.

This, as Josh Marshall says, is not the kind of defense you want to go to court on. And the story has moved quickly from "Rove didn't say anything" to "Rove only identified Joe Wilson's spouse, which really isn't so bad." Non-lawyers will chew on the distinction that isn't there, but if this is what Rove's lawyer is authorized to say, imagine what's going unsaid.

(2) Ready or not, here we go

The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now at about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad.

And yes, there is a division of opinion between Washington and Iraq: whether to get the hell out quickly, or slowly.

The memo, posted on the newspaper's Web site, notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying that officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious."

And of course there is the standard Pentagon disclaimer that they always have contingency plans in the works. But when you share those with your allies, they are no longer thought-experiments. The timetable, too, has a lot of plausibility:

British commanders hope to hand over control of two provinces to Iraqi forces by October 2005, according to the memo, and to hand over control of two more provinces by April 2006.

I'm guessing no helicopters will be involved this time.

What's that line about flies and honey?

Bob Herbert :

The C.I.A. warned the administration in a classified report in May that Iraq - since the American invasion in 2003 - had become a training ground in which novice terrorists were schooled in assassinations, kidnappings, car bombings and other terror techniques. The report said Iraq could prove to be more effective than Afghanistan in the early days of Al Qaeda as a place to train terrorists who could then disperse to other parts of the world, including the United States.

Larry Johnson, a former C.I.A. analyst who served as deputy director of the State Department's counterterrorism office, said on National Public Radio last week: "You now in Iraq have a recruiting ground in which jihadists, people who previously were not willing to go out and embrace the vision of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, are now aligning themselves with elements that have declared allegiance to him. And in the course of that, they're learning how to build bombs. They're learning how to conduct military operations."

Has the president given any thought to leveling with the American people about how bad the situation has become? And is he even considering what for him would be the radical notion of soliciting the counsel of wise men and women who might give him a different perspective on war and terror than the Kool-Aid-drinking true believers who have brought us to this dreadful state of affairs? The true believers continue to argue that the proper strategy is to stay the current catastrophic course.

Americans are paying a fearful price for Mr. Bush's adventure in Iraq. In addition to the toll of dead and wounded, the war is costing about $5 billion a month. It has drained resources from critical needs here at home, including important antiterror initiatives that would improve the security of ports, transit systems and chemical plants.

The war has diminished the stature and weakened the credibility of the United Sates around the world. And it has delivered a body blow to the readiness of America's armed forces. Much of the military is now overdeployed, undertrained and overworked. Many of the troops are serving multiple tours in Iraq. No wonder potential recruits are staying away in droves.

Whatever one's views on the war, thoughtful Americans need to consider the damage it is doing to the United States, and the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world. That anger is spreading like an unchecked fire in an incredibly vast field.

And ironically, the scripture used this evening in worship at my church included a personal favorite:

"Come for water, all who are thirsty;
though you have no money, come, buy grain and eat;
come, buy wine and milk,
not for money, not for a price.
Why spend your money for what is not food,
your earnings on what fails to satisfy?
Listen to me and you will fare well,
you will enjoy the fat of the land.
Come to me and listen to my words,
hear me and you will have life."

Isaiah 55:1-3 (REB)

Hearken back to the words of Exodus: which is the way of life, and which the way of death? And which is our country determined to follow, behind a leader who proclaims, who depends on, his "Christian credentials"?

I wish he had better credentials in that area, that this point. Maybe we'd be better off.

In the U.S., "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"

"Terror Threat Level" goes Orange (High). Major cities in America make a great public show of increasing the presence of security personnel on public transport, even though there is no history of any terrorist group striking in the same way nearly simultaneously in several countries. It is, in other words, about as rational to jump into panic mode because terrorists struck London as it is to fear your house on the East Coast will burn down because a lightning storm set a house on fire on the West Coast.

And the response of the U.K., where the terrorist actions actually occured? We're Not Afraid.

Commemoration

The Bustle in a House
The Morning after Death
Is solemnest of industries
Enacted upon Earth--

The Sweeping up of the Heart
And putting Love away
We shall not want to use again
Until Eternity.

--Emily Dickinson

22. COMMEMORATION

Almighty and everlasting God, before whom stand the spirits of the living and the dead; Light of lights, Fountain of wisdom and good-ness, who livest in all pure and humble and gracious souls.
For all who have witnessed a good confession for thy glory and the welfare of the world; for patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; for the wise of every land and nation, and all teachers of mankind,

WE PRAISE THEE, O GOD, AND BLESS THY NAME.

For the martyrs of our holy faith, the faithful witnesses to Christ of whom the world was not worthy, and for all who have resisted false-hood and wrong unto suffering or death,

WE PRAISE THEE, O GOD, AND BLESS THY NAME.

For all who have labored and suffered for freedom, good government, just laws, and the sanctity of the home; and for all who have given their lives for their country,

WE PRAISE THEE, O GOD, AND 1ILESS THY NAME.

For all who have sought to bless men by their se~ice and life, and to lighten the dark places of the earth,

WE PRAISE THEE, O GOD, AND BLESS THY NAME.

For those who have been tender and true and brave in all times and places, and for all who have been one with thee in the communion of Christ's spirit and in the strength of his love,

WE PRAISE THEE, O GOD, AND BLESS THY NAME.

For the dear friends and kindred, ministering in the spiritual world, whose faces we see no more, but whose love is with us for ever,

WE PRAISE THEE, O GOD, AND BLESS THY NAME.

