Long article on "America"

I've deleted bits to make it shorter, but this address is well worth reading, without partisanship in politics or religion. You should be able to tell within a paragraph or two if this is your cuppa, if it's not, just click back. - Perdita

An Angry Prophet Calling on Us To Get Angry, Too - This is the commencement address given on May 21, 2004 at Bangor Theological Seminary by Dan Maguire, a famed moral theologian teaching at Marquette University in Wisconsin. Maguire's is a truly prophetic voice and one that needs to be heard in pre-election America.

I would like to begin with a certain number of keynoters and tone setters. The first is John Dewey, the philosopher. John Dewey posed a question that was almost too simple to ask. He said, "What would you think of a United States senator who right before a big vote called his personal broker and asked how this vote would affect his personal portfolio and the senator then voted accordingly?" So Dewey said, "What about the morals of that Senator?" And we all know the answer. He or she is totally corrupt. But then he moved one step further and said, "Any citizen who votes for the same reason is equally corrupt because voting is an act of citizenship, a commitment to the common good, not an act of personal acquisition." What does that say about our society which only seems to ask if they personally were better off four years ago?

As Robert Bellah said, "The term ‘private citizen’ is an oxymoron. Voting is a communitarian act of social justice, not an exercise in greed. My second keynoter is Gerd Theissen the scripture scholar. He said we should give up the search for the missing link between apes and true humanity. Give that up, he said. We are the missing link. This could not be true humanity. True humanity could not live comfortably and sleep well when 1.3 billion persons are in hunger on planet earth, 70% of them, interestingly, women.

My next keynoter is Robert Heilbroner, and he invites us to look behind the veils of our respectability and see that there is a barbarism hidden beneath the superficial amenities of life. In a similar vein, Abraham Heschel, the great Jewish theologian, cited, "The secret obscenity, the unnoticed malignancy of established patterns of indifference."

I turn next to Mahatma Gandhi who was asked one time, "What do you think of Western Civilization?" And he replied, "That would be a great idea!"

My next keynoter is Howard Zinn [author of A People's History of the United States ]. Howard Zinn said, "One third of our military budget would provide water and sanitation facilities for the billion people worldwide who have none. Let us be a more modest nation. The modest nations of the world don’t face the threat of terrorism. Let us pull back from being a military superpower and become a humanitarian superpower. Then we, and everyone else will be more secure."

Let us look, first of all, at the nation that you have chosen as your workplace and mission field. And then let us look, with hope, at the biblical resources you have to handle and face and serve this nation. You see, I believe that nations, like persons, have dominant personality types. For example, if you have a neighbor and this neighbor is a nice enough sort of fellow to you, moving your garbage bins when you are not around and things like that. But you also know that he had broken his wife’s jaw twice and was fired from work for fighting. You realize the dominant personality, whatever redemptive things may also be there, is violent.

Well, nations also have dominant personalities. So let’s move toward seeing what the dominant personality type of this nation is, this nation so awash in self-praise, and idolatrous, unbiblical flag waving.

Let us use some comparisons to see first of all what this nation is not. We’ll begin with this one. A colleague of mine, Geling Shang mentioned at a meeting that in the People’s Republic of China they have started to put free condoms in motel drawers. When he said that, I kept a straight face and said, "We don’t do that, we put Bibles there." I continued, "It’s our theory that if a couple come there to have sex and see the Bible, they will read that instead." He kept a straight face and said, "Have you any data?" I said, "We do indeed. We have the highest rate of unplanned pregnancies in the Western world, we do." So obviously you couldn’t put condoms next to the shampoo and hand cream in motel drawers in this puritanical theocratic nation, however realistic it might be So are we like China ? No, no, we’re not like that.

- Let’s go to Sweden. Sweden lives in a dangerous part of town, much more threatening than where we live. Sweden has not been in a war for 200 years. Their military establishment is entirely based on purely defensive weaponry that could threaten no one. Clearly, we’re not like that.
- Let us go to Costa Rica. In 1948 they decided (and they’re living in a tough neighborhood) they didn’t need an army, just a police force. And they have done quite well for sixty years without it. Clearly, we’re not like that.
- Let’s go back to Sweden where law requires every corporation to give eighteen months of paid parental leave upon the birth of a baby, a leave that can be pro-rated over the first eight years of the child’s life. We’re certainly not like that.
- Let us go to France, that nation that was so friendly to us in the past, telling us not to cross the world and invade Vietnam ; that it would be a quagmire costing us much in life and fortune. Then again, they told us not to invade Iraq, that it too would be a quagmire costing us great life and fortune. Friendly advice, unheeded. France provides free childcare for all toilet-trained children. And we are definitely not like that.
In fact, in the United States, childcare workers receive.09 cents an hour less than parking lot attendants. In France also, single mothers get government subsidies for the first three years of the child’s life. We’re not like that.
- Let us go to Denmark where there’s free dental care for all children until the age of 18. It’s during those years you either get a healthy mouth, the gateway to all of your health systems, or it never happens. Again, we’re not like that.
They have universal health care in all of the Scandinavian countries. Everything is free unless you can afford a co-pay and it only takes 6.5% of their gross domestic product whereas as we spend 14% and leave 40-some million uncovered. So we’re not like those Scandinavian countries.

