Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • The Multiple Personality Disorder of American Foreign Policy

    A number of bloggers have been expressing their solidarity with the Egyptian people today. On that subject I’m going to suggest the words of two friends of mine, Allan Bevere and Bob Cornwall. Yet while I sympathize with the Egyptian people, I am going to comment on something else.

    Why is it that our moral outrage and our moral urgings as a nation and as a church often have little impact on the world at large? This is a question I hear occasionally. But I also hear expressions of confidence that, if we’ll just give voice to our moral position, we can change the world.

    The reason the American church is often not heard, I believe, is that American Christians are too closely connected with American government and American policy. The reason America as a nation cannot speak with moral force in foreign policy is that our foreign policy is not a consistently moral one. I have a book on my shelves comparing diplomatic justifications for our invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and those of the USSR for the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. The arguments sound eerily similar.

    We want our foreign policy to make other nations free and democratic, and at the same time we want those countries to support our foreign policy goals. Those are often contradictory goals, and our safety overrides our altruism and our crusade for democracy when those come into conflict. Yet often we try to pretend that our pursuit of self-interest in foreign affairs is actually an altruistic pursuit of the interest of others.

    One of the nicest things I can say about our attitude is that we really lack the intestinal fortitude to pursue and consistent policy of realism and self interest. But since we do try to pursue our self interest, even though we back off when things get difficult, we are not even viewed as a reliable ally in that pursuit.

    If we pursue democracy overseas, people will frequently choose governments we don’t like and pursue policies we oppose. We want them to be democratic, so long as they choose to do what we want them to do. We wanted a less corrupt government for Palestinians, for example, right up until they chose to elect Hamas.

    Now we have an Egyptian government we have supported for many, many years. We have known about the problems there for all those years. Now that the Egyptian people have put their lives on the line for their freedom, we urge reform. That’s better than not doing so, but don’t be surprised if people are not terribly impressed. Yes, it’s better that we urge reform and quit propping up the existing government. But …

    It would be nice, some time, to be ahead of the game, to support freedom before unarmed people are giving their lives for it, and to actually put our own interests on the line for the freedom we claim to value.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Is Civility Our Greatest Need?

    In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, much of the conversation has been about civility. I was just watching CNN as Wolf Blitzer interviewed Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona. The sheriff was asserting that the caustic atmosphere created by people making caustic political comments contributed to making Jared Loughner go out at shoot a congresswoman and a number of other people. Pressured by Blitzer, he admitted he had no hard evidence but said that’s his opinion as a veteran of law enforcement, I believe 43 years.

    Personally I get a bit nervous when someone can’t present any evidence or logic, and yet they cite their opinion based on experience. I think that if experience teaches you something you ought to be able to express it. Of course, it may be that Sheriff Dupnik is correct. The problem is that we don’t actually know that.

    Now considering that I regard civility as extremely important, why do I think this is important? Why don’t I just rejoice that people are focusing on civility as a result of this event? The reason is simple–accuracy.

    I recall listening to a hearing some years ago in which a candidate for Surgeon General was being questioned by a senate committe working on his confirmation. One of his claims to fame was a particular program to prevent teen pregnancy. One of the conservative senators asked the candidate whether the evidence showed that this program had actually prevented teen pregnancies and how many. When it came time for Senator Edward Kennedy to question the candidate he expressed dismay at that question. I was left to wonder just why it was wrong to ask for evidence of the success of a program.

    Now as I recall I liked the candidate in question, and I felt some of the questioning from conservative senators was less gracious that it should have been. Yet that was a question for which I would have liked an answer. Why? Again–accuracy. We need to know what government programs are actually accomplishing.

    And this remains my concern about the calls for civility. Yes, civility is necessary, but so is accuracy. Let’s say two candidates, A & B, produce negative ads. Given the state of political advertising, it’s highly likely that both sets of ads are inaccurate, but that’s another matter. Few people care about the accuracy of positive ads. There will be a certain amount of voter negative response because both candidates have
    “gone negative.” But evidence shows that some of the mud will stick, so candidates get value from negative ads.

    But are both candidates A & B wrong for going negative? Let’s suppose that candidate A knows something about candidate B that actually calls B’s suitability for office into question. Should A not let voters know about this? I would say that A should let people know, though he should do it accurately. Thus when candidates “go negative,” my first response is to ask two questions: 1) Is the negative information true? and 2) Is the negative information relevant? In a voting decision I’d also ask whether A has enough positives, but I ask that regarding any candidate.