For the teachers and companions of our childhood and youth, and for the members of our household of faith who worship thee in heaven,

WE PRAISE THEE, O GOD, AND BLESS THY NAME.

For the grace which was given to all these, and for the trust and hope in which they lived and died,

WE PRAISE THEE, O GOD, AND BLESS THY NAME.

And that we may hold them in continual remembrance, that the sanctity of their wisdom and goodness may rest upon our earthly days, and that we may prepare ourselves to follow them in their upward way,

WE BESEECH THEE TO HEAR US, O GOD.

That we may ever think of them as with thee, and be sure that where they are, there we may be also,

WE BESEECH THEE TO HEAR US, O GOD.

That we may have a hope beyond this world for all thy children, even for wanderers who must be sought and brought home; that we may be comforted and sustained by the promise of a time when none shall be a stranger and an exile from thy kingdom and household,

WE BESEECH THEE TO HEAR US, O GOD.

In the communion of the Holy Spirit, with the faithful and the saintly in heaven, with the redeemed in all ages, with our beloved who dwell in thy presence and peace, we, who still serve and suffer on earth, unite in ascribing:

THANKSGIVING. GLORY, HONOR, AND POWER UNTO THEE, O LORD OUR GOD.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,

AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING, IS NOW, AND EVER SHALL BE, WORLD WITHOUT END. AMEN.

Pray for Peace

res publica recalls us to the prayer for peace from the Book of Common Prayer, and reminds me that the German Evangelical and Reformed Church produced some excellent liturgical prayers, including this one:

PEACE

O Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy upon us.
Thou that sittest at the right hand of the Father, have mercy upon us.
Arise, O Christ, and help us,
And deliver us for thy Name's sake.

AMEN.

O Christ, when thou didst open thine eyes on this fair earth, the angels greeted thee as the Prince of Peace and besought us to be of good will one toward another; but thy triumph is delayed and we are weary of war.

SAVE US AND HELP US, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ, the very earth groans with pain as the feet of armed men march across her mangled form.

SAVE US AND HELP US, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ, may the Church, whom thou didst love into life, not fail thee in her witness for the things for which thou didst live and die.

TEACH US TO DO THY HOLY WILL, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ, the people who are called by thy Name are separated from each other in thought and life; still our tumults, take away our vain imaginings, and grant to thy people at this time the courage to pro-claim the gospel of forgiveness, and faithfully to maintain the ministry of reconciliation.

TEACH US TO DO THY HOLY WILL, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ, come to us in our sore need and save us; 0 God, plead thine own cause and give us help, for vain is the help of man.

SAVE US AND HELP US, O LORD AND MASTER.

O Christ of God, by thy birth in the stable, save us and help us;
By thy toil at the carpenter's bench, save us and help us;
By thy sinless life, save us and help us;
By thy cross and passion, save us and help us.

SAVE US AND HELP US, O LORD AND MASTER.

Then all shall join in the Lord's Prayer.

Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

London--7 July 2005

"I and the school children know
What everyone must learn.
Those to whom evil is done,
Do evil in return."

--W.H. Auden

Evil does not repay evil; it merely propagates itself. But listening to the joint statement released by Tony Blair and the leaders of the G8 summit, I couldn't help but think that the words could as easily have come from Osama Bin Laden. I couldn't think of the scenes in London today, without thinking of the picture of the father in Iraq holding his child, her leg blown off, that was published in the UCC newsletter a year ago. She was injured in a bombing conducted by the U.S. and Britain. Or of the pictures of Baghdad after "shock and awe," that Michael Moore included in "Fahrenheit 911."

When is it terrorism, and when is it a military tactic?

This is Blair's statement:

It's reasonably clear that there have been a series of terrorist attacks in London.

There are obviously casualties, both people that have died and people seriously injured and our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with victims and their families.

It's my intention to leave the G8 within the next couple of hours and go down to London and get a report face-to-face with the police and emergency services and the ministers that have been dealing with this, and then to return later this evening.

It is the will of all the leaders of the G8, however, that the meeting should continue in my absence, that we should continue to discuss the issues that we were going to discuss and reach the conclusions that we were going to reach.

Each of the countries round that table have some experience of the effects of terrorism and all the leaders, as they will indicate later, share our complete resolution to defeat this terrorism.

It's particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long-term problems of climate change and the environment.

Just as it is reasonably clear that this is a terrorist attack or a series of terrorist attacks, it is also reasonably clear that it is designed and aimed to coincide with the opening of the G8.

There'll be time to talk later about this.

It's important however that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world.

Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.

I don't disagree with him. But privilege is such an interesting issue. And violence is relied on, again and again, to give "us" a privileged position with respect to "them." When does it become clear that the "bigger stick" simply does not exist? That "our determination" is the same as theirs, our "extremism" the mirror of theirs, our defense of our values as vigorous as "theirs"? That "they" hold dear in their countries matters that we hold just as dear in ours.

Bush says we will "spread an ideology of hope and compassion, that will overwhelm their ideology of hate." And how will we do this, if our rhetoric and our actions are indistinguishable from that of our enemies? Blair says we will not allow violence to change our way of life; but we rely on violence to change theirs. We say they are monsters for attacking "innocent people." But how discriminating are our bombs, our "smart" missiles, our soldiers who open fire on cars that follow them too closely in Baghdad? The Home Secretary calls this an act of "unspeakable depravity, " and it is. But what do we expect?

Hard Rain's Gonna Fall...

