Category Archives: Political Commentary

April 29, 2009 · 22:33

How Pro-Life People Make Themselves Look Like Idiots

Note: This post will likely cause me grief but it has to be said. To preface this I am pro-life and anti-abortion. I fully support my Church’s stand on abortion. At the same time I am becoming more and more appalled by the less than informed, often illogical and many times  uncharitable comments made by those who claim to be pro-life on subjects other than abortion that they no little or nothing about. This post may come across as harsh but I mean it that way with no apology.

Recently I have seen some conversations and blogs by “pro-life” individuals lately that make me shake my head in bewilderment.  I am beginning to wonder if some people in the “pro-life” movement have lost all sense of reality.  I also am beginning to wonder if pro-life people are becoming the greatest threat to the pro-life movement.

What I saw today was a conversation by some in the pro-life movement about government’s efforts to ensure that the Swine Flu does not reach epidemic or pandemic status.  What I saw was to put it mildly, idiotic, unethical and un-Christian.  In fact I would view it as an argument that as a minimum seriously calls into question the judgment of these people.  At worst such actions and statements make me seriously if they are truly “pro-life” at all, and not just simply anti-abortion and the hell with everything else concerning life, especially if it deals with already living and breathing people.

The basic argument of these people, who I assume are well meaning, is that they object and find unreasonable government efforts to respond to the Swine Flu outbreak.  They called this into question because the “government supports abortion which kills millions of pre-born babies every year.”   Another commentator,  who obviously knows nothing about influenza or other infectious diseases, made very uninformed comments about the Spanish Flu of 1918-1919.  This idiot attempted to minimize it talking about the fact that medicine has advanced and there is better sanitation. Others were spouting inane comments like “woord!” I have to assume this is something like the Marine “oorah!”

Unfortunately there is a severe moral and ethical disconnect in the argument.  The problem with this whole line of reasoning says that we will fight like hell for the unborn but the hell with the “Post-born” simply because we are angry at the governments policy against the unborn.  Sorry, if you are truly pro-life they all count the same. Just because the “pro-life” movement has fixated on abortion doesn’t mean that people who are already born don’t count.  In this line of reasoning the unfortunate “Post-born” who have the misfortune of contracting the disease, well, their lives don’t matter.  Screw them because we disagree with government policy on abortion.  The claim by some that the government is  hypocritical because it puts money into trying to stop what history has show to be a really really nasty disease.   Remember H1N1 in 1918-1919 alone killed 50-100 million people worldwide. Admittedly, this was in a time when medical care for such problems was much less capable than current medical technology.  At the same time what took weeks or months to get around the world happens in hours. This  gives governments and other responders no room for error.  Likewise the population of the United States is about double what it was back then and unlike the 1918 we are a more urban and closely packed society. We are utterly dependent on interconnected transportation and logistics networks to maintain the supply of food, medicine and other essentials. These are delivered as they are needed versus stockpiled. A pandemic would seriously disrupt this network and cause chaos.  You think that the economy sucks now, it will be sucking like a Hoover if this happens.

Swine Flu or H1N1 targets young healthy people, the age 20-40 crowd. The writers of these posts will have great fun if this becomes and epidemic or pandemic.  I am sure that most of them are Flu Virgins.  In other words they won’t have the anti-bodies to fight this off if they get it.  This will really suck.  They get to die if this gets really bad, or best they will suffer greatly.  Over half the fatalities in 1918 were in this age group.  Just wait until decisions have to be made about who gets treatment and who dies in a pandemic.  You can bet that most if not all of these people will advocate for themselves and their families at the expense of others that they deem unworthy of life. It’s easy to be pro-life when your life isn’t the one in the balance.

So with this being the case, the logical person has to assume that these folks are not genuinely pro-life, but rather simply anti-abortion.  Unfortunately I am cursed with being a logical, rational and analytical I cannot limit my pro-life beliefs to simply protecting the pre-born.  That is a worthy mission but we also have to stand up for the right to life of the “post-born” too.

Conversations and arguments of the nature presented by the people I read today makes pro-lifers look heartless, cruel and hypercritical.  By making these comments they subvert their own efforts to protect the lives of the unborn.   The idiocy of these people’s conversation was absolutely mind numbing.  I almost wonder if the verse out of Romans can be applied to these folks.  “Claiming to be wise they became fools…”   Of course I applied that verse out of context, but no less so than I have seen others in the “pro-life” movement do.

I’m not going to re-hash last night’s post here, no will I go deeper in the weeds on the subject.  If people are actually interested in the Swine Flu they can read John Barry’s The Great Influenza” Alfred Crosby’s America’s Forgotten Pandemic and Pete Davies’ The Devil’s Flu. Additionally they can go and visit the evil government Centers for Disease Control at  http://www.cdc.gov/swineflu/ or the really super evil UN sponsored World Health Orgnaization at http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_04_24/en/index.html.  Unfortunately I fear that my words will fall on stoney ground. People who think this way haven’t a logical cell in their brain.

