. . . has been posted at Lingamish. Good job, pretty pictures, interesting stuff, nuff said!
Author: henry
-
Executive Accountability Loophole
. . . through which one could easily drive a complete tyranny.
MSNBC.com reports:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit from a man who claims he was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if the case were allowed to proceed.
Read the entire article. The evidence is there that this option has been misused, and how could one possibly expect that it would not be misused? It’s too nice of a loophole, and it sounds so good. “Your security would be compromised if we were accountable on this issue, so we get to do what we want.” Somehow this makes some people feel safer for completely unknown reasons.
This is one of those things that makes me want to hold my nose and vote Democratic, rather than holding my nose and voting Republican (not holding my nose doesn’t appear to be an option), simply because the Democrats are more likely to put judges on the bench who are willing to hold the executive branch accountable for their actions.
There are secrets that need to be kept, but somehow the courts need to find a way to keep accountability, whilst protecting them. Perhaps we need a law that would provide a special judicial panel that could review claims of “state secrets” in secret, and then rule on such a claim.
-
What I Want for Election Day – A Counter-Terror Strategy
It’s getting within a quarter or so of the first votes, so I thought I’d put in a few posts on what I, as a self-proclaimed moderate independent want for election day. I have to note that it doesn’t look thus far like I’m going to get it, but one can always wish, no?
The great weakness of our candidates, I believe, is that they lack any evidence of strategic thinking on dealing with terror. From one side we are hearing the “we’re in a war” beat, and we are told that we will go hunt terrorists for however long it takes and wherever they are hidden. What we are not told is how this strategy is ever to come to a close, or how the resources for such a strategy are to be provided.
On the other hand we have those who would pull out of [tag]Iraq[/tag]–an option devoutly to be desired in my view. At the same time, they haven’t laid out any long term plan that would substantially reduce or eliminate terrorism as a threat in the world. Iraq was a bad idea. Whether you are just plain anti-war, or simply prefer your wars to accomplish something, you can get on board with that. Incidentally, I would also like to see the withdrawal accompanied by an assessment of just what a foreign army can actually accomplish in Iraq, no matter how good that army is, and a measurement against that realistic standard. “Unified and democratic” isn’t likely to be on that list of potential objectives.
On the domestic front, it seems to me that we are in the business of kind of patching this or that element up haphazardly. What does a nation that is alert to [tag]terrorism[/tag], has the law enforcement and intelligence capabilities to detect such attacks, and can deal with the legal aftermath look like?
On the Republican side, it seems to me to look more and more like a terrorist state, where we just “trust” the executive branch of the government to do the right thing without any sort of accountability. More law enforcement is no good unless it is also smarter law enforcement. What will it be like to live in this country at the end of the process? I suspect that most of these candidates haven’t really thought about that. On the Democratic side, many candidates are interested in protecting our rights, but what precisely are they going to do instead?
I could suggest many things such as a large increase in the number of linguists and specialists in Middle Eastern culture in our government and intelligence agencies. Our current strategy and intelligence shows a great lack in that area. I’m not talking about a minor change–I’m talking about a massive increase. That is just one thing that I think is not being given the attention that it deserves. There are many others.
Do I personally have a strategy to propose? Not in detail, but then I’m not running for president. I can certainly tell you the key priorities of such a strategy.
- Military action limited to responses to attacks and search and destroy for specific terrorist targets. War is only a potential under the strict standards that require a short period of time and a clear improvement to result.
- Eliminate the option to prescribe a government for other countries. Let them figure it out, even if a dictatorship results. When the issue is genocide, respond with the international community, not unilaterally.
- Increase in law enforcement personnel and equipment. Much of the money being spent on Iraq would have been much better spent in this country. There are techniques and and technologies available to make travel much safer.
- Strong emphasis on intelligent intelligence.
- Education, education, education, both for personal safety and a better understanding of the world. We need a shift from a purely North-American/European emphasis in our historical and cultural education, to a greater inclusion of Asian, African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American material.
- Constant accountability. Nobody should be able to spend money, or more importantly kill people without having some responsible layers of accountability. Executive privilege and “state secrets” are being way overused. Some people may think this makes them safer, but instead it makes the agencies involved lazier, and less likely to pursue the highest probability activities.
I don’t want much, do I?
I’ll continue over the next few weeks with occasional posts on what I’d like to see in presidential and congressional candidates. Right now, I expect to be wearing a figurative clothespin on my nose when I go to the polls.