I know this doesn't seem to be in line with the usual considerations of matter theological or spiritual, but both theology and spirituality are actually vitally concerned with, and vitally connected to, quotidian existence. And all the signs are that existence is due for a dramatic, if not sudden, change.

On one level, and perhaps I'll return to this, there are all the societal problems we face with an aging population. FDR established a retirement age in order to free up work for younger people, but most people didn't live long beyond 65 at that time. Now we have an aging population that is also healthy; and while John Tierney likes to imagine they are all bike riders and mountain climbers, that's as false an image as the one that says we are all conservatives solidly behind the present Administration. The "elderly" are not uniformly healthy, and not uniformly capable of enjoying life as if they were 40. But what they can do, and what we should do for them, are both societal and spiritual, and even ecclesiological, questions. I mention that simply as an example, a way of explaining how wide and deep this discussion goes; of saying that when we discuss theology and spirituality, we are discussing matters fundamental to our existence and our culture and our communities.

Which brings us around to petroleum. There is a growing acceptance of the inevitable: the world's petroleum sources are finite, and we are using them up. Up until the commercial production of oil in Saudi Arabia in the late 30's and early 40's, East Texas had the larges known oil deposits in the world. Kilgore, Texas was literally dotted with oil derricks. East Texas, however, was "played out" by the 1970's. It's peak passed quickly, while oil consumption and demand just increased. In my childhood, it was also supposed that a new source of energy would be discovered, a limitless source of energy: perhaps atomic, perhaps magnetic, perhaps solar. Something, we were all confident, would be found to replace the "genie" of petroleum. Because petroleum was truly a genie; it provided our technology with magic. Indeed, our technology is all simply a way of converting energy.

From the hammer and screwdriver, to the cell phone and computer I type on now: all of our technology, at base, is simply a way of transforming energy. The difference between the hammer and the cellphone is: I can supply the energy for one; I have to have a source for the energy of the other. That source may begin as water; more likely, it begins as a fossil fuel, mined, recovered, shipped, and burned to drive a dynamo that sends power down a line into my house, into a converter, into a battery. All I can do is plug it in, and pay the provider. But without that energy, the Swiss Army knife attached to my keychain, which I hardly ever use, is of more use to me. Without that energy, my cellphone is useless.

Where does the energy come from? In my childhood, we imagined it would come from new sources by now. We imagined we would find ways to harnes atomic power to drive space ships or power electric generators, or maybe even cars or planes. Aside from submarines, atomic power is not used for transportation yet; the technology we automatically think of when we think of petroleum. But most of our electrical power is generated by fossil fuels; much of it by petroluem or natural gas. Where are the new sources? When will we find them?

Why do we think we will? Why do we suppose the new sources of power for out technology are as inevitable as a cellphone with a camera?

Consider that, until the discovery of petroleum refining, human technology derived it's energy from muscles. Ox drew plows, horses pulled carts, humans raised walls for buildings. Electrical power would be very limited in usage indeed without fossil fuels, and burning coal was abandoned decades ago for very good reason (the pollution cost was horrendous even by mid-twentieth century standards). Water provided power, too, where it could; or steam. But railroads are not automobiles; water mills can't be placed in deserts or along Texas "dry creeks" that run with water only in winter or during spring thunderstorms. It was the discovery of petroleum and what we could do with it that changed our world, that made our technological "progress" possible. And already we can see that it's running out.

It was a fluke, in other words; not an inevitable part of our "progress," a triumph of our human reason over nature, a step up toward the stars that made us as gods, if not immortal then nearly eternal and almost unlimited in our abilities. It may well be we have overreached, and in classic Greek fashion, our hubris is about to bring us down.

The buildup was rapid, by historical standards. For slightly over 100 years, we've created technologies that were unimaginable without the sources of energy we've been able to unleash. But the resources for that energy were not limitless, and they are running out. Solar will save us? When? Atomics? Not at all. The waste alone will last half the life of the universe so far, and be toxic most of that time. Coal is preferable to that, but even coal is not limitless; nor will it run our cars, our planes, our war machines, our construction equipment.

All of our technology has depended on our ability to find natural resources we could turn into energy, that in turn we could harness for our little toys our our life-saving devices or our physical comfort. And the end of those natural resources is now foreseeable; their exhaustion can be predicted. Our technology will save us, we assure ourselves; another way will be found. But why? Why do we insist the universe owes us our conveniences? Why do we believe the creation will yield up, just in time, the secret of perpetual motion, or at least perpetual energy? It's never happened before in human history. What makes us imagine it will happen now, except just wishful thinking?

Absent a sudden and unforeseen salvation, one we have yet to uncover in the past 100 years of "technological progress," the physical crisis that the end of petroleum presages will come, and it will promote a spiritual crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the Enlightenment, perhaps since the Black Death, or the fall of the Roman Empire. And what will we do then? What can we do, then?

"Is it Safe?"

In 1982, when Barney Clark was making world news for being the first person to have his heart replaced with an artificial one, my father, a heart patient, attended a lecture by a heart surgeon. The surgeon blistered the Jarvik 7 experiment (which is precisely what it was) on the grounds that, after the experiences of World War II and the discoveries of human experimentations performed by doctors and scientists did for the Nazi government, human experimentation should be outlawed.

Obviously there is a limit on what should and should not be allowed. Double blind drug studies, for instance, constitute human experimentation, but they don't involve the cruelty of the Nazi experiments, or even the almost-completely speculative nature of the Jarvik 7 experiment. At least, as I recall, that was the grounds for the complaint by the heart surgeon who delivered that lecture. The whole purpose of the Jarvik 7 enterprise, after all, was to see if it would work; not to cure Mr. Clark's illness (which could not be cured, else the experiment never would have been tried).