    The problem, as I see it, is that we give equal weight to information being negative without first inquiring as to whether it is accurate. There are candidates who are unqualified for office. There are candidates who are morally unsuitable. If that is the case, we should be able to discuss it. I would prefer this be done by energetic and accurate media, but absent such journalism, I have no problem with the candidates doing so.

    Doubtless we will disagree as to what is a valid criticism and what is not, but again, that is the nature of political debate. In addition, I think we should do our best to present such accusations in the most civil, careful, and accurate manner possible.

    Yes, I think civility is important, but if we took more care with accuracy, I think much civility would be restored. Thus I think accuracy is a more important goal.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • The Bible and Abortion

    John Hobbins is off to a promising start discussing what the Bible says about abortion. I’ll be interested in seeing his take on Exodus 21:22-25, and may post some thoughts of my own when the time comes.

  • A Test to Determine if One is a Christian

    Early Christian ichthys sign carved into marbl...
    Image via Wikipedia

    I’m pretty annoyed to have judges trying to make a determination of whether one is a Christian based on their knowledge. That reflects a very poor understanding of Christianity that probably comes from someone who has grown up Christian and doesn’t really understand someone who is a recent convert.

    The story is here. At least the appeals court has sent the case back for review.

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • More on Spiritual Fitness for Soldiers

    I wrote earlier on this topic. Here’s another letter on the topic. I will only add that in my view there is simply no excuse for a Christian chaplain using the power of Caesar to attempt to get converts. I am strongly opposed to force and manipulation. This isn’t the gospel message and it misrepresents Christ.

  • What Makes a Person Great?

    3. Martin Luther King, Jr., a civil rights act...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man.

    Said today, that is a rather unremarkable statement. Back in 1968, when Martin Luther King was assassinated, it would have sparked intense, even violent, debate. To some he was a troublemaker. To others, evil. To yet others, he was a danger to society. And to certain parts of our society, to many broader structures that many felt were essential, he was a danger.

    In 1968, when I first heard of him, what I heard was not generally favorable. Nobody told me he was a great man. Our family had just returned from Mexico, where we had been for four years. I was just old enough to start thinking a bit about politics. What I first heard wasn’t good.

    Time has changed all that. Death and time makes people reevaluate their viewpoints. Time has seen the opinions of many shift so that many things for which Dr. King hoped do not seem so remarkable. We are still far from “free at last” but we have made some progress. I’ve read quite a number of favorable blog posts regarding this man today.

    I have to wonder whether he would be so well received if he were alive today. In fact, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be. And that troubles me.

    The cause of integration was right back in the 50s and 60s, yet many didn’t recognize it. How can we recognize something that is right now, rather than waiting for people to die for it.

    That’s what I’ve been thinking about as I can today. How can I get on board for the right movement today?

    I want to add one quote and link, because I hear so many Christians claim that just because something is the law, it must necessarily be obeyed. The following is from Dr. King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail:

    You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

    So the argument here is that a law that fosters injustice must be resisted.

    (HT: The Agitator)

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Making Events Fit Your Agenda

    While I would love to see more civil discourse, I still fail to see evidence that the shootings in Tucson are the result of excessively heated rhetoric. Here’s another good discussion of the way people are using the tragedy to advance a preconceived agenda.

  • It’s Broken!

    Soviet electric locomotive VL60pk (ВЛ60пк), c....
    A little bigger than the one we were playing with!
    Image via Wikipedia

    “I know what’s wrong with it,” said six year old Steven.

    From the eminence of 12 years old, I was showing Steven my electric trains, most of which I had salvaged from other sets and lovingly repaired. Suddenly one of the engines we’d been playing with just quit.

    That’s when Steven said: “I know what’s wrong with it.”

    I turned to Steven, wondering how he had figured it out. “What?” I asked.

    “It’s broken!” he announced solemnly. The look on his face told me he clearly believed he had solved the problem.

    I got quite a good laugh about that little incident, telling my parents and friends, and we all enjoyed the humor. Clearly the 6 year old’s lack of understanding was on display and very amusing. Knowing something is broken doesn’t mean you know what’s wrong, and certainly doesn’t mean you know how to fix it.

    But over the years since, I’ve begun to wonder. Nobody would really claim that just pointing out that something is broken means you’ve accomplished anything. Yet many, many people, who exceed age 6 by many, many years, behave as though this were the case.