My point is that people who claim to be “pro-life” cannot allow themselves to submerge themselves into stupidity by making comments that are really anti-life. If followed to their logical conclusion the inane ideas spouted by these knuckleheads would allow millions of people to die in the event of a Swine Flu or Avian Flu pandemic.  If an unborn baby’s life is worth going to jail for in a protest, what is the value of the already born?  Oh wait according to the logic applied by the people that I saw today, absolutely nothing.  To protect the unborn they have become “anti-life.” That’s just sad.

This is painful to watch.  What ever happened to any theological, philosophical, ethical or personal reflection on the value of life?  What ever happened to the “pro-life” movement?

Peace,  Steve+

3 Comments

Filed under healthcare, Political Commentary, Religion

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 28, 2009 · 22:42

Don’t Mess With the Pig- The Swine Flu is no Joking Matter

I am not an alarmist by any means.  I am a realist and a historian.  If we know anything from human history there have been great plagues as well as epidemics and pandemics of various types.  Our world is rich in life and beauty but it is also full of really really nasty diseases that on occasion get loose and act really really bad.   Influenza, which normally kills about 30-40,000 people annually in the United States is one of those ugly nasty diseases.    Even mild cases can make you want to die and this is the easy stuff.  I’m not smart enough to make a prediction that the Swine Flu will be the next big pandemic, but it has potential and that potential needs to be addressed to ensure the safety of everyone, even lawyers.

The Avian and Swine variations of the flu are like normal flu on steroids.  They kill if they are not contained quickly.  The last scare we had with the Swine flu was back in the 1970s.  I remember getting the vaccine for it.  Hopefully those anti-bodies as well as all the ones from every other flu bug that I have been vaccinated for or exposed to will keep me safe with good preventive measures. That bug was contained and it did not become an epidemic.  Because it didn’t the pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccine were beaten down.  A small minority of people had side effects from the vaccine.  The pharmaceutical companies, for all their faults, got hosed on this.  They had their asses sued off and were not protected.  Maybe we should pray, like Henry IV that if this Flu becomes a pandemic that it kills all the lawyers first.  People, especially we Americans then developed the attitude that this is not a threat.  This attitude could cost us big if we are slow to react.

The fact is there will be another epidemic or pandemic.  The really big one was the Great Influenza or the “Spanish Flu of 1918-1919.  This was nasty a virulent strain of Influenza A subtype H1N1, the same subtype as the current Swine Flu. It killed people by the millions worldwide, most of whom were the young and able bodied.  Thousands of US Soldiers in France and Stateside Camps got sick and died with the first outbreak in the US coming at Ft Riley Kansas.  Back then there was no mechanical ventilation nor antibiotics. So if you were blue from lack of oxygen you were put in the “you’re going to die line.”  Back then the mortality was about 2.5-5% with anywhere from current estimates 50-100 million deaths world wide.  In the United States it is estimated that 28% of the population was effected with between 500,000 and 675,000 fatalities.    More than half the fatalities were in 20-40 age group.These were the “Flu virgins.”  Regular Flu kills the elderly and young children, this Flu was different, it ate up the young and otherwise healthy people with no immunity.

With supportive care in the United States and other first world countries that will be significantly lower but still catastrophic.  Estimates range to 2 million dead in the United States alone.  Because we are a much more fluid society in the event of a real pandemic the government will have to take draconian measures.  These will have to ensure that public safety limiting movement, deciding who gets vaccines first and who gets treated the most acutely with the coresponding reality that in a pandemic there will be people for whom the best you can do is palliative care. This will offend sensitivities of religious people, good hearted “secular” humanitarians as well as various political factions.  Civil Libertarians will be outraged.  Media goons and talk show hosts will rant against the government.  Conspiracy theorists will come out in droves.  Unfortunately if this outbreak becomes a epidemic or even a pandemic drastic actions may be required until the emergency passes.   Marital Law may be an option.  I’m not a big fan but if this gets really ugly it may have to happen.

I am an ICU chaplain.  Really bad Pneumonia’s are a pain in the ass to treat for Intensivists and quite often exacerbate or cause cause problems in other organ systems.  This flu and the Avian flu produce pneumonia’s in spades both viral and bacterial. In the Spanish Influenza it was the bacterial pneumonia’s that killed the most people.  Through in ARDS, pulmonary edema and hemorrhages in the lungs.   If you have ever been in an intensive care unit and seen a young person on a vent battling a pneumonia and barely hanging on to life then grab your seat.  Lot’s of young people will die.  Likewise there will not be enough ICU beds and ventilators to go around should this reach the pandemic stage.  Resources will be short and physicians and government officials will have only bad and worse choices.  Those in the front lines of the battle, young physicians, nurses and technicians will be among the casualties.