-
George Bush and God Concepts
A number of folks around the internet have gotten pretty worked up about [tag]George Bush[/tag]’s comment to an Al Arabiya reporter in an interview that he believes Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Here’s an extract (source: www.whitehouse.gov):
Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That’s what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren’t religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that — we had a person blow up our — blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that’s not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
Amongst those who have responded negatively to this is Joe Carter who applies considerable logic to refuting this idea that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Carter is pretty thoroughly convinced that it just can’t be so.
As a note to any liberals who are crowing about Christian conservatives turning on Bush, I must note that in my part of the world, Bush is often regarded as a liberal himself. Conservative Christians haven’t been all that much on board with him from the time of the primaries. He was certainly better than Kerry from their point of view, but he is not one of theirs. It shouldn’t be surprising that when he talks about religion, it’s not pure conservative evangelicalism.
Further, let me note for the record that I am a trinitarian Christian who accepts the incarnation as the central doctrine of Christianity. In other words, I believe that Christ was divine, and more specifically uniquely divine, i.e. not just having a divine spark, and in a way that I and other people are definitely not divine. Thus I differ from the Jewish and Muslim concepts of God.
But there are two major issues that I think run through this debate. First, one’s concept of God is, hopefully, something different from one’s God. In fact, worship of the concept is something I discussed in an earlier post Conceptual Idolatry. Second, just how “right” does one have to be about God in order to worship him? I’m going to very briefly look at these.
All of us have some sort of concept in mind when we refer to God. It may be a concept that we reject as impossible, or it may be one in which we put our trust. The quality and value of our concepts vary substantially, I would guess. God is not limited by, defined by, or fully described by our concepts. It almost goes without saying that as a trinitarian Christian my concept of God differs from the Jewish or Muslim concepts, amongst many others. It differs in smaller ways from the concepts of God held by my fellow Christians, including those who are worked up over George Bush’s concepts.
I would like to think that my concept of God is more accurate than mine. I come to the Father through Jesus Christ (John 14:6) and I believe Jesus gave the clearest picture of God for us. I don’t regard this as exclusive, since I believe one can follow a road without necessarily comprehending all the roadsigns. (If anything generates a comment, that one should, but I’m not going to explain further in this post, so there!) I am, however, fallible, and I’m quite certain that my concept of God is not perfect.
So we could replace the question first with this: Are our concepts of God the same? No. Are the similar? In many ways, they are not.
But if we are truly monotheistic, we believe there is only one God. So I think there is a second question: Can you worship God (the only one there is) when your concept is flawed, even seriously flawed? Well, Paul suggested that the Athenians did, in worshiping their unknown God:
?23? For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, To an unknown god. What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.” — Acts 17:23 (NRSV)
Paul, as reported by Luke, starts from the point of view that they are, in fact, worshiping this unknown God, even though they don’t know him, his attributes, his name, or anything whatsoever about him. Is Paul asserting a theological point here that one can worship a God one does not know? He could be simply starting from his opponent’s viewpoint in order to lead them to his, but it seems to me that he does allow that they are actually worshiping God in some way, however partially. Romans 1 and 2 I think expands on this idea quite a bit. People who do not know God explicitly nonetheless can serve him.
So I think the arguments fail on both points. That two people’s concepts of God differ does not mean they are worshiping two different gods, any more than the fact that my concept of my wife and someone else’s differ means we’re talking about different people. Further, one can worship something one does not know.
Does this mean that I accept the doctrines and concepts of Islam on the same basis as I do my Christian doctrines? Not at all. If I did, I would be a Muslim. I simply believe they are worshiping the same God, not because of how right or wrong they are (or I am), but rather because I believe there is only one God available to worship.
-
Dawkins and the Jewish Lobby
Ah, that’s a provocative title, isn’t it?
[tag]Richard Dawkins[/tag] is setting up an organization to help lobby for atheists. Despite my many serious disagreements with him, I don’t think that’s a bad idea, because atheists are viewed very negatively, and I think unfairly so. In fact, in many ways Dawkins himself is unfairly viewed in a negative light.
But in this Guardian unlimited story, the following paragraph is not going to help, especially here in the United States:
In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”
Now I would put this in perspective simply because Israel is viewed very differently here in the United States than it is in Europe, and the conversation is very different. But to a whole bunch of people I know personally, and a whole bunch more I know of, them’s fightin’ words!
As soon as you talk about “the Jewish lobby” and claim that they are monopolizing some aspect of American society you’ll be seeing the anti-Semitism charge come up pretty soon after. I’m moderately pro-Israel myself, and I think it’s extremely easy to overstate the influence of Jewish groups on the government. It’s also very easy to see “Jewish groups” where there are only groups with Jewish members.
All of this combines with a very real anti-semitic movement, and a prejudice that lies just under the surface in many places. I’m assuming that Dawkins is merely taking a more European view and is not himself anti-Semitic. I know many people don’t believe that’s possible, but I have encountered that position and respect it while disagreeing. But such language is going to provide ammunition for his opponents.
You think I’m overstating it? Joe Carter has already put it in his 33 things post today as “shades of anti-Semitism”. Oh well, I guess it’s fun harvesting questionable quotes from atheist speakers.
-
Race and the Legal System: A Perspective Check
As I have blogged occasionally about the [tag]Jena 6[/tag] I have been reminded of the very different perspectives that different people have on issues such as this. For white residents of Jena, a common theme has been the defense of their community, pointing out that they are not bad people, that they have a good community, and they have many positive values. Of course, they want to avoid the label “racist” which is so negative in our society. (For an interesting take on the radioactive nature of the words “racist” and “racism” see The Difficult Discussions People Don’t Want to Have by Pam Spaulding on Pandagon.)
For many of the African-American folks in that community, it is important to get the word out that they are not yet equal under the law, despite the desire of many of us to declare racism dead. They believe they are not being treated equally, and they want to be heard on the point.
For the large law and order constituency around the country the issue has largely been whether the young men who were charged did things that could be properly construed as fitting the charges. If they did, then of course punishment was appropriate. How can anyone question their treatment if they’re guilty?
For others, the primary focus is on annoying politicians. If one can catch Al Sharpton making an intemperate statement or glorifying these young men, then one has ammunition to attack any and all defenders. On the other hand, if one can find some white supremacists supporting the legal system, then one can use that to indict the system.
There are yet others who look for heroes or villains in black and white (pun intended), good young men who have been downtrodden by an evil system, or evil young men being supported by dupes. But the fact is that justice generally operates somewhere in the huge range of gray in between. We have no guarantee that only the guilty are punished. If you believe that the vote of 12 people really provides some kind of a guarantee, let me suggest you’re naive.
This whole situation connected with my own experience suddenly when I was reading a post on this issue from Michael L. Westmoreland-White, Racial Bias in the U.S. Courts: The Case of the Jena 6, when something clicked for me. I know conversations on this topic are difficult. We need to take a careful look at the problems involved from a different perspective.
This is no great revelation. It’s come to me before. I just hadn’t applied it in this particular case, and it’s something we need to do all the time. Reading the post above led me to this site, amongst many others, which provide some statistics. Please go to the site and see the more detailed information, but here’s something that gives a summary:
The official figures confirm what those who live in African-American communities know full well too many blacks are behind bars, particularly black men. Indeed, nearly five percent of all black men, compared to 0.6 percent of white men, are incarcerated.5 In many states the rate is far worse. According to Human Rights Watch’s calculations based on the 2000 U.S. Census, in twelve states more than ten percent of black men ages 18 to 64 are incarcerated.6 The Justice Department reports that nationwide, a similar percentage of black men in the ages 20-29 are behind bars.
Now here’s the thing. What is my first reaction to reading these statistics? Well, I want to “put them in perspective.” I want to ask just how many crimes are being committed by blacks as opposed to whites, I want to know what’s happening at their trials. I don’t want to be deceived by statistics. That’s one type of perspective. It has a great deal of value.
But there’s another one. If I hold a conversation on this topic with an African American, he or she is at least five times more likely than I am to have someone close who has had a negative encounter with police. Whether this is right or wrong, whether the police were absolutely pure in their motives and methods or not, this is bound to create a different perspective on the problem. I’m talking about how some theoretical person should be treating some other theoretical person. My worst brushes with the law have involved a couple of traffic warnings. I haven’t even gotten a ticket.
In learning to discuss this issue and seek solutions, I think this other perspective is more important. Somewhere in there we need to talk about crime levels, but we need to start by understanding that our experiences in approaching the problems are vastly different. It’s easy for me to say, “Well, if he’s guilty, we need to get him.” My African-American neighbor justly wants to ask, “If he’s white and he’s equally guilty, is he equally likely to go to prison.”