Whether or not Mr. Clark's experience truly was an "experiment" or not, it raises the very legitimate question of when does a new medical procedure become entirely experimental? When does medicine cross the line from "First, do no harm" to: "Let's see what this does"? When do we stop, in simpler terms, being human beings, and start being "Nazis"?

Maybe now.

According to Jane Meyer in The New Yorker, American doctor and scientists are using the abusive treatment at Guantanamo as a laboratory for studying the ways in which people succumb to abuse, and how soldiers can be trained to withstand abuse. (Unfortunately the article itself is not yet online, but an interview with Ms. Mayer can be heard on Democracy Now! in the meantime). Moreover, techniques developed to help soldiers withstand torture, are being used in reverse to coerce information from prisoners. According to Democracy Now!'s precis of the article:

According to the article, titled "The Gitmo Experiment," a number of medical and scientific personnel working at Guantanmo Bay are not at the prison camp to provide care for detainees but rather to use their skills to assist in interrogations. The people working in this capacity are members of what are called Behavioral Science Consultation Teams or BSCT's - in military jargon they are known simply as Biscuits.

After September 11th, interrogators and BSCT's at Guantanamo were advised by psychologists and medical staff versed in techniques employed at a Pentagon-funded program known as SERE or "Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape."

Which brings ups pictures of Laurence Olivier hovering over Dustin Hoffman, asking: "Is it safe?"

I thought only the monsters did stuff like this. We teach others how to do this at the School of the Americas. I shouldn't really be surprised that we do it ourselves, at the first opportunity.

We have truly met the enemy, and he is us.

Give the king thy judgments, O God

If this really was a "Christian" nation, wouldn't it look like this?

Psalm 72

A Psalm for Solomon.

1. Give the king thy judgments, 0 God, and thy righteousness unto the king's son.

2. He shall judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with judgment.

3. The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness.

4. He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.

5. They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.

6. He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass; as showers that water the earth.

7. In his days shall the righteous flourish; and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.

8. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.

9. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.

10. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.

11. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.

12. For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper.

13. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy.

14. He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight.

15. And he shall live, and to him shall be given of the gold of Sheba: prayer also shall be made for him continually; and daily shall he be praised.

16. There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains; the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon: and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth.

17. His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

18. Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things.

19. And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen.

The language about nations being blessed is, of course, the language (it is elsewhere in the Scriptures, too), that some use to proclaim America the "chosen nation." They claim it, but those who do, by and large, don't ask anyone to live up to even the minimal standard expressed here. And this is just a Psalm; not a law, not the declarations of justice of the prophets.

Verse 10, by the way, is where Matthew gets his "Wise Men."

Where has all the money gone?

Haven't had time to read this myself, but I'm going to leave it here as a reference to get back to. Courtesy of Draco in an open thread at Eschaton.

Seems there's quite an interesting money trail through Iraq, but so far only the London Review of Books has taken the time to follow it.

Of "Christian Groups" and "Marriage Rights"

Seldom do I mention the UCC here, but I received an e-mail from my Interim Conference Minister that piqued my curiosity. Here's the interesting passage:

By about a 3/4 vote in favor, the General Synod adopted a resolution supporting "equal marriage rights" for all persons. Note the word"rights". Gay marriage, as such, was not an issue that was considered, except as it is implied perhaps in the resolution. The real issue for most folks I've talked with focused on the need for equal rights, no matter what the "union" may be called.

Of course, the New York Times is not taking it that simply:

With a movement to amend the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage picking up steam, the United Church of Christ became the first mainstream Christian denomination to officially support same-sex marriages today when its general synod passed a resolution affirming "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender."

I wanted to disagree with that statement (I certainly think the headline is poorly chosen: "Christian group"? Since when is a mainstream church with roots in Europe and Puritan New England and a membership of 1.3 million a "Christian group"?), but then I read the resolution itself:

The marriage equality resolution (1) affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage; (2) affirms equal access to the basic rights, institutional protections and quality of life conferred by the recognition of marriage, (3) calls for an end to rhetoric that fuels hostility, misunderstanding, fear and hatred expressed toward gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, (4) asks officers of the church to communicate the resolution to local, state and national legislators, urging them to support equal marriage rights, (5) calls upon all settings of the church to engage in serious, respectful and prayerful discussion of the covenantal relationship of marriage and equal marriage rights, (6) calls upon congregations, after prayerful, biblical, theological, and historical study, to consider adopting Wedding Policies that do not discriminate against couples based on gender, and (7) urges congregations and individuals of the UCC to prayerfully consider and support local, state and national legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples regardless of gender, and to work again legislation, including constitutional amendments, which denies rights to couples based on gender.

The emphasis in the first part does emphasize "rights" over the rather inflammatory term "gay marriage," but the issue is a legal and an ecclesiastical one, and it isn't really helped by fudging the language.

"Rights" are a legal term. "Gay marriage," so far as it it has a legal aspect, is a question of equal protection under the laws. Should "marriage" under law give the rights and privileges of the contractual state only to those of opposite gender? That's a legal issue.