I am not privy to any plans of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense or CDC.   However, I am graduate of the USMC Command and Staff College.  I am sure that both departments have been preparing for such case since the Avian flu started showing up in the 1990s, as well as the threat of terrorists using biological weapons post 9-11.  Unfortunately there are some who would see what these agencies are doing to plan for a worst case scenario as some diabolical plot, a conspiracy theory to make the government more powerful.  If fact there are some of the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge that are alleging a government plot to engineer such a virus.   I have seen this from both left and right wing bloggers and I’m sure that their message will get out and cause people to act stupidly and jeopardize public health.  In other words, they will damn everyone else, and do what I want even if it means that they spread a virus that will kill those around them.  Sorry this is selfish, irresponsible and just plain idiotic.  Prudence is the watchword.

On my way to the ball park I heard a radio talk show host talking about the “Napolitano Flu.”  He was taking a shot at the Secretary of Homeland Security.  Unfortunately for the millions of listeners this man and others like him will not take the threat seriously.  I’m not going to say that there will be a pandemic with this outbreak.  However, a pandemic is bound to happen and when, not if,  it happens the blood of these people’s listeners will be on their hands.  Ignorance and idiocy in encouraging stupidity is not a virtue even if you have valid criticisms of the way the government is handling the situation.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on this.  I hope it goes away.  I don’t want any of this to happen.  Anyone with half a brain doesn’t want it to happen. However it will someday and maybe even with this strain.  God I hope not.

Peace, Steve+

2 Comments

Filed under healthcare, History, Military, Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 1, 2009 · 22:13

The Unprincipled World of World Net Daily

I wonder about some folks sometimes.  I’m a want to get along kind of guy. I always believe that there is room for spirited debate in the political process of the country.  I believe that the opposition party to the sitting President and or Congress also have a necessary responsibility to principled resistance to proposals of the other party which violate their core beliefs as a political party.  At the same time there is also the need to work together to find solutions that both parties can accept, it is the art of political compromise and once a hallmark of our nation.

Of course the most strident on the political Left and political Right tend when out of power to do things that make themselves look stupid.  Likewise, they hate the opposition,  They loudly advocate positions that not only attack the political figure that they hate, but the country as a whole.  There have been those on the Left who  have done this, especially with President Bush.  However, even more unseemly has been the response of some “conservatives” who have gone from principled opposition to irresponsible rhetoric.  This type of behavior if done by a liberal who ignite a firestorm on the Right.  If a liberal suggested secession from the Union or openly wished the failure of a conservative President there would be an outcry.  If a liberal organized spurious legal campaigns well after numerous courts consistently rejected their arguments following an election, talk radio hosts would crucify them.  If  liberals encouraged soldiers in war zones to disobey orders from the conservative President, there would be a blistering conservative response. Liberals who did so would be called traitors and the Right would call for charging them with treason.   If a liberal published blatantly misleading articles to deceive uniformed readers about policies of a conservative President, conservatives would cry foul.  If a liberal group formed their own “Common Law Grand Juries” to bring charges against a conservative President, conservatives would would be beating the airwaves and petitioning the courts and Congress for redress. Unfortunately it is supposed conservatives led by World Net Daily who are doing all of these things.  The behavior is unseemly, crass, histrionic and unprincipled.  It is also extremely dangerous in an already polarized society.

Unfortunately, these are the actions of supposed conservatives to President Obama.  “Conservative news sites” such as World Net Daily, many talk radio hosts and many other supposedly conservative “news” outlets are doing these things.  I do not question these peoples patriotism.  I do believe that they love the country very much.  I do however question the manner in which they make their opposition known and the hatred for their opponents that seems to drive them.  When one party has power and controls the White House as well as both Houses of Congress and fails they tend to lose elections.  The consequences of losing just suck. The other party, especially if it has a majority sizable majority Congress can pretty much do as it wants. The losing party if it is smart figures out what it needs to do to win next time.  That is politics, that is life.  It sucks to lose.  Ask the Democrats.

Many on the political right have moved from principled political opposition to very dangerous rhetoric which espouses succession, stockpiling of arms and the formation of private militias led by “patriots.”  This is extremely dangerous.  Writers like George Will and the late William Buckley are example principled opposition.  Ronald Reagan, a saint to the Right treated his opponents honorably and never stooped to this level.   The same is true of conservative icon Barry Goldwater. Joseph Farah, Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Alan Keyes and others on the radio such as Sean Hannity have led this march to the abyss.  Numerous talk radio hosts call themselves “the conservative underground” while broadcasting to millions of listeners on public airwaves.  Farah and others have led many of the actions that I described previously. All of them will be responsible if some lunatic or some group undertakes violent action.