Our self-praise, to put it mildly, is premature and self-serving and thoughtless. So what must we do? What we must do is an examination of conscience. An essential part of every ministry to obey the call of Jeremiah 3:12: "acknowledge your guilt." When you are the most powerful nation on the planet it’s even more important that we do not shy away from self-critique or bury ourselves in self-congratulation, ignoring the biblical mandate to examine our consciences.

So, what are we? Let’s look at us. Well, the first thing we are is rich. For example, I could check into the Sheraton yesterday and take water out of the tap and realize it wouldn’t kill me. Most of the people in the world don’t have safe water.. They say if a pure glass of water were the cure for AIDS, most of the people on the planet would not have access to it. When we go into our food markets, the counters are overflowing. For Bible-readers, that ought to sound an alert. We are rich, and what does the Bible say? "Woe to you rich." "Rich" in the Bible means secure. If you know today that on this date next year, you are confident you’ll be able to have supper, then in Bible terms you are rich. Such security is rare in the history of humanity, and we have it. The biblical psychological insight is that economic security has a tendency to make your conscience cold, so cold and impenetrable that it becomes easier "to get a camel through the eye of a needle" than to get you to feel the pain of God’s poor throughout the planet.

And there is more. On top of everything else, we’re an empire. And that fact also, if you’re a Bible reader, should get your attention immediately. Jesus was crucified by an empire. With all deference to Mel Gibson, He was not killed so that his suffering would expiate for our sins, a very bad piece of theology that would turn God into a sadistic monster who would feel he had to torture his son to death in order to make up for sins of other people. No, Jesus was crucified as a rebel against empire. He was part of the rebellious communities of Judea and Galilee where crucifixion was the regular Roman penalty for rebellion. Their crops were stolen. Tribute to Caesar meant your grain was taken from your barn, your animals were taken away from you by Caesar so that the people in the empire could live gloriously and well. We in the United States are really now the New Rome, the Empire, living gloriously and well. We are not in Jesus territory, Judea and Galilee, which were raped by Imperial Rome. Jesus fought the likes of us, and when you do that, the lesson is, you get crucified.

Is it unfair to call the United States an empire? What an empire does is that it uses its military and economic power to control weaker peoples for its own interests. Let’s take a look at what we are up to. Right now, today, we have 800 military installations around the world. We have major bases in 50 different nations, and if they won’t let us in, we tell them we’ll boycott them right out of our market and so they do let us in. And Americans just take that for granted. How would we feel if Indonesia opened a naval station in Florida ? Or Russia an air station in Michigan ? Wouldn’t we say, "What in the world is this all about?" Yet we do this as though it were our birthright given us by God.

Since 1945 we have overturned 25 governments but would take a very dim view of it if any government or any people tried to overturn ours. What we are doing is what empires do, convinced as all empires are that might makes right.

The poignant words of Deuteronomy cry out to us, words put into the mouth of God: "I have set before you life, and I have set before you death. And I have begged you to choose life for the sake of your children." And let us turn also to the Gospel which says, "Where your treasure is, there your heart follows." In other words, show me your national budget and I will tell you what you are, I will tell you what you truly treasure and I’ll tell you where your heart really is. Let us look at the military budget and think of what we are doing. You won’t hear about this in the presidential debates, from either side, because the military budget is our sacred idol. We are spending $31 million an hour, 24-hours a day on military power, $10,000 a second. Even people who were in the Reagan administration said after the collapse of the Soviet Union that we could get by with half of that amount.

I’ll give one example of our profligate and sinful military madness. Let me tell you about the Kitty Hawk. The Kitty Hawk is a carrier. Is it impressive? Oh, my! It’s almost three football fields long, twenty stories high, has six thousand people on board, 70 airplanes, and it is not lonely. It has in its entourage two submarines, three frigates, a couple of destroyers, a massive group of people. What a stupendous display of kill power! How many of these carrier battle groups do we have? Thirteen. How many does the entire rest of the world have? Zero. That’s almost like having the greatest team in the world and no opponents. It’s embarrassing. But what criminal waste!

Suppose we decided to dare do without one of these carrier battle groups. What could we do with that money that would point it toward life and not toward death? I’ll give some examples. We could double the salaries of all of the elementary and high school teachers, the perennial orphans of our national conscience. If we could then get rid of a few more of these behemoths and we could take that money and buy some munitions from the military. They have munitions to spare. And what we will do is, we will use those munitions to blow up every inferior school building in the United States of America. We’ll have contests. The girl that writes the best essay gets to push that handle down and watch the building crumble; and in its place we’ll build something beautiful, something worthy of our children

Why with a mere $40 billion dollars a year—what it costs to wage war for five months in Iraq, we could finance all public college and university education, making it all free to qualified students. A G.I. Bill of Rights for all citizens. Totally free. (For every dollar spent on the G.I. Bill after World War II, the government got a return of almost seven dollars!)

We could then take more of those wasted military dollars and end hunger and thirst on the earth. That would fight terrorism. People don’t crash airplanes and send suicide bombers after a nation bent on ending illiteracy, hunger, and thirst. Jeremiah 23 might have been talking to the American Empire when he said: "Their course is evil and their might is not right" That language applies to any empire and we are an empire placing our trust in weaponry and not in the compassion that builds peace.

And there is another thing about the American character I must add here. Our imperial thrust has a very distinctly religious tone which makes it the business of religious and theological people. Our nation dares to believe that we were established by God.

I’ll give you one example. There was a man named George S. Phillips in Ohio, shortly after the Civil War--not that long ago–who wrote a book called The American Republic and Human Liberty Foreshadowed in Scripture. In other words, the Bible was written to announce the coming of the United States of America ! Phillips said God’s Old Testament promise to found a nation fully obedient to Him was fulfilled when He [God] established the United States ! Phillips was a remarkably imaginative exegete, the likes of which you graduates have not seen in your Bible courses. He said that in the scripture, Isaiah and Daniel clearly foretold the day and the hour of the Declaration of Independence! Isaiah predicted also the Boston Tea Party and even the coming of Chinese immigrants to California ! (which he probably didn’t like at all). Phillips roared on to this conclusion. He said the United States is to fill the earth, so to occupy the place of government in the world, as to leave room for no other government!

Was Phillips a kook? No. He was mainstream. In fact, he has been criticized for his lack of originality and his plagiarism. These thoughts were not heretical to the American tradition. They are still there, though today in different language. We no longer speak like Warren Harding did when he said that The United States must go forth into the world like Jesus Christ, not confining ourselves to the Holy Land, ( in his view, the United States), but spreading our gospel all over the world. We don’t talk that way now. Now the code name for our religious mission is "democracy," the code name is "freedom." But the real name is "empire."

I want to tell you graduates that there is an illness waiting for you outside in your ministry. And an illness that I hope you will be able to cure with your teaching, preaching, writing, and ministry. This illness is known as, from this day forward, ICS: Imperial Comfort Syndrome. When you are living in an extremely advantaged imperial situation as we are in the United States, we become very comfortable. This particular illness does not result in fever or in cold chills. It’s symptoms are tepidity and a dull, crippling kind of depression. It causes such things as this: in our last elections two years ago, 60% of eligible American voters didn’t even show up. That is precisely ICS: Imperial Comfort Syndrome. For the diagnosis of it, I would take you to Revelations 3:15. The author puts these words into the mouth of God. Listen to them. "I know all your ways. You are neither hot nor cold. How I wish you were either hot or cold. But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth... Hear, you who have ears to hear, what the Spirit says to the churches."

So what hope do I bring to you and to our graduates, to myself? I go to the scriptures, I go to the Bible. And I go directly to the prophets, the prophets of Israel and of early Christianity. Remember the prophets were not people who purveyed information. They didn’t come with flowcharts and sheets of data. Their mission was a revolution in affect. What they were trying to do, and it’s your mission, and it’s your ministry, they were trying to turn hearts of stone into hearts of feeling flesh. They were trying to make us red hot, not lukewarm, red hot in our passion for justice. So let me touch on just a few things that are part of that infinitely rich, prophetic tradition because your ministries will be prophetic or you will merely be engaged in dispensing analgesics.

The first and most powerful concept in scripture, I believe, is the Hebrew Tsedaqah, usually terribly translated "righteousness," better translated "justice." But it’s almost too rich a word for anything we have in English. You will sometimes see in the New York Times a Jewish woman dies. "Eleanor Silverstein died, her life was marked by Tsedaqah." There is no higher compliment in the Jewish community. And what is Tsedaqah? I found out its strength one time when I traveled from New York to Washington on a train with an old rabbi who was just a charming, delightful person. We had a wonderful conversation about all the goods and evils of the earth. And as I left, I said, "Sir, you have in your heart the true Tsedaqah." And he winced. And I wondered about that wince...what’s that about? And I realized the more I studied Tsedaqah that what I said to him was, "Sir, you have beating in your chest the heart of God." And he said, "Too much, too much." That’s the power of the word.