Should churches recognize the union of those of the same gender as "marriage," whether it is a sacrament or not? In most Protestant traditions, marriage is not a sacrament, but that fine theological distinction is lost on most of the laity (and probably no small part of the clergy). There is a mention here of the "covenantal relationship of marriage," which is clearly a reference to marriage as other than the merely contractual relationship the state is concerned with (divorce, death, and taxes are the only time the State concerns itself with the marriage contract; for the State, it is all about property, and has been so since the Middle Ages at least). Update: As one delegate to General Synod points out (per the updated NYT article), "covenanted relationships are not under constitutional threat."

I agree with the sentiment of the supporters of the resolution:

The message of the Gospel is the lens through which the whole of scripture is to be interpreted. Love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus. It is a message that always bends toward inclusion. The biblical story recounts the ways in which inclusion and welcome to God’s community is ever-expanding – from the story of Abraham and Sarah, to the inclusive ministry of Jesus, to the baptism of Cornelius, to the missionary journeys of Paul throughout the Greco-Roman world. The liberating work of the Spirit as witnessed in the activities of Jesus’ ministry has been to address the situations and structures of exclusion, injustice and oppression that diminish God’s people and keep them from realizing the full gift of human personhood in the context of human communion.

But frankly, I'm not convinced this resolution gets us anywhere toward that goal. In the eyes of the "world" (i.e., the NYT), it's a support of "gay marriage." As my Interim Conference Minister indicates, that's what he's afraid his congregations will think. And what's the answer? Did General Synod deal with a legal issue? An ecclesiastical issue? A moral issue? Or even a sacramental issue?

An update: the NYT link above now has a new headline, as you will note if you go there. Right now it reads "Church of Christ Delegates Support Same Sex Marriage." Originally, it read "Church group Supports." However, "Church of Christ" identifies another denomination entirely. Ironically, this is usually the problem with the church name, outside of New England. But one would expect the NYT to know better.

And this morning (July 5), they do. A problem of the internet? But today, the NYT article is both more comprehensive, more accurate, and still a bit bewildering (no fault of the NYT, I think). Interestingly, it shifts the focus of the discussion from the church to the state. Which keeps us at the original question: what is the church position on this issue? What is marriage? A matter of property? Or of propriety?

On which does the church speak, and why?

For the Fourth of July, 2005

Words in time of war, from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.

....

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

....
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisors" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

.....
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept -- so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force -- has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John:

Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah,
Off'ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.

All Praise to Mammon and Pass the Fried Chicken (Bucket)

Oh. Good. Grief.

The Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group financed by Coca-Cola, Wendy's and Tyson Foods, among others, has a Fourth of July message for you: worrying about the rapid rise in American obesity is unpatriotic.

"Far too few Americans," declares the center's Web site, "remember that the Founding Fathers, authors of modern liberty, greatly enjoyed their food and drink. ... Now it seems that food liberty - just one of the many important areas of personal choice fought for by the original American patriots - is constantly under attack."

It sounds like a parody, but don't laugh. These people are blocking efforts to help America's children.

It's hard to be too cynical when reality keeps overtaking you.

I'd really like to just enjoy this holiday and say "Happy Birthday" to my friend Rick.

But it gets harder and harder. And, of course, the discussion has to turn on costs. We can't discuss it in terms of "intangibles" like health, comfort, or even a reflection of our spiritual condition.

More important, however, is the role of the food industry. The debate over obesity, it turns out, is a lot like the debate over global warming. In both cases, major companies protect their profits not only by lobbying against policies they don't like, but also by financing advocacy groups devoted to debunking research whose conclusions they don't like.

The pro-obesity forces - or, if you prefer, the anti-anti-obesity forces - make their case in part by claiming that America's weight gain does no harm. There was much glee on the right when a new study, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appeared to reject the conventional view that obesity has a large negative effect on life expectancy.

But as officials from the C.D.C. have pointed out, mortality isn't the only measure of health. There's no question that obesity plays an important role in many diseases that diminish the quality of life and, crucially, require expensive treatment.

Good thing we're a "Christian" nation, or I'd be completely convinced we worshipped money.

Happy Fourth Hymnblogging

Now for some national sentiment I can get behind:

This Is My Song

1. This is my song, O God of all the nations,
A song of peace for lands afar and mine.
This is my home, the country where my heart is,
Here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine;
But other hearts in other lands are beating
With hopes and dreams as true and high as mine.

2. My country's skies are bluer than the ocean,
And sunlight beams on clover leaf and pine;
But other lands have sunlight too, and clover,
And skies are everywhere as blue as mine.
O hear my song, thou God of all the nations,
A song of peace for their land and for mine.

3. This is my prayer, O Lord of all earth's kingdom:
Thy Kingdom come; on earth thy will be done.
Let Christ be lifted up till all shall serve him,
And hearts united learn to live as one.
O hear my prayer, thou God of all the nations;
Myself I give thee; let thy will be done.

Sts 1,2 Lloyd Stone, 1934; st. 3, Georgia Harkness, ca. 1939

Now why couldn't the senators and representatives have gathered on the Capitol steps and sung something like this together?

Happy Fourth of July everyone. Be safe. Go with God.

Patriotic Kitsch Blogging!

Godzilla bedecked in the patriotic sentiment of the day. He'd put it on a car, if he had one.
















Gonna be on the road for a few days. Just a reminder, to watch for pedestrian crossings this holiday weekend.







Sadly, this is part of the collection in spirit only. However, it is located on a street near to where I live. Which could almost be a song, so it's almost art. Right?