    “My community is broken. People don’t talk to one another or know one another any more. Problems turn into lawsuits for no good reason.”

    So what is causing this? Where is the problem? How can it be fixed? Many of the same people have no idea and clearly have no intention of trying to fix it. They want to identify the problem and complain. Let me ask you this? When was the last time you did more than wave to a neighbor?

    “My church is going the wrong way. It’s broken! Things are falling apart! We’re losing members.”

    But what’s the problem, and what are you doing about it?

    I had an interesting experience with this once. I was leading a Bible study group, and somehow a text led to a series of complaints about our church.  Now there was a visitor there. I knew that she was the chair of our staff-parish relations committee. Those in the Methodist church know this is the group that theoretically deals with complaints about how the pastor and staff are accomplishing their mission. If you have a complaint in a United Methodist congregation, the SPR chair is one person to talk to.

    The rest of the group should have know who our visitor was too, but they didn’t (problem #1). The visitor pulled out a notebook as the complaints flowed, and started to ask questions. When did these things happen? What might be done? “I’m the SPR chair,” she said. She wanted to go do something about the complaints.

    What happened? The complaints dried up. Like six year old Steven, folks wanted to say, “It’s broken,” but they didn’t know where to go from there, or perhaps the desire to pursue the issue was missing.

    “Washington is broken. The politicians don’t listen to the people. We need to fix things!”

    One of my favorite questions at this point is to ask the person whether they voted in the last election. You might be amazed at how many complaints come from the non-participants. But if you want to get even closer to the problem, ask the person if they know how their representative or senator voted on the problem. If you want to get into even darker territory, mention state representatives, county commissioners, or city councilmen.

    Realizing that something is broken is important, but it’s the easy part. It’s where the work starts, not where it ends. At least if you’re not six years old, and thus don’t have someone else to make it better for you!

    (I’m submitting this to the one word at a time blog carnival, on the word broken)

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • What Would Jesus Do? – Gun Edition

    From Christian Girl at College, who has been writing an impressive number of great posts. I disagree with this one, but I think we should look and think. See my thoughts on personal gun ownership here.

  • In Case of Murder, Attack Some Metaphors

    I haven’t yet commented on the shootings in Tucson. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, all of them, not just those in federal service. I’m concerned when people are killed because of senseless or unnecessary violence wherever that occurs. I don’t say this to diminish the importance of an attack on a member of congress. There is a special importance to such an attack, and we should be deeply concerned. This we ought to have done, but not to have left the other undone (Matt. 23:23).

    But how should we respond? Too frequently we look for some sort of law that is going to make us completely safe from such things. But such safety, like complete safety from terrorist attacks will remain elusive. We need to reflect soberly on what will actually accomplish useful goals. I’m perfectly happy with the idea of looking at the type of weapons available and the people who can legally purchase them, though we again need to make sure that any such restrictions actually accomplish their goal.

    But then there’s the attack on certain target maps, or on certain ways of talking about one’s opponents. I think there’s a good summary of the maps over at Unsettled Christianity. They aren’t just made by one side. That’s important. But even more important, in my view, is this: They weren’t intended to incite or encourage violence.

    We use violent metaphors in much of our speech. There is even the entire Christian metaphor of spiritual warfare. Though there are some that seem to miss the metaphorical side, or the fact that spiritual warfare is not “against flesh and blood,” the vast majority of those who use this language intend no violence by it. I don’t believe that New Testament writers intended any such thing by it either.

    Now Congressman Robert Brady (D, PA) has introduced a law to prohibit certain expressions regarding public officials. One of his particular concerns is the maps I referenced above:

    “You can’t put bulls eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” Brady said. “I understand this web site that had it on there is no longer in existence. Someone is feeling a little guilty” (Source).

    I don’t know about feeling a little bit guilty. I’d rather say that, under the circumstances, the makers of the map though displaying it was in bad taste. That’s their decision.

    But making a law against metaphor, which is what this is, is not going to accomplish anything. It may make people feel like they have done something. It may make people feel more secure, but it shouldn’t. Some may think it’s insensitive to oppose something like this at a time like this. Proponents of such measures count on that feeling.

    But just because a law claims that it will make us safer doesn’t mean it will. No law will make us safe from craziness or evil.

    From the same CNN article:

    As for support for the bill, Brady said, “Why would you be against it?”

    Because it simply creates more laws without providing any more safety. Because it allows us to pretend we’re solving problems when we aren’t.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta