Went on a 20-mile bikeride yesterday -- the mall and monuments tour -- and as we were going by the White House there was a huge rally in LaFayette Square by Arabs protesting the situation in Lebanan, as well as in Iraq and with the Palestinians. Many wore bumper stickers on their backs that said I (heart) Beirut.
I also saw many large banners with sayings from the Koran about justice and peace. And I've gotta tell ya, while I have the strongest sympathy for the Arabs in all of these conflicts, I think using their religious beliefs to elicit sympathy and support won't be very successful.
Each side claims it is right and is the biggest victim here. Israel believes it is under constant seige from people who have stated over and over that they want to obliterate the country, and that it doesn't even have the right to exist. The Arabs are enraged by the Palenstinian struggle, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They believe their bible urges them to rid the region of infidels and they will be rewarded in heaven. Meanwhile they're slaughtering each other daily in Iraq because of different versions of that very same religion.
Despite that, and although Hezbollah did start things by kidnapping two soldiers, Israel's extreme overreaction is unconscionable.
The Christian right sides with the Jews because it firmly believes the rapture is coming and it will take place in Israel. So they cynically support the Jews against the Arabs, but think only they will be lifted up to heaven during the rapture because THEY are the truly righteous ones.
Political leaders (including Bush and his cronies) use religion and fear to further their own true ends, which are always land, money and power. Just look how rich and powerful Bush and the “Christian” right have become.
In the end, hundreds of thousands of innocent people -- mostly poor women and children -- continue to suffer and die, and war still seems to be the only answer. It's hard to believe we're still fighting and killing each other, as we've been doing for millenia, without learning any new lessons.
If everyone, especially political leaders, would just leave God out of it, and focus on the effects on human beings, on how we live together, how we treat each other, on what is right and on how to really achieve peace, maybe we could begin to solve these longstanding problems. As Sam Harris pointed out in his great book, The End of Faith, history and the present day shows that God is the problem, not the solution in any of these cases.
It seems so obvious. Yet unfortunately not a very popular -- or winning -- political opinion these days.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Amen Amen!
Sister Joan is awesome, and this says it all:
From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB
Aug. 4, 2006
Vol. 4, No. 15
What a couple of weeks this has been!
First we got a presidential veto of legislation designed to enlarge embryonic stem cell research capabilities which begins a major moral discussion for us all.
Then we got the continued pummeling of Lebanon -- men, women and children -- in retaliation for the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers and with the tacit blessing of the United States for the doing of it.
Finally, we're getting signals that Syria might be next in line for U.S. chastisement, no questions asked, no excuses acceptable, no holds barred. Whatever that implies.
And, on top of all of that, British officials and U.S. Pentagon generals warned of the rising threat of civil war in Iraq. British commanders called the next six months "crucial" to the outcome of the war we started there. Which translated means that more lives will be lost.
So what are we to make of all of that? What has happened to the world as we knew it? Has the United States lost its way in the world? And if so, why?
For years we've been saying, "It's the economy, Stupid." And I figured they must be right. Living immersed in the urban poverty around me, I never even thought to look any further for an answer. After all, it's world poverty that so often leads to wars. Give people financial security and we'll all be more secure, right?
But it didn't happen. Instead, things got financially worse and they got militarily worse, as well.
Obviously, the answer to today's social struggles was even bigger than poverty. So, someone else analyzed it differently for us: "It's the American Dream, Stupid," they said. And that seemed to make sense, too. If we could just get to the point again where we all concentrated on living out the dream that had guided U.S. policy for so long, life would be normal again, right?
But, though we have talked about the American Dream in every election for years, society simply goes on deteriorating -- here as well as everywhere else. The poor get poorer. The middle class has stalled. Patriotism has become militarism. Economic success has become corporate greed. And, most troubling of all, morality has become particularized -- which means that some of the Ten Commandments are being taken seriously, but some are not. Some morality is being politicized; most is not.
Evolution and cloning and same-sex marriage and abortion have become legislative hallmarks of U.S. morality. Torture and preemptive war, lack of universal health insurance, disregard for the care of the elderly and the welfare fraud of the wealthy (called tax breaks) are called "social issues," not moral problems. Yet all of those things have to do with the quality of life, the dignity of life and the sacredness of life.
Obviously, the "dream" is getting muddled.
Obviously, the problem is not simply the economy now, not only the diminishment of the dream. The problem now is that "It's inconsistency, Stupid."
We are living with two different moral systems. As a result, we are confused as a nation about who we are and what we do and why.
For instance, the White House announced recently that the president vetoed the bill that would have allowed embryonic stem cell research because "he thinks murder is wrong."
True, the next day, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow changed the language to say that what the President really meant to say was that stem cell research "involves a destruction of human life."
But the situation only proves the point. We are into terminal inconsistency here.
The administration presents itself as moral -- as "pro-life" -- but what does that mean?
The words change from day to day.
The ideas change from day to day.
The policies change from day to day.
The explanations change from day to day.
Inconsistency reigns.
Unfertilized microscopic cells are called "innocent life." The 25,000 Americans they stranded for days in Lebanon under siege are not, it seems.
Innocent or mentally challenged prisoners on death row are not considered defensible at all.
The 14,000 Iraqi citizens killed since January -- by us, because of us -- in this great war of liberation, are, apparently, not lives worth saving.
The people who die from the weapons we so blithely provide to countries around the world under the guise of "foreign aid" and "security" are not.
The babies in the United States that are dying from lack of proper medical care because of lack of universal US medical insurance are not.
The adults whose lives will be shortened because they can't eat well, live well or die well on the present minimum wage are not.
There is something inconsistent about all of this, something so skewed at its moral base that we can't even begin to talk about it rationally.
It's not that embryonic stem cell research is itself a clear-cut moral issue and should automatically be acceptable. In fact, there are lots of reasons to question it -- both one way and another.
Can it add to the quality of life of those innocents who are already living in great pain or disability? It certainly seems so.
But, on the other hand, will it also lead to "laboratory pregnancies" for the sole purpose of harvesting embryos for research? Surely it could.
Will it lead to pregnancy for hire? It's naive to say it won't.
Could it lead to petrie dish experimentation designed to produce monsters as well as healthy life? Of course it could.
Will it lead to black market activities for cells -- as is now the case with organ transplants? More than likely.
But that's not the point. The point is that when you are making life and death decisions on the basis of what life is "innocent life" and what is not, you are treading a very fine line. In fact, you are stretching what has now become an extremely tenuous concept, the very definition of life itself.
From where I stand, it seems that it is time to stop the glib answers and face the real question: What exactly is 'life?' Is it only "potential" life that must be absolutely protected, that is the only really 'innocent' life, or must the same standards apply to the living? And if so, what does that mean to our economic policies, our foreign policies, our social policies and "The American Dream" of life and liberty for all?
Until we answer these questions, how can we ever possibly arrive again at any kind of stable and universal moral standards -- no matter what we call ourselves?
From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB
Aug. 4, 2006
Vol. 4, No. 15
What a couple of weeks this has been!
First we got a presidential veto of legislation designed to enlarge embryonic stem cell research capabilities which begins a major moral discussion for us all.
Then we got the continued pummeling of Lebanon -- men, women and children -- in retaliation for the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers and with the tacit blessing of the United States for the doing of it.
Finally, we're getting signals that Syria might be next in line for U.S. chastisement, no questions asked, no excuses acceptable, no holds barred. Whatever that implies.
And, on top of all of that, British officials and U.S. Pentagon generals warned of the rising threat of civil war in Iraq. British commanders called the next six months "crucial" to the outcome of the war we started there. Which translated means that more lives will be lost.
So what are we to make of all of that? What has happened to the world as we knew it? Has the United States lost its way in the world? And if so, why?
For years we've been saying, "It's the economy, Stupid." And I figured they must be right. Living immersed in the urban poverty around me, I never even thought to look any further for an answer. After all, it's world poverty that so often leads to wars. Give people financial security and we'll all be more secure, right?
But it didn't happen. Instead, things got financially worse and they got militarily worse, as well.
Obviously, the answer to today's social struggles was even bigger than poverty. So, someone else analyzed it differently for us: "It's the American Dream, Stupid," they said. And that seemed to make sense, too. If we could just get to the point again where we all concentrated on living out the dream that had guided U.S. policy for so long, life would be normal again, right?