This is dangerous and irresponsible.  It is similar to the behavior of radical Imams in Iraq who were in large part responsible for much of the violence in that country.  The Iraqi Army historically had Imams, however due to the behavior of Sunni and Shi’ite Imams and Mullahs many senior officers refuse to bring them into service.  I had one General tell me that the Army did not trust them because of their actions.  I had another Iraqi officer, a Sunni Moslem say that he wished his Army had Christian priests to care for his soldiers and their families, because they did not have a political agenda like the Imams and would care for his soldiers.   Like the irresponsible Imams in Iraq who incited violent actions which helped rip that nation apart, the kind of opposition exercised by Farah and others discredits the very ideas that they say that they are defending.  They are playing with fire.  Their actions very well could push unstable individuals into taking violent action against the government and their fellow citizens.  As a military officer I find this disturbing.  These are the same tactics that Nazi sympathizers used to undermine the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic and undermine the authority of the military leadership of the Army and Navy.  This happened in the middle of a world wide economic crisis.  Does this sound familiar? The result was a disaster for both Germany and the world. Farah and his ilk are convinced of both their cause and their rightness in doing so.  I would never suggest taking their freedom to speak away, nor am I am not calling them Nazis or Facists. I only seek to show how the methods they are using are both irrepsonsible and dangerous. Unfortunately these people  are marching into an abyss that will destroy them and harm the nation whose Constitution that they claim to cherish.  God help us all if they continue down this path.  Peace, Steve+

3 Comments

Filed under History, Lies of World Net Daily, Political Commentary

March 28, 2009 · 12:07

The Practical Side of Gays in the Military

Note:  This is not a political or social screed.  I am not advocating immediate changes in law. this is really how I have seen military culture evolving over the 27 plus years of my career. These patently are simply my observations and have both a bit of seriousness as well as humor.  I am most definitely a dyed in the wool heterosexual, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I think that someone without a political axe to grind on either the gay rights or anti-gay rights movement who is in the military have to have a say.  I know that I could be wading into Vietnam here but here I go….

When I enlisted in August of 1981, gays were not allowed to serve in the military.  It was even on the recruiting form. Applicants were asked under the penalty of making a false official statement “Are you a homosexual?”  Who can forget the scene in Stripes where Bill Murray and Harold Ramis are asked by the Army recruiter “Are either of you homosexual?” Their reply was a hoot.  They looked at each other and Bill Murray replied “you mean like flaming or…” The recruiter then said “It’s a standard question we have to ask.” Harold Ramis then quipped “We’re not homosexual, but we’re willing to learn.” Bill Murray adding “Would they send us to someplace special?”  The recruiter then ends the exchange  “I guess that’s a no on both.”  It was a hilarious scene as we all had to answer the question.

Plain and simple if a person lied about being homosexual and was later discovered he was in deep dung, even an accusation of being gay could result in being charged under the UCMJ or at the very least investigated.  Soldiers could be taken to Article 15 proceedings  (Captain’s Mast in the Navy, Office Hours in the Marines) or possibly even a courts-martial. Depending on the charges one could recieve a punitive discharge, such a Bad Conduct Discharge, or administrative discharge under a General, General under Other than Honorable, or Other than Honorable conditions.

Back in my days as a company XO and company commander in the 1980s I had a number of soldiers, male and female who I knew that were gay.  I had grown up in California, had gay friends and even when someone was hiding it I pretty much knew.  If I was homophobic I could have made accusations, began investigations and made these soldiers lives hell.  At that point in time there were a good amount of people in the military who would of done just that.  These soldiers were exemplary in the way that they conducted themselves at work.  They were professional, knowledgeable and I never once had to take any of them to article 15 proceedings for any reason. They never refused missions, they were exceptionally responsible, and good leaders.  As far as their personal lives they were discreet. I am sure that if they stayed in the military that they probably maintained that balance.  I don’t know what happened to them later on, but they were great.   I took over company command as a very junior 1st Lieutenant. The unit had the highest drug abuse rate in Europe with more disciplinary problems than you could shake a stick at. I wasn’t about to go after soldiers who were not giving me problems, I had far more pressing matters on my plate.  I guess you could say that I was exercising the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy 7-8 years before it became policy.  My philosophy then as is is now, is that if someone is willing to serve honorably and endure the hardships and dangers of the lives of military professionals then they should be able to regardless of the way that they are wired.  My issue then and now applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals who are predatory or push themselves sexually on other soldiers causing problems with good order and discipline and unit cohesion. I have to say had far more problems with my heterosexual soldiers in this regard than my homosexual soldiers. My homosexual soldiers were discreet in their personal lives and very professional, some of my heterosexuals were neither discreet nor professional in thier sexual lives and relationships.