Tsedaqah is a demanding concept and challenge. It has a double bias built into it. It’s very biased in favor of the poor. Our God, says Judith, is a God of the poor, the desperate, the hopeless, and the sick. What strange credentials for a respectable God! And it has a next bias against the rich, against the comfortable. So what Tsedaqah says is take Deuteronomy 15:4 seriously, it’s our mandate: "There shall be no poor among you." The good news is that there is a payload. Scripture is very practical. Isaiah 32:17, the payload says that if you plant Tsedaqah you will finally have Shalom, peace. You won’t get it any other way. Symbols tell the tale. Tsedaqah in Amos 5:23 is compared to a roaring mountain stream.

I never knew what that meant until I was out speaking to Lutheran pastors one time in Colorado. I went up the mountain one day, and as you go up the mountain, you begin to hear one of those streams, copiously fed by the glaciers above and the snows of the winter. And as you get close, it’s scary, and you hear this roar and thunder as you get very close, you see the spumes splashing up against rocks, tons of water that will eventually defeat every one of those rocks. And as you get right beside it, you back off. One day during that week in Colorado, one of the Lutheran pastors was trying to take a picture of his wife on a bridge over this torrent and he slipped and fell in. Fortunately he was thrown against a flat rock and enough of us were there to get ropes on him or he would have stayed there for the rest of his short life. So what is this biblical notion of justice as a roaring mountain torrent?

We in the United States have a rather bland image of justice as a blindfolded lady. A realist might ask: What is a lady in a sexist society to be doing, running around blindfolded and then hoping that those scales will balance perfectly? Amos would smile and say, "That will never do, that’s much too naive." So let’s look at Amos’s symbol of biblical justice. First of all, it’s water, and water gives life. That’s a great start. But it’s water with a mission, and the mission is to sweep away all the obstacles to peace, and all the causes of poverty on planet earth. That’s the power of Tsedaqah, sweeping up everything it touches, even Lutheran pastors. Its life-giving goal is the end of poverty and the reign of Shalom upon the earth.

My second message from the prophets that I commend to you is tears. Tears. If your ministry produces no tears, you have failed. Tears, after all, are very Christic. In that beautiful text, Jesus looked at the city, and he wept, heartbroken over the fact that we do not know the things that make for peace. Jeremiah said unless your eyes run with tears you will come to a terrible ruin. I was amazed, as a young Catholic boy, when I saw on the back of a missal a prayer for the gift of tears. And it said, "Oh God, strike into the duritiam, the hardness of my heart and bring forth a saving flood of tears." And as a little boy, I thought, "Who wants tears, when you grow up you don’t have them anymore, especially if you are a man?" And that precisely is the problem. If you are without tears, it is a tragedy. You are not Christic. You are not Christian. Jesus wept. He looked at that city and said, "If only you knew the things that make for your peace, but you don’t." And he broke down sobbing.

Let us update that text. Let us have Jesus say, " America, America, if only you knew the things that make for your peace, if only you could see that the answer is not in your weaponry. If only I could, like a mother hen, wrap my wings around you, wings of justice and peace and compassion, if you could use your great talent and wealth to work to end world hunger, world thirst, world illiteracy, no one would hate you, you would know Shalom." That’s the promise of Isaiah 32:17. Then you could burn those chariots in a holy fire and you would be secure.

The next lesson from the prophets is the virtue of anger. Anger has a bad name with us, but I would recommend for all of your churches a quote from St. John Chrysostom, who put it this way, he said "Whoever is not angry when there is cause for anger, sins." Thomas Aquinas was fascinated with that text. Thomas looked at scripture, and he thought, "Those prophets, including Jesus, were angry." When Jesus tore into the temple and knocked over tables and everything else, he was, to say the least, angry. Prophetic language, often intemperate, pulses with anger. These people were mad. And Thomas concluded, therefore, anger is obviously a virtue. But then when he looked in the list of virtues in the entire Christian world, he said, "This virtue …manet innominata. This virtue remains unnamed. And why is anger a virtue? Thomas said, quia respicit bonum justitiae, because it looks to the good of justice. And if you can be un-angry in the presence of atrocious, cruel injustice, in the presence of racism, militarism, sexism, heterosexism...if none of this stirs you to anger, you love justice too little.

Next the prophets call us to courage, something they had in spades. They needed it. History is splattered with prophetic blood. Isaiah was sawed in half, Jeremiah stoned to death, Jesus crucified, Martin Luther King shot. Courage is the hallmark of prophecy.

And finally in this prophetic listing, I come to laughter. You’ll say, Where did you find laughter among the prophets? They were not comedians." There was laughter there. Remember the story of Jesus coming in on Palm Sunday, a story which we totally misunderstood? Going in on an old donkey that they had to borrow and having the people saying "This is our king." What a ridiculous scene. That was spoofery and rich irony worthy of Michael Moore. And this spoofery was mocking Caesar. And the people knew it. And Caesar knew it. And you don’t mock Caesar, or Caesar crucifies you. And he did.