Lone Ranger Diplomacy

Listening to exerpts of the President's speech from last night, this quote from Niebuhr I already had handy seemed apropos:

From the internal perspective the most moral act is one which is actuated by disinterested motives. The external observer may find good in selfishness. He may value it as natural to the constitution of human nature and as necessary to society. But from the viewpoint of the author of an action, unselfishness must remain the criterion of the highest morality. For only the agent of an action knows to what degree self-seeking corrupts his socially approved actions. Society, on the other hand, makes justice rather than unselfishness its highest moral ideal. Its aim must be to seek equality of opportunity for all life. If this equality and justice cannot be achieved without the assertion of interest against interest, and without restraint upon the self-assertion of those who infringe upon the rights of their neighbors, then society is compelled to sanction self-assertion and restraint. It may even, as we have seen, be forced to sanction social conflict and violence.

Historically the internal perspective has usually been cultivated by religion.

Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society..

One can make several uses of that. Applying it directly to the present political situation in America, we have the President of the United States saying that things are going well in Iraq because more and more Iraqis are becoming "battle hardened" and able to defend themselves. As if civil order was all a matter of carrying a gun and making the "criminals" (i.e., the "agents" of "chaos") fear your firepower, enough to leave you in peace. It's the dime novel version of "How The West Was Won." And it is utter nonsense. But it proceeds, or thinks it does, from Niebuhr's rump definition of justice as seeking equality of opportunity for all life. Such equality of opportunity, however, can be sought only after order is imposed; which is where the legend of the "Wild West" comes in. Like the legend of the Hollywood movies and 19th century dime novels, Bush thinks the world is a place where human civilization is imposed by force, where reason is forced onto disorder, where peace comes only through wielding the greater violence. It is the "chaos" theory applied to social order. It is the justificaiton for the Pax Romana.

What I find fascinating and appalling about the President's foreign policy, is his absolute conviction in the "chaos" theory of civilization. And, connected to that, his clear conviction about the depravity of human nature.

He clearly and fervently believes that human civilization is an imposition, by force, of reason on disorder, order on irrationality, peace on violence.

To call it "cowboy diplomacy" is to insult cowboys, who are working men, not gun-slinging anarchists. This government's foreign policy is the utter perversion of Hobbes' observation that the human condition without a government is a state of nature "red in tooth and claw." Even government does not assure against that condition, in Bush's vision. The only proof against chaos is an armed citizenry willing to fight day by day for its security. Only a people "battle hardened" and "able to defend themselves" is deserving, or can secure, the blessings of liberty. Chaos, in other words, must be opposed daily, regularly, and individually. Governments do not provide this protection. Only individuals do.

Which is, of course, a perversion of the notion of social order. In the Bush vision, social order is maintained only by the ceaseless and relentless application of power, because the "natural order" of human existence is nasty, brutish, and short, and is fended off only by the constant vigilance of violence. It is the Hollywood version of the "Old West," where merchants and women cower behind walls while hoodlums rampage, until the greater power of the sheriff or the "hero" comes to impose order once again: usually by killing every "outlaw" in town, and leaving it for the "decent folks," who soon learn that order comes not from good thoughts or middle class values, but from the willingness to wield a gun ruthlessly against the "bad guys."

What Bush is espousing, in short, is nothing less than "Every man for himself," with the assumption that no person wants anything less than the destruction of all those around him, unless a sufficient punishment be imposed to prevent us all from acting on our evil impulses. (Good middle class values are reserved for Americans and others who more naturally seek the "good things" in life. Is there more than a trace of racism in this worldview? Absolutely). Human nature, in this vision, is brutish, cruel, sadistic, selfish, and wholly destructive. Order is imposed only by power, and only power wielded in accord with reason is able to maintain order. And reason, as always, is next to Godliness; indeed, in classic Christian teachings, it is a gift from God. Chaos waits at every opportunity to break forth again, and only eternal effort and the exercise of this divine faculty, prevents chaos from succeeding.

That this sounds like a Christian view of world order is no accident. The "battle of good v. evil" is usually couched in terms taken from Hellenistic philosophies. Satan and his minions, as Milton himself described it, seek only to disrupt and undo Creation. Jealous at having lost Paradise, Milton's Satan is determined to disrupt and destroy the Creation as much as possible. But even Milton introduced Satan into Paradiese. The pervasiveness of evil is attributed to the "original sin." So, says George Bush, "they" hate us because of "our freedom." "They," of course, are the minions of Satan, those still unredeemed from "The Fall.". "We," of course, are the chosen of God, placed a little lower than the angels (and a little above everyone else, especially those who "hate our freedom."). Milton wanted to explain the ways of God to man. We have twisted his vision to justify the brutality of "this busy monster manunkind."

Is evil a presence in the world, constantly at work seeking opportunities for malevolence? The Greeks thought it was just the impersonal forces of the cosmos: chaos, subdued but never conquered by reason, would one day prevail again. The defeat was as inevitable as exhaustion. The Revelation to John is often seen as a Christian continuation of this theme, only with an inexhaustible God redeeming creation from chaos. But Revelation is a far subtler book than that, one written to fool the Roman censors sensitive to anything that threatened the Pax Romana. Just as many today, both opportunistic politicians and simple scared American citizens, fear the least discouraging word on the floor of the Senate, or an innocent photographer standing in the line of sight of a power station or a telephone line. Revelation is not about the defeat of evil, but about the presence and prevelance of good, of that which creates which upholds and undergirds that which thinks it can destroy. As Jesus said in Matthew, fear the one who can harm the soul, not the one who can harm the body.