When I served as a personnel officer at the Academy of Health Sciences I became CINC AIDS.  I was the most junior of the Medical Personnel Officers, serving as the Training Brigade Adjutant.  It was at this time that we began having soldiers test positive for HIV and develop AIDS.  I worked with representatives of the Army Surgeon General’s Office to develop personnel procedures for HIV positive soldiers.  These policies gave them the opportunity to serve honorably and at the same time ensured that they did  not endanger others through their sexual conduct.  Since I was the junior guy I got to deal with all the cases of officers who had been diagnosed with HIV.  No one else wanted anything to do with them. While the world around me raged with apocalyptic screeds of those convinced that this was God’s judgment on homosexual; those who prophsyed how this virus would become a pandemic infecting people willy-nilly through casual contact, I dealt with real people.  These officers who wore the same uniform as me.  Some I knew were gay, but some were straight.  When an officer came to my office who was not on our brigade staff and the door closed, there was a good chance that the visitor had just received the news that they had an infection that would cause a process that would kill them.  They had received a death sentence.  I was a Christian and knew that I was going to be going to seminary after this assignment.  I could not see how Jesus could reject these folks.  While assigned there we had the first trial of a soldier who was intentionally attempting to spread the HIV virus among his coworkers.  He was a heterosexual and was a sexual predator.  He was taken to courts-martial and convicted.  As he was now in the latter stages of the disease process and battling the opportunistic infections which actually kill you he was sentenced to 6 months in Leavenworth.  I doubt that he lived that long. The experience of dealing with these officers taught me the torment that many homosexuals go through.  Following my time in the Army while in seminary and after it I worked in a variety of social service organizations and hospitals.  I knew many and work alongside many gays without a problem.

When President Clinton enacted the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy there was public outcry, especially in the military,  I had no problem with the policy as I think that everyone should be somewhat discreet in their sexual habits, especially in the military. Regardless of sexual orientation it is always important for military members to conduct themselves in professional manner, and  not only in sexual matters.  It is always a matter of good order and discipline.   While the policy made no one happy, gay activists did not think it went far enough and anti-gay forces hated it, I think it was a wise policy.  The President may have erred in the way that he announced it, but I think it was still the right thing to do at the time.

Since then our society as a whole has changed in its view and treatment of homosexuals.  There is a lot more acceptance of them now and many more people are openly gay.  I think that those who hid that aspect of their lives in earlier times now feel safe enough to come out.  Yes there are those who vehemently oppose any form of equal treatment for homosexuals, but there is a lot more acceptance. There have been famous military leaders who were gay  including Frederick the Great who was forced to marry but kind of liked other guys better.  Lord Kitchner and Sir Hector Archibald MacDonald, both distinguished officers were homosexual, MacDonald committed suicide when notified that he would be courts-martialed for his homosexuality.   There were constant rumors when I was in the Army about senior leaders who were suspected of being gay.   While a majority of military members polled opposed the Clinton administration change of policy, it seems to have worked.  There still are objections by gay rights activists that the policy is too restrictive and opponents who desire for it to be repealed, but in large part there is no problem.  Other countries  the British, Canadians and Israelis and a number of other European nations all allow homosexuals to serve in the military. Contrary to claims that the policy would destroy the military there is nothing to support that.  In fact the US Military has been more heavily engaged on multiple fronts since the policy went into place and done well despite being undermanned and often over-committed.

The Rand Corporation had a study of how allowing gays to serve would impact the military suggested the following was of ensuring that such a change would not endanger good order and discipline or unit cohesion, the two most critical aspects of any change.  They suggested:

  • A requirement that all members of the military services conduct themselves in ways that enhance good order and discipline. Such conduct includes showing respect and tolerance for others. While heterosexuals would be asked to tolerate the presence of known homosexuals, all personnel, including acknowledged homosexuals, must understand that the military environment is no place to advertise one’s sexual orientation.
  • A clear statement that inappropriate conduct could destroy order and discipline, and that individuals should not engage in such conduct.
  • A list of categories of inappropriate conduct, including personal harassment (physical or verbal conduct toward others, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or physical features), abuse of authority, displays of affection, and explicit discussions of sexual practices, experience, or desires.
  • Application of these standards by leaders at every level of the chain of command, in a way that ensures that unit performance is maintained.

It has been over 15 years since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy went into effect.  I have noted that while some military members still vehemently oppose gays serving in the military, that quite a few, officer and enlisted, especially those under the age of 30 are much more tolerant than were those of my era.  I was talking with a couple of military doctors and a hospital corpsman, all of us committed heterosexuals, not that there’s anything wrong with that the other day and the subject came up in a humorous way when discussing ways to get out of the military.  The corpsman noted that saying you were gay was one way, and I said, at least for now it was.

As we talked we all agreed that anyone willing to serve in the military at this point of time should be able to so long as they meet the professional standards of the services.  This is no gravy train.  Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen are constantly deployed and putting themselves in harms way.  If a gay wants to commit his or her life to the service of this country, who am I to object?

From a practical and somewhat humorous standpoint we have to acknowledge a number of things about gays, especially gay men.  Many are very well educated successful professionals.  Most seem to have a far better sense of taste and style than most of us on the heterosexual team and quite a few are very physically fit and health conscious. Anyone who has ever served in the military knows that we are not known for the greatest living conditions, food or ascetics.  Military housing, both barracks and family quarters tend to be rather boring, and often substandard.  There is not a lot of imagination in most military dining facilities, and the ascetics and design of many of our buildings and bases leaves a lot to be desired. Can you imagine if we let these guys serve.  Our bases would look a lot better and well kept.  Our living quarters would be nicer and more ascetically pleasing. The food would definitely go up in quality and we would get some highly qualified folks in the service, especially in some of the more scientific and medical specialties.  As a married heterosexual who is a uniter and not a divider I see all of this as a win win situation.  Who could be against that? I would have loved to drive onto bases where buildings and landscaping were done well, where you didn’t feel like you were driving onto a prison.  I’d love to work in buildings where there was some sense of style and artistry, where when you walked in you didn’t think you had walked onto the set of a WWII movie.  I would love a nice selection of food that was both healthy and tasty.

Will this happen anytime soon? I don’t know.  I suspect that at some point the President and Congress will address the issue and if it is changed I expect little practical change in the military.  We will keep deploying and doing our job, some people will be upset and some won’t, but I think there has been enough societal change over the last 27 years to allow this to happen relatively smoothly.  Will some people be unhappy, will crusades be mounted against it by some?  I think that there will be and some of this may take an ugly turn.  However I think that this will come more from the outside, but that in the end the military will survive and continue to do well.  After all, this is all well above my pay grade.

Peace, Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under Military, Political Commentary

Tagged as , , , , ,

March 20, 2009 · 22:05

Christians are not above the Law: Dangers of Civil Disobedience

I’m back at home and now somewhat relaxed after my conference and travel this week.  Despite everything I was able to take some things away from the conference, mostly from the informal gatherings.  This is something that I took away from one of those times drinking beer and eating donuts with my brother combat veteran priests.

I have never been a fan of civil disobedience mainly because of my experience.  I was a Navy brat during the anti-war protests of the 1960s and 1970s and a Sunday School teacher told me that my dad was a ‘baby killer.”  In college I had things thrown at me and was verbally assaulted when walking to class in my Army ROTC uniforms.  In 2003 I had to walk through a crowd of Iraq war protesters to get to a Starbucks in Jacksonville Florida, they too were rather abusive and disrespectful.  I believe that “Nazi” was the kindest word used by these people. As such I am wary of any protest movement. I believe that they can get out of control and devolve into something destructive to their actual often noble goals.

I believe there are times when a government can make laws which are unjust and need to be corrected.  Prime examples include slavery and civil rights.  Many Christians apply the same standard to Federal and State Laws which allow abortion.  Many in the early days adopted the protest models of the 1960s as ways to exercise civil disobedience.  I think there is a time for this and a way to do it right, but those who decide to take up the methods of civil disobedience need to be very careful of the slippery slope and often unintended consequences of their actions.

I am against abortion.  The vast majority of abortion opponents are peaceful and law abiding. However there is a radical fringe in the anti-abortion movement, just like those in other movements who endanger all who stay within legal means to change those laws. The fringe has become even more vocal and incendiary since the election of President Obama.  As a Regular Navy officer I may have my political viewpoint and party affiliation but have to remain apolitical. My models are men like George Marshall and Colin Powell who were able to serve under Presidents of both parties in trying times.  Some may see this as wrong.  However it is a deep part of our nation’s military tradition and as a Christan and an officer I am distinctly uncomfortable with people who commit blatantly illegal and often immoral and hateful acts to eliminate something that they see as evil.  I’m sorry, one cannot as a Christian use the “end justifies the means” approach to changing what they disagree with.  I may agree with one’s cause, but will not in any way support illegal or potentially deadly means to correct a problem.  It took William Wilberforce decades of parlimentary sessions to slavery abolished in England and end British particpation in the salve trade.  He did it though and did so without a civil war.  The way we oppose things matters and ends can never justfy the means, if the means are wrong.

The actions of fringe elements and rouge actors have often hurt the pro-life movement. Actions by some were so extreme that Janet Reno, President Clinton’s Attorney General considered labeling anti-abortion groups as terrorist organizations. This was not aimed at peaceful protesters but rather the actions of people who bombed abortion clinics, killed physicians who performed abortions, and either verbally or physically assaulted women going to abortion clinics.  These people claimed to be obeying a higher law and executing God’s judgment on these people.  Other individuals especially in the early days of the movement incited violence during protests provoking police crackdowns. These not only jailed the instigators, but the peaceful protesters as well, providing these otherwise law abiding citizens with criminal records and convictions.  Once again, the vast majority of pro-life people and groups condemned the actions of the fringe, but those actions were used by abortion proponents to paint all anti-abortion groups with the same label.

For peaceful and law abiding people and groups who actually care about the lives of their opponents as well as the unborn there is a danger in taking part in demonstrations and marches.  The danger is that any such demonstration can be infiltrated by others who do not share the same goals.  There is the possibility that opponents of these groups could join the demonstration and commit acts which are blamed on the protesters.  This is a tactic used in many parts of the world. Likewise there are those on the fringe of the actual movement who many have mental imbalances or are so consumed by the righteousness of their cause who are willing to do anything to accomplish their mission, even if it means endangering others who may share the goal but are working within the law.  These people believe that they are above the law of the land because they are supported by a higher law. Such actions discredit the legitimate and non-violent protesters and endanger their cause.  This happens in a number of ways, but the chief way it works against the goals of the protesters is that people who may actually be in favor of their cause are turned against it by such actions.