Laughter is essential or our prophecy will simply burn out. Chesterton, the English writer, put it this way. He said that if you want to be serious, be serious about your necktie. But in really important matters, like death, sex and religion, there will be mirth or there will be madness. After all, in the biblical view, ecstasy is our destiny, and laughter is a sweet and essential form of ecstasy. ... full address

Damn! That was good!

Rev. Maguire better watch his ass. I suspect someone's cutting lumber for him as we speak.

Seriously, if all religious people were as wise and righteous as the authour I would convert in a second.

"What," I ask myself, "is a world without justice?" I look around and then I know.

rg, I'm so glad you liked it. I thought a bit about posting such a long piece but then I was sure at least one or two (or more) people would appreciate reading it. Glad one was you. P.

That's a great piece.

Sometimes you really need to be reminded of what's what. It's so easy to be distracted and forget the big picture.

---dr.M.

I did not read YET, but when GW gets elected again the word America will soon be mute. Just a thought.

Thanks Dita. though I disagree with much of it, you have again posted something thought provoking on a deep level.

Charlus, whatever we get on election day, the heart of the matter of the address really has little to do with politics. I appreciated a profound moral focus on what America has become. The message may be too late, but I honestly have no idea what world my sons are inheriting.

Colly, from you more than most I would like to know what your disagreements are. I don't want to argue, but I would like to know another view, at least yours.

Perdita

Cool, 'Dita. Thanks.

I'll try Dita, for you


In the first case, voting is our civic duty. But whom you vote for and your reason, have to be your own. To try and assign a kind of all encompassing morality to your franchise, takes away from the very thing it represents, your freedom to choose, for whatever reason. Basically, his argument would make a right vote and a wrong one. I can't reconcile the idea of freedom to express your desires and there being a wrong vote. All votes are right, even if they are only right for the individual who cast them. A senator's vote can be wrong, he theoretically represents his constiuency and his votes should respond to the will of the majority of them. Each voter represents only themselves and thus, can't make a wrong vote as their vote in any given election represents the will of the majority they represent, in this case a majority of one.

Quote:
This could not be true humanity. True humanity could not live comfortably and sleep well when 1.3 billion persons are in hunger on planet earth, 70% of them, interestingly, women.

As a historian, I would dispute this. Humanity's record of inhumanity to his fellows, especially those weaker than himself, tends to support the idea that man as a group has precious little reguard for his fellows.

Quote:
"One third of our military budget would provide water and sanitation facilities for the billion people worldwide who have none. Let us be a more modest nation. The modest nations of the world don’t face the threat of terrorism. Let us pull back from being a military superpower and become a humanitarian superpower. Then we, and everyone else will be more secure."

The good book does say the meek will inherit the earth. I think the cartoon character garfield has a very strong corillary to that.
"But until then the strong will m ake a pretty good living"

No country, with an opposing ideology, has ever shown the slightest bit of grtitude to us for humanitarian aide. They take the money, food, medicine, tents, whatever we are offering and go right along with their rhetoric. Iran in the latest earthquake is a prime example.

Stripping 1/3 of the budget we spend to defend this nation and spending it, in the hope that throwing more money at them will make a difference, seems a fool's gamble to me. It might pay off, but it likely will rsult only in us being 1/3 less prepared and those we are helping liking us 1/3 more. Of course when they like us 0, that tends to be self defeating.

Extolling what we could do if we did away with a carier battle group, ignores what we do with them. The carriers give us the ability to project force anywhere in the world. At the end of WWII, we had over 56 carriers and over 15 battle groups. As carriers have becomemore powerful, more versitle and aircraft have become more powerful, we have cut thenumbers dramatically.

For people with pie in the sky aspirations, it's always look what we could do if we cut the military budget. Yet these same dreamers and idealists, are the same people who ugre us to intervene all over the world to stop genocide, to delvier humanitarian aide, to act as peace keepers, to basically do the right thing for our fellow man. They seem blissfully unable to make the connection that we can intervene BECAUSE we have the capability to air lift supplies world wide in 48 hours, the manpower to organize relief efforts, the personelle trained to use the technology that saves live, and of course, the military strength to make a Milozovic think twice about using HIS military assets.

These people wold basically have you empty the cubborad, and then would be incensed when you had nothing to give the next time mother nature or man creates a crisis.

Quote:
Is it unfair to call the United States an empire? What an empire does is that it uses its military and economic power to control weaker peoples for its own interests. Let’s take a look at what we are up to. Right now, today, we have 800 military installations around the world. We have major bases in 50 different nations, and if they won’t let us in, we tell them we’ll boycott them right out of our market and so they do let us in. And Americans just take that for granted. How would we feel if Indonesia opened a naval station in Florida ? Or Russia an air station in Michigan ? Wouldn’t we say, "What in the world is this all about?" Yet we do this as though it were our birthright given us by God.

I think it's unfair to call us an Empire. Within the very narrow scope of the definition provided we are, but so is England, France, Germany, basically any country you pick utilizes it's economic and military assets for it's own betterment.

We don't stand up to the classic defiition,in that we don't have colonies. We don't impose the now defunt economic theory of mercantilism. Ogbashan will tell you that far from having economic might, we are the world's largest debtor nation. We've been the worlds only superpower for over a decade and yet the U.S. flag flew over no foerign soil, before the recent president (Us possessions and preotectorates excluded of course)

I could go on, disputeing the veracity of the core claims. But I think you will see my point. The base claim is that we should all be more godly. The base scenarios provided seem to support that we could and should be. Unfortuneatly, you are turning a blind eye to history and how it applies to reality. People (in the scheme of nations) aren't nice. Being nice to them, has not shown that it will make them any more well disposd to you. Life dosen't operate in a vaccum, and when you do something, it has consequences that are far reaching and hard to predict.

I return to the stripping of 1/3 of the military budget. I cannot say, with any degree of certainty that it WON'T make the world a better place. These theologians tell you it will, without any more sureity than I have in any real terms. The idealist, the altruist, the person who wishes to see the best in people will be very comfortable in the assertion it will. The pragmatist will be far more swayed by the person who admits they don't know, but can present sopme evience it might not work out the way the theologian perdicts.

I'm very pragmatic. It might even be a fair characterization to say I view the world through a jaundiced eye. As a pragmatist I look at such ideas with an eye to the supporting evidence. It isn't there. As a conservative, I'm very leeary of endorcing wholesale change without the certainty it will make things significantly better.

I hope this answers your question Dita and hasn't bored you to tears.

-Colly

Beautiful piece! Thanks.

Colly, you did not bore me at all, and I really appreciate the time you took to reply. I get some of your points (I always do), but I still get the message Maguire meant to send to the graduates even if his facts can be disputed. I believe the important thing is to think seriously about these matters, even in the arena of an argument or debate (though it's not my venue ).

hugs, Perdita

perdita said:

Colly, from you more than most I would like to know what your disagreements are. I don't want to argue, but I would like to know another view, at least yours.

Click to expand...

'Dita, I agree with most of Colly's rebuttal.

I would like to add a couple of counter-points:

The good reverend asks what we'd do if another country wanted a military base inside the US. The answer is that we do have "foreeign bases" in the US -- or at least we did have foreign military units sharing some of our airbases.

The German Luftwaffe at one time had two traiing squadrons permanently stationed at Geroge AFB, CA and Luke AFB, AZ. When George AFB closed in the late 80's that squdron moved to join the one at Luke AFB -- as far as I know, both are still there.

Nellis AFB here in Nevada regularly hosts British RAF squadrons and units from most of our other allies around the world for "Red Flag" and"Green Flag" exercises. Allied armored forces and infantry use some of the army and marine training ranges in Southern California both for thir training and in joint training exercises similar to the Air Forces' with our military.

Also, the good reverend made much of the cost of an aircraft carrier task group but failed to mention that other than Iraq and Kosovo, most of our aircraft carriers are used for humanitarian missions -- removing Americans from harm's way in a West Africa civil war, for just one example.

He would have made a much better point if he'd chosen to denigrate the Stealth bomber -- Each of which is almost as expensive as operating a carrier task group and has no intrinsic "humanitarian" purpose. The US is NOT the only nation with Aircraft Carriers (although the only one with "super-carriers), but it IS the only nation with, not one but three, intercontiental heavy bombers.

Finally, every time the US has drawn-down it's military, it's wound up in a war it was unprepared for.

I'd really lke to live in a world where the principles given were possible, or ven practical but unfortunatey I live in the real world and I'm a pessimist who feels the US needs a strong military.

Good points, Colly. There are almost intractable problems. While I agree the US should not be showering bombs on people, and maintaining tens of thousands of soldiers in huge bases around the world, it's far from clear that US generousness and largesse would change the planet. (Inspired by its well off-folks feeling guilty about their abundance.)

For one thing, the countries receiving 'largesse' tend to have corrupt systems that prevent the bounty from going to any but the elite and the army. While it's true that the price of one small bomb could build a school, taking the $5000 and getting a school built in village X, is a different matter; how many payoff should go to the local grand poobah's. And who, incidentally gets the 'credit' if the thing is built? Does it have a plaque saying "Built out of the generosity of your fellow men and women in the USA."

Here's a conservative thought: Maybe there's not too much the US can do overseas in different cultures and countries--except to stop directly harming them with bombs, new weapons for the their army's counterinsurgency efforts, training for their secret police, and so on.

Good article Dita.

Maguire needs to be corrected at one point though, according Sweden and war. It's thue that we haven't been in direct war for 200 years. But that's because we're cowards, who dodged and grovelled for Hitler. We were passive Nazi allies, and thus saved from war that time.

#L

I heartily dislike religion. I am a Theist, which means I believe in God, but not in religion. Almost every religion insists that they and only they are correct and the good ideas get lost in the squabbling with their rivals. Muslims blowing up Christians to spread the word of Allah, Jews blowing up Muslims for God's state of Israel, Catholics blowing up Protestants in Ireland. Most religions preach love and practise hate, which is why the only two I have time for are paganism and Sikhism (both of which accept that heaven/nirvana/paradise/etc can be found through other paths aside from their own).

This man restores my faith in Christianity though. Open, true and choosing messages of tolerance and charity. That is what religion should be about all the time.

The Earl

Liar said:

Good article Dita.

Maguire needs to be corrected at one point though, according Sweden and war. It's thue that we haven't been in direct war for 200 years. But that's because we're cowards, who dodged and grovelled for Hitler. We were passive Nazi allies, and thus saved from war that time.

#L

Click to expand...

Liar: I honestly respect you for saying that. Very few people have the courage to stand up and say that their country has done something terrible in the past. No justifications, no explanations. I respect that.

The Earl

This guy twists theology into politics. I'll write a longer response when I'm not so near bedtime, but I could definitely see the twisting and spinning going on.

The US's carrier battle groups are the ultimate defenders of democracy and freedom.

'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.' Theodore Roosevelt on 2 September 1901

Europe ought to have its own carrier battle groups to aid the US in protecting the world and all of them should be available to support the UN's peacekeeping role.

Disarmament in the 1920s and 1930s did not bring peace. Disarmament now is dangerous when the world is still a volatile place.

The end of the Cold War brought major cut-backs in UK and European defence budgets that are now having to be re-instated. The so-called 'Peace Dividend' was taken too far. The number of RAF fighters available to defend the UK from air attack (which could be mounted by terrorist groups, not nations) is pathetically small. The number of main battle tanks available to UK armed forces is equally small.

Armaments deter attackers. The ability to project power almost anywhere in the world is only given by carrier battle groups and military bases. Bases outside the US can be neutralised by politics in the host countries; carriers can operate wherever there is sea.

My comments about the US's economy still holds true. There is an economic war, as well as a war against terrorism. The US is losing the economic war and its allies are not helping by relying on US military forces instead of paying for their own.

In the ultimate test, only the US's forces can defend Europe, Australia, Canada etc from aggression. That is one reason why the UK will support the US with such armed forces as we have. We KNOW that our freedom depends on the backing of the US and has done since 1917. We held on, on our own in 1940 and most of 1941, but we would have eventually lost if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia and Japan hadn't attacked the US.

Even in 1941 before Pearl Harbor, we relied on war materials and even food from the US, an apparent neutral. The US's neutrality in 1941 was biased towards us and we should be grateful that it was.

The UK spends much government money and its citizens donate massive amounts in proportion to its population to support those facing starvation and poverty in the world. We even send people to ensure that the aid gets through to those who need and not to the local dictators. We try as does the US, to improve conditions in Africa, but much of the horrors there are caused not by drought or flood but by man's inhumanity to man.

Governments and 'Rebels' in many African countries have killed and are still killing more people than Saddam Hussein ever did. The French, much despised by many in the US, have troops on the ground stopping the killing in Chad, on the border with Darfur, and in other parts of Africa.

The US and the free world need those carrier groups to stop the rise of another Hitler or the militarists of 1930s Japan. Where will the next threat come from? I don't know. What I do know is if the US wasn't prepared for the unthinkable the world would be a much more dangerous place.

Og

Pure said:

Good points, Colly. There are almost intractable problems. While I agree the US should not be showering bombs on people, and maintaining tens of thousands of soldiers in huge bases around the world, it's far from clear that US generousness and largesse would change the planet. (Inspired by its well off-folks feeling guilty about their abundance.)

For one thing, the countries receiving 'largesse' tend to have corrupt systems that prevent the bounty from going to any but the elite and the army. While it's true that the price of one small bomb could build a school, taking the $5000 and getting a school built in village X, is a different matter; how many payoff should go to the local grand poobah's. And who, incidentally gets the 'credit' if the thing is built? Does it have a plaque saying "Built out of the generosity of your fellow men and women in the USA."

Here's a conservative thought: Maybe there's not too much the US can do overseas in different cultures and countries--except to stop directly harming them with bombs, new weapons for the their army's counterinsurgency efforts, training for their secret police, and so on.

Click to expand...

I tend to believe we make more enemies through foerign aide than freinds. I feel people tend to see american money, even for humanitarian purposes in the worst light, as some form of economic attack.

Foerign policy is very complicated, from economic interests to outright invasions. I don't think there is a simple answer. The truly conservative answer is to quote GW. Not the current one, but George Washington and avoid foerign entanglements. The liberal answer seems to be to scrap our army, tear down our powerplants, give all our money away and live happily with the birds & bees. Surely no one would take advantage of us?