Still, humanity is the only creature that seems to think aggression is necessary for survival. That is a learned, not an instinctual, attitude. And Christianity, among many other religions, teaches something wholly different. It teaches that survival is assured by God; that the Creation is good, and all that is in it is good. And it teaches us to choose life; to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, and soul, and our neighbor as ourselves. You cannot do that, if you see your neighbor as an agent of chaos. You cannot do that, and see your neighbor as an agent of chaos. You cannot do that, and cling to the belief that your own survival is entirely, or even ultimately, in your hands.

We conflate survival and salvation. "Savior" was a political term in 1st century Rome. To proclam Jesus of Nazareth a "savior" was to put him on par with Caesar, the guarantor of the Pax Romana, the provider of the benefits of "civilization." Only later has it come to have metaphysical force. Still, the salvation Jesus taught had nothing to do with survival; it had to do with life. He said himself that he came to bring sight to the blind, freedom to the captive, health to the sick. His was not a metaphysical claim to redeem "souls" for the "sweet bye and bye." He was always (except for the late gospel of John) more focussed on this life than the next one. Jesus famously said: "If your right eye offends you, pluck it out." Better, he said, to go into the kingdom of God with one eye, than not at all. I don't think he was speaking metaphorically at that point; or if so, only just. He spoke so directly, and so physically, to get our attention, to focus us on what matters now: real life, right here, among all these other people.

Much of what George Bush espouses by his actions, can be traced to Christian doctrines of soteriology, or salvation. Based on the soteriology Bush probably accepts, humanity is not considered "good," but evil, corrupt, all but irredeemable. Salvation can come only through acceptance of the atonement of the sacrifice of the Son, and so only to those who can, or will, accept this doctrine. To the rest of humanity some adherents of this belief all too quickly assign damnation, both in this life, and the life to come. This is, and in fact must be, considered "Christianity," if only because no one can claim a true doctrine of Christianity against which all others must be measured. It is "Christian," but it is not solely, or even wholly, Christian. Indeed, I think it should be considered an abuse of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and indeed of the Scriptures.

And so we have Karl Rove, whose only interest is power. But power is not salvation; power is not deliverance. To wield power is to give yourself over to power, just as to accept salvation in God is to give yourself over to God. But what is the form of that salvation? To save your life, Jesus says, you must lose it. To save your life, you must trust God; and in trusting God, you must trust that God's creation is good. Is that possible, in running a country, in being responsible for the health and security and welfare of millions of people? Yes.

"And when justice is gone, there's always force/And when force is gone, there's always Mom"--Laurie Anderson

As Holden has noted, the attitude in some quarters toward American foreign policy has slid from "We don't do that!" to "Damn straight! We're the meanest SOB in the valley!" There is, of course, more than one problem with this, but to condemn it as "immoral" is to apply standards that the offending group clearly does not recognize.

Thus do we quickly find the limits of morality.

It's an age old issue, the distinction between morality and ethics. Since at least the 1960's, and the "establishment clause" cases from the U.S. Supreme Court, law has become the third leg of this stool. Now we struggle to establish the boundaries between what law covers, what morality condemns, and what ethics demands. And more and more, the excuse for doing whatever it is one group wants to do, is to redraw the boundaries of all three so that none apply to the desired action. Which is not so new, either.

And, in good ol' practical, pragmatic America, it's seldom a question of: "Is is right?," but rather: "Is it efficacious?" And, for better or worse, we assign the first question to the realm of morality, the second to ethics. Law is simply what the courts say it is, or what the police will enforce. And all three are treated as if they were made of Play-Doh, and were in fact children's playthings.

What brings this up is the issue of "extraordinary rendition" and the Italian judge who is seeking the arrest of 13 CIA agents. Not being an expert in international law, I can't say whether "extraordinary rendition" is, in any sense, "legal." The best argument for it, though, seems to rest on the "Meanest SOB in the Valley" (as in "Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil, because...") theory. Or, in simpler terms, whose gonna stop the US from doing it? While that is hardly a legal argument, it is certainly a realistic one. But it also assumes that whether or not such governmental action is legal is irrelevant, because the government will do what it thinks is in the interests of its own preservation, an idea by and large supported by the analysis of the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr; although he does not confuse "might" with "right" or even with "morality."

Governments, argues Niebuhr, are, by necessity in fact, amoral. For convenience, let us call this the "realistic" political theory of theology. Governments do what they have to do in order to ensure the survival of the society from which they arise. Which is not to say governments are guided by an "invisible hand" in their dealings, and so always choose either wisely or fairly. It is only to say that government have certain purposes to fulfill, and behaving ethically or morally is not necessarily one of them. Is Machiavelli, then, our only guide?

Not necessarily. Governments may not have to behave morally; but they should behave ethically. Especially when the world is no longer either easily dominated (Roman Empire) or a welter of city-states and principalities (Renaissance Italy) where the rule of cunning guides the rule of force toward the goal of survival. Morality may still tell us what we "ought" to do; ethics, however, still guides us in the ways to achieve balance between our own desires, and what the community will not only allow, but reward.

The Laurie Anderson quote from "O Superman" is appropos here. The "vanished power of the usual reign" follows generally the same trajectory, especially in American history where we have always equated force with justice, and justice with morality, and morality with being on the side of the angels. But when justice fails, as the argument goes it did on September 11, 2001, we have to resort to force. We have to arrest men of "Middle Eastern" ancestry or adherents of the Muslim religion, and we have to question them. We have to sweep battlefields in foreign countries like a broom and collect all manner of humanity in our dust pan and deposit them in places like Gitmo where we can determine: "Friend, or Foe?", and no one is allowed to question our motives or doubt our resolve, because our survival is at stake. But if force no longer protects us, we fall back again on our intentions, our good hearts, on the plea that those who know us really love us, that our mothers told us winners never quit, and quitters never win. When justice and force are gone, there's always Mom; which is to say, there's always morality.