When Christians protest what they believe are laws or actions of the government they need to be careful when conducting such actions.  The biggest concern is that when a protest is launched the organizers do not control all of the actors. Rogue and even criminal elements can join the demonstration and through their actions bring about a police response.   There are also people who have become “professional” protesters.  Every movement has these people, they live for the protest and even if they bring about change they move on to another cause. This happens across the political spectrum, one only has to look at protesters who moved from the Vietnam War, to anti-NATO, anti-American nuclear weapons in Europe, to Environmentalism, the Iraq War to whatever cause is now in vogue or waiting in the wings.  Conservative Christian professional protesters take up abortion, prayer in schools, homosexuality, and a host of other causes.  The same actors seem to be at every event and always hog the media spotlight, I’m not going to name them, but just watch and it is almost always the same people getting interviewed or arrested.  Again most are peaceful and appear to me to be attention junkies, but there are some who have advocated violence or other illegal acts. Quite often professional protesters paint caricatures of their opponents, and use vicious, inflammatory and derogatory terms and images to demonize and dehumanize them.  Regardless of their cause or political orientation, professional protesters primarily serve their need to stir up controversy and be in the media spotlight.

Professional protesters of all stripes often feel a sense of persecution by the government and often accuse agents of the government, be they military, law enforcement, administrative or judicial personnel as having a bias against their cause or group. There have been growing cries about persecution of Christians from the Religious Right.  However, most government agents are neither corrupt or on an anti-Christian crusade.  Most are honest people who try dispassionately enforce or interpret the law and many are Christians.

A prime example of this is the Commanding Officer of a former Navy Chaplain who was convicted by court-martial for disobeying lawful orders. This officer, as well as the Chaplain’s previous commander were crucified in the media by many supposedly Christian or conservative groups. These critics including former politicians, judges, pastors and pundits raced to support this chaplain’s fraudulent claims. After he ws convicted and put out of the Navy they pretty much abandoned him. However, these peoples actions, along with those of the Chaplain were destructive.  The Commanding officer was a devout Christian and member of a large evangelical-Pentecostal type church. He was driven out of his church by his pastor and others who believed the supposedly “Christian” conservative media claims against him.  The positive coverage of the actions of these conservative professional protesters by media outlets such as World Net Daily are commonplace and actually damaging to the witness of the Christian Church.

Conservative Christians now have to be even more careful because most of their causes and many of their organizations are seem by many as appendages of the Republican Party whose politicians have often embraced them, promised to assist them in order for their political support and then never delivered.  The linkage of many groups and Evangelical Christian leaders such as James Dobson to the Republican Party could be construed as no longer a religious or moral protest, but a protest waged on behalf of a political party.  Christians need to keep in mind that others will use their good intentions for their own purposes and that it is possible for their witness to be compromised by their associations with such people.  Christians are not above the law of the land even if we believe there is a higher law.  The highest law of Christians is even when injustice occurs to respond in love with an eye to God’s grace and mercy.  Doing so does not mean that Christians are as condoning evil as some say. It means that we will speak the truth in love and work within the law to change unjust laws. By doing so we ensure that all people have the right to life and all the liberties of this country regardless of who they are or what they believe.  Christians are not above the law.

7 Comments

Filed under Political Commentary, Religion

March 15, 2009 · 21:36

The Political Captivity of the Church

Since I have identified myself as a liberal, though I have to say a very moderate and even conservative liberal, I figure I should go ahead and continue to dig my grave with my conservative brethren, as well as those to the left of me.  Since I am a liberal conservative or conservative liberal I am in the uncomfortable middle in a society that has become deeply polarized.  I think that I am a passionate moderate, though to the extreme right I might be a raving liberal, and the far left a intolerant conservative. I think that the former is more likely.  My goal in life is to get along, find common ground among disparate groups and care for God’s people.  Despite the rancor on the extremes I think that there are more people out there like me than not. My belief is that voices like ours are drowned out by drumbeat of competing demagogues on the far right and the far left.  Since I am a priest my focus will be on the dangers that I see in the current climate and the captivity that churches have unwittingly placed themselves in making political alliances.

Early in his “Reforming” days the young Martin Luther wrote a book entitled “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” It was a severe critique of abuses in the Roman Catholic Church of his era.  I think churches today have become captive to to various political parties, social and economic theories, movements and ideas.  These are not necessarily Christian even though any churches have “baptized” them so to speak.

On the left a lot of churches have embraced social reform, the civil rights movement, women’s liberation as well as left leaning and even socialistic economic models and a demonstrated preference for the Democratic Party.   On the right conservative churches beginning in the 1970s in reaction to the social revolutions of the 1960s moved almost lock, stock and barrel to the Republican Party.  Ronald Reagan was the primary reason for this move as he enunciated a philosophy of limited government, military preparedness and the sanctity of life in at least in what he said. Other conservative politicians solidified that relationship in the 1990s during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Those on the left did the same during the presidency of George W. Bush.