In the middle of all this we ought to ask another question–not my topic, but I’m going to mention it. With such high levels of incarceration in the African-American community do we also see a comparable reduction in crime that can be attributed to all this punishment? One of our great assumptions in this country is that more draconian punishments will produce less crime. It’s worth asking whether this is, in fact, true.
Let me just give an experience that help me with a perspective check. This occurred when I was 17 years old and newly employed. I was driving my employer’s van in order to pick up supplies, and I was traveling on a six lane street (3 in each direction) in a southern city. I was driving about 35 mph in a 35 mph zone, and was in the far left lane. A dump track in the far right lane carrying bags of garbage lost one bag. He was moving slower than I was–I would estimate about 25 mph. As I was passing the driver, he chose to swing from the far right lane to the left lane, pinned me against the media, and hit the right rear of my van. It turned out in addition that he was planning a U-Turn directly in front of a “No U-Turn” sign.
Now I was 17 and naive. I had also just returned from living with my missionary parents in Georgetown, Guyana, South America, where I had been the sole white member of my youth group, another perspective-altering experience. What does this have to do with the story? Well, the driver of the dump truck was a black man in his 60s. He simply kept telling the investigating officer that he had his signal light on, something which did not impress that guy at all.
Now you would think that the man was in enough trouble as it was. But when the officer handed me the accident report to sign, he had reversed our speeds. Now my speed read 25 mph, while the dump truck’s speed read 35 mph. Since I was going 35 myself and I had been passing the dump truck, I knew this was not possible. I pointed it out to the officer. He gave me a condescending look and said, “It doesn’t matter. Just sign it.”
Between that and the experience of testifying in court, I discovered that this black man in his 60s simply didn’t mean as much to the officers or the court system. I even mentioned the speed discrepancy in my testimony, but it was ignored completely. The appearance was left that rather than turning into my vehicle during a lane change while I was passing him, he had sped forward and practically rammed my vehicle.
I really don’t know the motivations of the officer for certain, but the lack of respect with which he treated the other driver provides evidence for the obvious. I was a nice, respectful, apparently intelligent white teen, and he was ready to make it look as good for me and as bad for the other guy as possible, even when that wasn’t necessary. I don’t know enough about the penalties involved to determine whether the changes impacted the sentencing.
I try to put myself in that man’s place from time to time. What if he had discovered a body? Is it possible the report would have made him look guilty of murder? Could he feel certain he would be treated fairly in such a case? His experience is bound to tell him he could not. In order for us to conduct a serious conversation on these issues, that perspective must be recognized.
-
Bread and Wine of Luke 17:5-10
I know this is late for those preaching from the lectionary, but through my Technorati watch on the tag [tag]lectionary[/tag], I found this post on Bread and Wine. I think the post helps clarify the passage very well.
With reference to God’s laws, I would add that in general what God has told us to do, God’s commands, provide a good way to live in the world. We have the reward of a life of integrity and of reaping what we sow. What part of that also provides us with a basis on which to demand that God give us eternal life? That is grace.
-
Psalm 137 around the Web
I have a tendency to get caught up in an idea. When I started adding a lectionary tag to posts that I thought were relevant to upcoming lectionary readings my intention was to simply tag things I was going to write anyhow, and also to encourage myself to write a little bit more about my devotional reading. Then I thought I might round up some related posts.
On Psalm 137, which I referenced yesterday on my Threads blog, Lingamish beat me to it by listing a number of excellent posts related to the Psalm in his post Psalm 137: A Dash of Theodicy.
Besides the posts he links to, I’d like to call attention to this post by Chris Heard at Higgaion. It deals with much more than just Psalm 137, but the methods used in dealing with other materials may be helpful in responding to this Psalm. He also correctly points out how often attacks on the Bible due to issues such as violence result from poor hermeneutics. Much of the debate on the inspiration and value of the Bible is carried out at a very simplistic level.
I should have read Chris Heard’s post earlier, but I simply never got to it. I found it via Bob’s Log, in which he is logging his work on the Psalms. He has a brief post on Psalm 137 here, and you can find his translation chart here. Bob goes a good deal deeper into the details of the Psalms than I normally do, and though I rarely comment, I find reading his material quite helpful.
Randy Ridenour, a mobilized Army Reserve chaplain, gives a very special take on this passage from “the rivers of Babylon.” Relevant interpretation can come in many different ways.