But, though we have talked about the American Dream in every election for years, society simply goes on deteriorating -- here as well as everywhere else. The poor get poorer. The middle class has stalled. Patriotism has become militarism. Economic success has become corporate greed. And, most troubling of all, morality has become particularized -- which means that some of the Ten Commandments are being taken seriously, but some are not. Some morality is being politicized; most is not.
Evolution and cloning and same-sex marriage and abortion have become legislative hallmarks of U.S. morality. Torture and preemptive war, lack of universal health insurance, disregard for the care of the elderly and the welfare fraud of the wealthy (called tax breaks) are called "social issues," not moral problems. Yet all of those things have to do with the quality of life, the dignity of life and the sacredness of life.
Obviously, the "dream" is getting muddled.
Obviously, the problem is not simply the economy now, not only the diminishment of the dream. The problem now is that "It's inconsistency, Stupid."
We are living with two different moral systems. As a result, we are confused as a nation about who we are and what we do and why.
For instance, the White House announced recently that the president vetoed the bill that would have allowed embryonic stem cell research because "he thinks murder is wrong."
True, the next day, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow changed the language to say that what the President really meant to say was that stem cell research "involves a destruction of human life."
But the situation only proves the point. We are into terminal inconsistency here.
The administration presents itself as moral -- as "pro-life" -- but what does that mean?
The words change from day to day.
The ideas change from day to day.
The policies change from day to day.
The explanations change from day to day.
Inconsistency reigns.
Unfertilized microscopic cells are called "innocent life." The 25,000 Americans they stranded for days in Lebanon under siege are not, it seems.
Innocent or mentally challenged prisoners on death row are not considered defensible at all.
The 14,000 Iraqi citizens killed since January -- by us, because of us -- in this great war of liberation, are, apparently, not lives worth saving.
The people who die from the weapons we so blithely provide to countries around the world under the guise of "foreign aid" and "security" are not.
The babies in the United States that are dying from lack of proper medical care because of lack of universal US medical insurance are not.
The adults whose lives will be shortened because they can't eat well, live well or die well on the present minimum wage are not.
There is something inconsistent about all of this, something so skewed at its moral base that we can't even begin to talk about it rationally.
It's not that embryonic stem cell research is itself a clear-cut moral issue and should automatically be acceptable. In fact, there are lots of reasons to question it -- both one way and another.
Can it add to the quality of life of those innocents who are already living in great pain or disability? It certainly seems so.
But, on the other hand, will it also lead to "laboratory pregnancies" for the sole purpose of harvesting embryos for research? Surely it could.
Will it lead to pregnancy for hire? It's naive to say it won't.
Could it lead to petrie dish experimentation designed to produce monsters as well as healthy life? Of course it could.
Will it lead to black market activities for cells -- as is now the case with organ transplants? More than likely.
But that's not the point. The point is that when you are making life and death decisions on the basis of what life is "innocent life" and what is not, you are treading a very fine line. In fact, you are stretching what has now become an extremely tenuous concept, the very definition of life itself.
From where I stand, it seems that it is time to stop the glib answers and face the real question: What exactly is 'life?' Is it only "potential" life that must be absolutely protected, that is the only really 'innocent' life, or must the same standards apply to the living? And if so, what does that mean to our economic policies, our foreign policies, our social policies and "The American Dream" of life and liberty for all?
Until we answer these questions, how can we ever possibly arrive again at any kind of stable and universal moral standards -- no matter what we call ourselves?
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Catholic Hall of Shame
After a lifelong struggle to hold onto my faith, I recently became an official -- and permanently -- lapsed Catholic. On top of the usual questions and skepticism about whether some supreme being could possibly have a hand in the senseless wars and poverty and cruelty in the world, the ongoing and relentless pedophelia scandal was the final basket of straws. Check out the latest:
http://www.ncrnews.org/abuse/
Unbelievable! And these are supposed to be the good guys -- lord help us.
http://www.ncrnews.org/abuse/
Unbelievable! And these are supposed to be the good guys -- lord help us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