I am not going to cast dispersion on the motives of wither liberal and conservative churches as they made these political alliances.  Far be it, the activity of churches has been an important part of American life and has contributed to many advances in our society including the civil rights movement, which could not have succeeded without the efforts of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and many other clergymen and women, from across the denominational and racial spectrum.

At the same time I am noticing a trend by by many clergy and laity of both liberal and conservative churches to be uncritical in their relationships with political parties. In my view this has emasculated the witness of the church.  I have experienced this on both the left and the right. When I was a kid my dad, a career Navy Chief Petty Officer was serving in Vietnam. New to the area we went to a church of the denomination that my parents had grown up in and in which I had been baptized.  This was a mainline Protestant Church, the name I will not mention because it is irrelevant to the discussion.  The minister constantly preached against the war and I had a Sunday School teacher tell me that my dad was a “baby killer.”  If it had not been for the Roman Catholic chaplain at the little Navy base in town who showed my family the love of God when that happened, caring for our Protestant family without trying to make us Catholic I would have probably never reconciled with the church.  I trace my vocation as a priest and chaplain to that man. Since I have spent more of my life in conservative churches in the days since I have seen a growing and ever more strident move to the political right in conservative churches.  I think this has less to do with the actual churches but the influence of conservative talk radio,  I often hear my fellow Christians on the right talk more vociferously about free markets capitalism, the war on terror and justifying the other conservative causes which are general less than central to the faith.  When I have challenged conservative Christian friends on what I think are inconsistencies I have in some cases been attacked and pretty nastily if I might add.

My view is that Christians on both the right have lost any prophetic voice in their respective political parties.  They have become special interest groups who compete with other special interest groups,  which politicians of both parties treat as their loyal servants.  This is what I mean by captivity.  I think that the church has to be able to speak her mind and be a witness of the redemption and reconciliation message of the Gospel and hold politicians, political parties and other power structures accountable for their treatment of the least, the lost and the lonely; caring for those that to those who seek to maintain political and economic control, merely numbers.  The church has to maintain her independence or lose submit to slavery.  There are many examples we can look to in this, William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller to name just a few.  These men were not apolitical, but they were both prophetic and redemptive.  May we as Christians and other people of faith seek to embody this witness in our divided and dangerous world.  Peace to all God’s people. Steve+

Leave a comment

Filed under Political Commentary, Religion

Tagged as ,

March 5, 2009 · 23:13

Day one in DC: Hope springs eternal

I don’t know what is going on in the world.  I know that things are bad, millions of people losing  jobs and homes in this country, while millions of others around the world suffer disease, war, famine and a plethora of plagues.  But it seems to me  that people, especially in the media, a lot of politicians and pundits are just miserable people.  They inflict their misery on everyone else by taking a bad situation and spinning it to whatever horrible end that they envision, mostly bordering apocalyptic be they religious people or not.

There are some people who in their misery long for a time in the past when things were supposedly better.  It almost seems to be that some folks want the world to return to some pristine form that it once was. For some that is the 1940s or 1950s, some the 1550s.  I understand that, there is a certain amount of comfort that we derive from the past; yet nothing stays the same, at least not in the created realm.  Yet trying to recreate a past that often is mythologized we fail to live in the real world.   The Leisure Suit will never come back.

We visited Washington DC today and will as well tomorrow.  Today my Congressman, Nick Rahall (D-WV) helped set up a wonderful time at the Capitol, that included special courtesy by his staff who helped get us around.  It was wonderful, people were genuinely friendly.  I ran into Congressional Staffers, rode an elevater with someone I recognized as a Congressman but couldn’t think of the name, a General or two, tour guides and other citizens like us who were touring the Capitol and riding around on the Metro.  I was in my Service Dress Blues and people were complimentary and thanked me for my service.  A group of Vietnam Vets and their wives who had just been to Walter Reed to visit wounded service men and women were especially nice. People were courteous everywhere, when my 86 year old aunt tripped getting on a Metro a bunch of people came to her aid.    In spite of all the hate and discontent being spewed everywhere, people were overwhelmingly friendly.  As we toured the Capitol I got a sense of the specialness of our country.  We’ve survived invasions, a terrible Civil War, racism and segragation, good and bad economic times including a Great World Wide Depression and a couple of World Wars,  the threat of nuclear devastation in the Cold War.  We;ve survived some terrible Presidents, ineffective Congressess, bad Supreme Court Decisions, Robber Barons past and present, and we still go on.

I believe now that somehow we and the world will get through these times. Our visit to DC has reinforced that belief.  I believe that because I see good people who go about doing good.  Despite our flaws we are still a great country.  Yes things change and we are changing too, the USA has been changing for well over 200 years.   This was pretty cool, may God Bless and keep our country at peace.

Leave a comment

Filed under Loose thoughts and musings, Political Commentary, Religion

Tagged as