Keith McIlwain finds the passage very relevant:
I love Psalm 137, which refers to the Babylonian Exile, because it gives me permission to be angry at times and sad at times. Few things annoy me more than a continually happy Christian. Life can sometimes stink; sometimes, life is painful and makes us angry; sometimes, life is so painful, we want to cry. Psalm 137 gives us permission to go through these moments of agony.
Perhaps those who find this hard to preach from should consider the reality that is reflected by the Psalm. That won’t make it easy, but it may make it necessary.
-
The Human Face of Scripture
Psalm 137 came up in the lectionary for this week. Now there was a time when we would get this Psalm at least with the final verse left out. That verse reads “Blessed is the one who seizes your little ones and dashes them against a rock.” One should understand, of course, that this was a Psalm about/by Jewish exiles in Babylon, and that the Babylonians had done precisely that sort of thing to them. One strong element of the Psalm is revenge.
I was teaching a class on the Old Testament, drawn from the book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? once, and I asked people in the class whether they would feel the way the Psalm describes if someone had come into their community and killed their children. Would they want their attackers to suffer the same fate?
Person after person in the audience expressed their desire to be forgiving, and their disapproval of the attitude expressed in the Psalm. Then one lady, a grandmother, interrupted the flow. “I think many of us are lying to ourselves,” she said. “I would feel bad that I wanted it, because I know what Jesus said, but I would want them to suffer the same fate.”
Several people changed their minds. That one lady had given them some cover to be honest with themselves. The fact is that Psalm 137 is a very human Psalm, and a very real Psalm. It makes us uncomfortable, but I believe part of that discomfort is that we know that those feelings are not far from many of us.
Does this justify a search for vengeance? That’s another matter. It is an expression of the true desires. Perhaps what we need to do when we have such feelings is express them and then seek the grace to forgive. That’s another subject. My point right now is that the Psalm expresses who we are.
This Psalm makes me think about what the Bible actually is. I’m amazed at how frequently we decide what the Bible ought to be, and then try to force it to be whatever it is we think it ought to be. But we have the Bible itself and we can observe that it doesn’t fit these prescriptions we make for what it must be. People decide it must contain hard information sent from God by means of verbal dictation. Humanity should not have any real involvement. A little personality here and there, but no impact on the actual message.
But in fact the Bible displays a range of human attitudes, emotions, cultural baggage, and even mental capacity. God’s commands are not merely God’s commands; they are what people heard God commanding them to do. And communication is limited to the capacities of the least capable end of the line. Scripture displays both a human and a divine face. (See The One-Ended Cord.)
I also recently read a post titled Minimising mistakes in the Bible (or not). This is a good discussion of a minor Biblical error. The “error” a problem for inerrantists, who have to find a way to work around it. I would suggest, however, that it’s a natural part of the human face of scripture. The message comes through clearly, while there is a minor glossing over of fact.
People often assume that I don’t believe in inerrancy because I have a long list of errors in the Bible. But that is not my problem with the doctrine at all. For those who want to ask me for my list, I don’t have one. I’ve encountered many things that I put down to “the human face of scripture,” but I don’t keep lists of them, because to me they are not very important. I suppose that if I did not reject inerrancy on other grounds, such a list might become important to me. But as it is, I think inerrancy simply misses the point of a communication between a perfect God and imperfect (or at least limited) human beings. Such a communication is simply much more dynamic than can be described in the phrase “error-free.”
Scripture is divine, because it involves communication with God. It’s human because it is communicated through and to humans. Because it is what it is it requires careful and prayerful–Holy Spirit guided–interpretation and application, accomplished, of course, by humans, who are hopefully aware of their own limitations.
-
Random Interesting Links 10/5/07
Here are a few links to stuff that caught my attention, but won’t be getting more comment from me.
- Don’t miss this picture
- I think that Joe Carter is way too worked up over this. It’s a pin, after all. I’d take mine off, but then I’ve never worn one.
- Peter Kirk reports on some interesting translations suggested by children.
- John Meunier wonders if God created ebola.
- Thomas at Everyday Liturgy asks what reasons might cause a minister to deny communion to someone. Personally, I’d be concerned about taking communion without seeking forgiveness, but I would not deny it to anyone who chose to take it.
- Joel Gillespie has the radical idea of voting for someone he agrees with. That’s refreshing considering how many strategic voting plans I’ve been hearing lately. While Joel is pro-life he thinks there are a number of other issues that should be part of family values as well.