It is our national morality that shields us, that protects us from the consequences of our actions. "No one likes us, I don't know why/We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try." But that morality is as hard to pin down as it is to nail Jell-O to the wall. And, at the moment, the polls are showing that we are no longer assured that we are right; though we are still assured, that we are mighty.

"When justice is gone, there's always force...."

So questions about "extralegal" remedies like "extraordinary rendition" (it's only kidnapping when "criminals" do it, and governments cannot be criminals; apparently) are questions of law (Who hales the U.S. before a superior tribunal? Who enforces the rule of law against the nation that does not recognize that law? We treat the authority of the World Court as Alice treated the pack of cards led by the Red Queen.). If we are not swayed by legal authority we do not recognize, and we do not apply moral standards to what governments do and what they often must do, what recourse is left?

Ethics.

Aristotle's ethics were not designed as "oughts" coming down from an authority on high, universally applicable to all humankind in a kind of natural law; that was Aquinas, many centuries later. Ethics, for Aristotle, meant merely the customs, the expected and rewarded behaviors he observed among his society. As pragmatic as a 19th century American, Aristotle didn't define ethics in order to tell you what you "ought" to do, but only what you should do, if you wished to obtain a certain goal. And that analysis still applies today, to the behavior of nations.

The "neo-cons" in the Bush administration seem to pride themselves on their pragmatism, their ability to assess harsh reality and determine a path to change it to be more to their liking. To do this, they throw of all perceived constraints of law and morality and ethics. Unfortunately for them, the choice of what to discard is not theirs.

No one gets to set the law aside; not even the ruler. No one can ignore moral claims, not even Satan. And no one can abandon ethical rules, or traduce them, without consequence. Not the consequence of angering some unearthly power; but the consequence of ignoring the standards of behavior of nations.

It should be a commonplace to say we are not the only nation in the world, and that we are not the only people who think our nation, above all others, matters. It should be, but especially since emerging from our national coccoon following World War II, we have yet, as a nation, to abandon our myopia. Despite all the encouraging news that Bush's policies and programs are no longer supported, and may soon not even be tolerated, the real change in the national heart has yet to occur. Iraq is not a debacle because it was the wrong war at the wrong time led by the wrong leaders and fought by too few (pace Sen. Hagel): it is a debacle because war itself is wrong. It is not that the U.S. failed to use its tools properly; it is that we used the wrong tools.

This is all that war can do: destroy. This is the only end to which it can be put: chaos. And this time, we unleashed that chaos. It should be new, but it is new only to the 20th century. The 18th and 19th centuries are filled with violence as the tool for salvation, with imperialist enterprises conducted by the "non-imperialist" power of the United State of America. Bush & Co. have not changed American history; they have repeated it. And until we learn the lesson of ethics as applied to nations, and begin to consider that morality might be a better guide for our actions than expediency, there is no reason to suspect we won't be calling on Mom again, before long.

Addendum: after bringing you such a long way down, let me note that my brand of Calvinist tinged pessimism is absolutely sunny compared to some of those who comment on American reality. I see in Houston the continued fever of the "suburban sprawl economy" and I have to agree "there is no alternative US economy in the background ready to take its place." Houston has always lived this way (well, since it started prospering) and knows no other method. A metaphor for the country, I fear.

I think we're going to be calling on Mom far sooner than expected.

The Gospel of the God of life

For my daughter, who is travelling, and who returns home tonight:

The Gospel of the God of life
To shelter thee, to aid thee,
Yea, the Gospel of beloved Christ
The holy Gospel of the Lord;

To keep thee from all malice,
From every dole and dolour;
To keep thee from all spite,
From evil eye and anguish.

Thou shalt travel thither, thou shalt travel hither,
Thou shalt travel hill and headland,
Thou shalt travel down, thou shalt travel up,
Thou shalt travel ocean and narrow.

Christ Himself is shepherd over thee,
Enfolding thee on every side;
He will not forsake thee hand or foot,
Nor let evil come anigh thee.

The Peace of God

Thinking (still) about the post below, and responding to may's comment there, I went in search of a quote by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and found, not entirely unexpectedly, more than I'd bargained for. These two speak to the point I was trying to make:

Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

And in answer to the question: "Does that mean we do nothing?," I answer, "No." I answer with Dr. King's words: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'"

And the one I was looking for:

Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

I think Bush&Co are finding that out.

And, a bit of a lesson from the sermon this morning. Darkness has no existence; it is only the absence of light, just as cold is the absence of heat. We should extend light, not deepen darkness. We should be bearers of heat, not leavers of cold.

To all of this, I would only add the words of the hymn from this morning:

They cast their nets in Galilee just off the hills of brown;
such happy, simple fisherfolk, before the Lord came down.

Contented, peaceful fishermen, before they ever knew
the peace of God that filled their hearts brimful, and broke them too.

Young John who trimmed the flapping sail, homeless in Patmos died,
Peter, who hauled the teeming nets, head down was crucified.

The peace of God, it is no peace, but strife closed in the sod.
Yet let us pray for but one thing--the marvelous peace of God.