There has to be a middle ground, between isolationism and idealism, but where it lies I can't say. Every action has unintended consequences. Pull our military from foerign bases you say? South Korea, Japan, much of Europe aren't military powers anymore because they have us to protect them. Jerk their protection and you might inadvertantly cause an arms race on abrogation of the Washington Naval accords magnitude. If we left South Korea are you confident the North wouldn't take advantage? Or are you willing to see South Koreans sacrifice their freedoms and put under an opressive military regime? It could happen.

If we aren't throwing bombs on people who's to do it? Iraq invades Kuwait, somebody has to stand up and say no. The UN sure can't. Not without the US lobbing tomahawks for them. This country is the proxy policeman of the world, whether we want the job or not. To take our toys and go home is every bit as reprehnsible as saddling up and riding roughshod over people.

A liberal approach to feirign policy will never work. Liberals are gutless. A conservative approach won't either, conservitves seem to have the John Wayne mentality. The approach has to be a carefully balanced combination of liberal kindness and conservative strength. It would take a real statesman to pull it off and I don't see any on the world stage up to the task.

The most destructive consequence of our electoral system is an almost schizophrenic approach to foerign relations. There is no continuity, no guideing principals, no sureity. From Jimmy Carter's turn the other cheek approach to Regan's kill the bastards approach, to Bush's coalition approach to Clinton's my polls are down, lets bomb someone to GW's what's a poll? let's bomb someone approach. You get the feeling other countries smile, take what they can get, but have utterly no confidence it will be the same in four years, that goes for good relations as well as bad.

With whatever approach you take, you can only rest assured that in four years or eight at most, your successor will have his own ideas about it and won't do it your way. We don't even really think about it much. But if you have a freind who is inconsistent, who's opinion is subject to radical change over night, you don't generally rely on such a person. Of all the things our policy lacks, I think it's the lack of consistency that is the most vexing to our neighbors in the world community.

"The U.S., friend or foe?" some leader asks.
"Freind, today," His trusted advisor replies.
" After Nov. 5? Your guess is as good as mine."

-Colly

Colleen Thomas said:

"The U.S., friend or foe?" some leader asks.
"Friend, today," His trusted advisor replies.
" After Nov. 5? Your guess is as good as mine."

-Colly

Click to expand...

"The UK, friend of the US, or foe?"

Whichever party is in power in the UK, the UK's answer is friend.

Whichever party is in power in the US, the UK's answer is friend.

Friends can say things when enemies won't be heard but when the chips are down you know who your friends are.

Og.

PS. Does no one in the US think it odd that Tony Blair, leader of the Labour Party, is backing the US? By US terms he is a liberal.

oggbashan said:

"The UK, friend of the US, or foe?"

Whichever party is in power in the UK, the UK's answer is friend.

Whichever party is in power in the US, the UK's answer is friend.

Friends can say things when enemies won't be heard but when the chips are down you know who your friends are.

Og.

PS. Does no one in the US think it odd that Tony Blair, leader of the Labour Party, is backing the US? By US terms he is a liberal.

Click to expand...

My apologies Ogs. I was not thinking in terms of major allies. I was thining more interms of Latin America, Africa & Asia, where our foerign policy results are at best mixed.

Fyi, Maguire is a former Jesuit, so Catholic. After great discernment he said he thought he could be a better Jesuit if he left the order.

He's a very intelligent mind, to understate it. He may well agree with the arguments against his ideas about military funding and spending, etc., but I think I need to emphasize that he had more profound points to make to his audience. As someone has already observed, he had a bigger picture on which to focus. It's only my opinion, but zeroing in on the faults of his 'facts' has little to do with his message. That's for politics. Maguire's words may seem to be politcally inspired or oriented, obviously the man does live 'in the world' with the rest of us, but politics is not the gist of his talk.

Earl, your words were heartfelt to me. I happen to live and work among religious people and I assure you there are many more Christians like Maguire. Mostly they choose to "live" their faith in action, vs. evangelizing or being political.

I'm just making some observations here, please don't think, people, that I want to steer anyone away from whatever comments you wish to make.

Perdita

TheEarl said:

Liar: I honestly respect you for saying that. Very few people have the courage to stand up and say that their country has done something terrible in the past. No justifications, no explanations. I respect that.

Click to expand...

*shrug*

No big deal really. I am a person, not a country, and I have no special love or pride or guilt for this patch of land. I just live here. It's the same reason that I don't feel any gender guilt for men oppressing women or racial guilt for whites oppressing blacks. I feel it's fucked up, and try to change it where I can. The same way I feel Swedens history is that of chicken shits, and tell the truth about it when the subject is brought up. But guilt? Sins of the fathers? Nope.

#L