Tag Archives: donald trump

Judgmental Christians, Hurricane Matthew, and the Absence of Empathy

Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

Yesterday I wrote about the reactions of some supposedly Christian preachers and pundits who claimed that Hurricane Matthew was a “God’s judgment” on the nation for extending basic rights to Gays rather than killing them and against Hillary Clinton supporters.

Personally I cannot fathom such hate coming from supposed Christians who are claiming to speak for God. It makes no sense to me. It’s like the preachers including the late Jerry Falwell who said that the attacks of September 11th 2001 where “God’s judgment” on the United States. I just don’t get it. How people can have such hate for their neighbors that they can rejoice in disasters that affect so many people makes no sense to me, it is perverse.

But then I realize that such people have no empathy for their fellow human beings, even those who share their faith. I am reminded of the words of the Army Psychologist at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, Gustave Gilbert when he said:

“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”

I have to agree with that. A basic lack of empathy, it is the one thing that connects anyone who can rejoice when disasters strike and claim that it is God doing the work. Such people are sociopaths. Sadly, if by some chance Donald Trump takes power we will have a certifiable sociopath for a President.

Until tomorrow,

Peace

Padre Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under ethics, faith, History, News and current events, Religion

When Your Vote Will Not Count

provisional-ballot-notice

Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

I wasn’t planning on publishing another article today but this worked me up.

I returned from Germany on Saturday and got my mail today. Among the things I got was my absentee ballot from West Virginia. I opened it and marked it and then found this note. Evidently someone there knowing that I am military and a registered Democrat has challenged my right to vote. Chances are that the person who did this does not know me but rather is a GOP hack who is trying to suppress my vote.

In the last six years West Virginia has made it progressively harder for active duty military personnel to vote. In 2012 i almost was not allowed to vote because I didn’t know that the legislature had changed the law and now require those requesting absentee ballots to request one in every election, if you forget to request one, you don’t vote.

Today I will contact the County Clerk’s office, the Secretary of State office, my State Representative, the Governor, the Democratic Party of West Virginia as well as a number of military and veteran voters organizations. I may even have to get a lawyer. This is voter suppression. An unknown person or entity can challenge your vote and you cannot know who it is or even if your vote counted until after the election.

It’s a foretaste of our totalitarian future of the present bunch of Republicans led by Trump gets power.

I thought that you should know just what power hungry Republicans are willing to do to suppress the vote, even the vote of career active military people who are combat vets simply because they are Democrats. If you are an active duty military person who is a Democrat you had better make sure that your state count’s your vote.

This is war and I won’t go down and let my vote be tossed aside without being heard.

Padre Steve+

7 Comments

Filed under laws and legislation, Military, Political Commentary

The Collapse that May not Matter


Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

We are in Germany this week and I think I mentioned here that I wasn’t going to watch the first presidential debated between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. If I didn’t say it here I’m sure that I did on my Facebook or Twitter feeds, but whatever. 

Honestly I wasn’t planning on watching it but we were up late with friends following a great day at the Nuremberg Trial Museum in Nuremberg and at Oktoberfest in Munich. Now I know that many people were planning to drink heavily as they watched the debate, but I didn’t. In fact, by the time I got to my room I had drank enough and it was almost time for the debate to begin. So I turned on my television to BBC and watched it, and unlike what I predicted either here or on my social media outlets, there was a debate, the only problem was that only one candidate really showed up, and that person was not Donald Trump, it was Hillary Clinton. Trump spent about 20 minutes repeating GOP boilerplate rhetoric that I am not sure he even believes before he transformed himself before the eyes of the nation into a charicature of an evil circus clown. 

But not only did Trump not show up for the substantive issues he came across as an evil circus clown like you would see in some B grade horror movie that was so bad that it went directly to video. It was sad to watch, especially because I spent 32 years of my life as a Republican and worked for the Ford campaign before I could even vote. I never believed that the GOP could sink to this level and I’m sure that if they were alive today that both Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would repudiate everything that Donald Trump advocates. Even Richard Nixon might disown Trump if he were still alive and I cannot think of any President in recent times more malignant than Tricky Dick. That’s how bad Trump is. All he lacked were the clown shoes, a Bozo nose, a copious amount of white makeup, and a machete to complete the picture. 

Sadly, I was not surprised. I have stated many times that I believe that Trump is both a narcissist and a sociopath who has no ability to empathize with anyone and whose only concern is his bottom line. He demonstrated those lack of character traits in abundance last night and today. Caught in lies about the Iraq War and his Birtherism, he continued to lie and say that he was being “unfairly treated.” Nailed by Clinton on his profiting from the housing collapse that cost so many Aericans their homes, businesses, and jobs he smugly said “that is business.” He demonstrated not a shred of feeling or empathy for many of the people who lost their homes, businesses, or jobs in the crash of 2008, and who now misguidedly support him. Confronted on his incredibly malicious treatment of women he didn’t have the decency to apologize, instead he continued to attack them. 

His performance in the debate was sad, it showed a lack of preparation and hubris that would be disastrous for the nation and the world if he is elected. It showed that for all of his bluster that he is an empty suit with no capacity for critical thinking, dealing with policy, or leading. It revealed that he cares not a wit for his supporters or for that matter the affairs of hard working people in general. He is a sociopath who has a complete lack of empathy. 

When I went to Dachau and Nuremberg this week I could not help to be reminded that evil exists. I know a lot about the Nazi system, and when I stood by the dock that housed the Nazi war criminals in Saal 600, the courtroom when the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were held, I could not help to remember the words of Gustave Gilbert, an America Army psychologist who worked with the defendants in the major war crimes trials. Gilbert struggled to understand the nature of evil until he spent time with all of the defendants. Then it dawned on him. None of the defendants had tha capacity for empathy. It was the one think that they all had in common. Gilbert wrote after the trials that “evil is the absence of empathy.” 

Today we face a man who is the nominee of a major party who shows that lack of empathy on nearly a daily basis. The man frightens me. In a normal year he would not have gotten through the primaries, but this is not a normal year, these are not normal times, and many of his supporters are not normal people. As Trump said last year he “could murder someone and his supporters would not abandon him.” Sadly, despite everything that Trump has said and done, many of his supporters will support him unto the last into Trump’s “Gottdamerung” where at the minimum he shatters the GOP, and if he wins would likely destroy the country in order to save it. 

So anyway, from Munich, I am yours.

Have a great day and night. 

Peace,

Padre Steve+

Leave a comment

Filed under History, Political Commentary

Character, Insight, and Honor: The Uncomfortable Legacy of General Ludwig Beck

Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

I am dipping into the archives today because the article is exceptionally relevant, at least to me with the rise of Donald Trump and the real possibility that he could become President of the United States. That is something that based on his lack of character, his bellicose threats against civil liberties, his disregard for the Constitution, and his exceptional narcissism and what I believe is psychological instability, frighten the hell out of me.

Most of my undergraduate and non-theological graduate studies focused on the conundrum faced by German military officers during the rise of Hitler. Did those not immediately cashiered or murdered after Hitler’s assumption of power resign, retire, or continue to serve, either supporting the new regime, or attempting to mitigate he evil. Sadly, most ended up giving their support to the Nazi regime as Hitler, but some did attempt to mitigate the evil of the Hitler regime. One was General Ludwig Beck, and his legacy is an uncomfortable one for anyone who has sworn an oath as an officer.  Beck said: 

“It is a lack of character and insight, when a soldier in high command sees his duty and mission only in the context of his military orders without realizing that the highest responsibility is to the people of his country.” 

It is with that in mind that I repost this article.

Peace

Padre Steve+

Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-C13564,_Ludwig_Beck

General Ludwig Beck

This is one of those uncomfortable posts to write partially because I know that some people will take it completely wrong or ascribe meaning to it that I do not intend. I by training am a military historian, probably better at that than I am theology. One thing that fascinates me in the study of military history is the actions of men in the face of evil and the meetings of such people at the intersections of where military and government policy intersect. It is a timeless theme. The bulk of my study until the past few years was the German Army, particularly that of the Weimar Republic and the Wehrmacht to include policies, leaders, political attitudes and behavior in war and peace. Thus it makes sense for me to look at Colonel General Ludwig Beck who held the post of Chief of the German General Staff during the early part of the Nazi era.

Ludwig Beck is one of those characters in military history that makes professional military officers uncomfortable. Beck is not the perfect example of righteousness nor was he always correct in things that he supported. As an artillery regiment commander he defended the rights of soldiers and officers to be Nazi Party members though he himself was not one. He, like many military officers was a conservative military officer by nature and became Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht in 1935 two years after Hitler’s ascension to power. Taking office Beck was troubled by some Nazi policies but not by the need for Germany to expand to areas that it had once controlled, he opposed the plan to attack Czechoslovakia not because of any love for the Czech state which he desired to be eliminated, but rather it being a war that Germany could not win. He resigned from his position a Chief of Staff in 1938 when he could not persuade the rest of the General Staff to resign in protest over Hitler’s plan which he felt would be disastrous for Germany. Had the western powers led by Neville Chamberlain not caved at Munich it is likely that the Germans would have suffered badly against the Czech army and fortifications and with the entry of France into the war would have suffered a defeat that would have ended the Hitler regime. In fact German officers who saw the extent of Czech preparations on the frontier following the Munich deal were greatly relieved that they did not have to fight their way into the Czech state.

After his resignation Beck played a key role in the resistance movement. He was involved in the planning for a number of attempts on Hitler’s life. Yet it was his leadership in the July 20th 1944 attempt on the life of Hitler that ensured his place in history. With Colonel Klaus Von Stauffenberg and others in the General Staff at the Front and in Germany he acted to avert further destruction in Europe and the certain destruction of Germany. The plot, Operation Valkyrie was marred by poor execution and failed to kill Hitler of seize power but for a few hours. The planners had left too much to chance and once Hitler had restored communications the coup attempted ended swiftly. Had the attempt succeeded Beck was in line to become either the leader of Germany or the Head of the Army. Instead while being interrogated after his capture he took his own life depriving Nazi leaders of the ability to put him up for a public trial at which he would have been humiliated and then executed. The Kasserne in Sonthofen where the Bundeswehr MP School and Staff School as well as NATO and EU military schools are located is named for him. It is there, ironically a former Adolf Hitler School that his memory and sacrifice is honored by the nation which emerged from the rubble of World War Two. He is honored in a small museum and with a plaque recognizing his sacrifice.

492

The reason that General Beck makes many of us in uniform uncomfortable (and I do include myself) is that he recognized that senior officers, especially those in high command who help set and execute policy cannot isolate themselves in the purely military aspects of the operations. Instead he believed that officers have a higher duty to the constitution and people and not just the military mission that they have been assigned. When he realized that he could not stop Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia he resigned and worked in the obscurity of a small and often divided resistance movement against Hitler. The bulk of the German high command, including many officers idolized in the United States did not recognize the higher duty. Many of these men were consummate professionals who did not support the evil of the Nazi regime and who conducted themselves honorably. Yet they effectively abetted its crimes by not opposing actions of their government that were against international law and morality as well as dangerous from purely a pragmatic military standpoint.

The problem is that military officers in any nation, including ours can face situations such as Beck faced. A military’s character is demonstrated in how leaders deal with such situations. Beck recognized the situation early, the bulk of his fellow officers did not recognize a problem until Germany was embroiled in a war that it could no longer win. Even then most could not mount an opposition to Hitler because they did not want to be considered to be mutineers and violate their oath. The potential to abet evil when military professionals bury their heads by planning and executing purely military aspects of a campaign is great. If they ignore questionable policy or even policies that they know that have been judged by the international community to be illegal or immoral, such as torture of prisoners or waging wars of aggression against countries that have not attacked their nation they become complicit in their nations crimes. This was the case with German Officers who may not have committed any personal crime and even tried to mitigate the evils of the Nazi regime were morally complicit in that evil.

In the United States the military shows its fidelity by remembering our oath to the Constitution and being faithful to it and the people that we serve. As officers we represent all Americans and not just those of our political party, religious faith or social or economic interests, nor any political leader, faction or interest group within the nation. The Constitution, our military regulations, traditions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice are the standard by which we operate and by which we conduct ourselves and tools that protect us when policies or actions taken by the government or people within it violate those codes or international law. The UCMJ makes it clear those officers who take part in, plan or a complicit in illegal actions in war are committing crimes.

When a nation become involved in wars which are non-traditional, revolutionary wars or insurgencies that barriers to professional conduct can be broken down. The Mai Lai massacre committed by 2LT William Calley’s platoon with the certain knowledge and maybe even approval of individuals in the chain of command is one example as were the uncontrolled chaos of prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib.

Times are difficult and we do not know what the future brings. Stress in societies caused by economic conditions, natural disasters, lawlessness on the streets and divided and ineffective governments sometimes remove the moral restraints of the society and even affect the military. One sees this in Weimar Germany as well as the 4th Republic in France which had to deal with post World War II economic difficulties, exacerbated by recriminations of political opponents for actions the others did during the war while France was occupied by Germany as well as the wars in Indo-China and Algeria which further divided the nation and the military.

It is in stressful and uncertain times that officers have to be men and women of principle who always uphold the highest traditions of their military as well as be the voice of conscience when governments, political parties, special interests or leaders begin to violate international norms in the conduct of war. Beck was not a perfect officer. He supported some of Hitler’s policies until after his resignation but like much of the resistance believed that the Nazi regime could only end up destroying Germany. It is important to remember that like Ludwig Beck that officers do not need to sacrifice their honor to be faithful to their oath.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under ethics, History, leadership, Military, Political Commentary

Who is Guilty?

1179981

Friends of Padre Steve’s World

On September 16th 1963 a young Southern White lawyer in Birmingham Alabama spoke these words after a black church was bombed and the police attacked peaceful protesters:

“from anger and despair, from frustration and empathy. And from years of hopes, hopes that were shattered and crumbled with the steps of that Negro Baptist Church.”

Most Americans will not recognize the names and I would dare say that many do not even know about what happened in Birmingham Alabama 52 years ago today. At 10:22 in the morning on September 15th 1963 a bomb exploded during the worship service at the 16th Street Baptist Church. It was one of the most brazen attacks against a church in the modern era, and men who claimed to be “Christians” committed it.

MCNAIR ROBERTSON COLLINS WESLEY

Four young girls, three 14 year olds and one 13 year old were killed. Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley lost their lives that day. Twenty-two other church members were wounded in an attack, which was carried out by members of the KKK and tacitly approved of by many political leaders including Alabama Governor George Wallace. Why were they killed and why were the others wounded? For the crime of being black and the crime of their church serving as a focal point of the Civil Rights movement.

Likewise, most people, including many blacks do not know that before that beginning in 1955 there had been 19 other bombings of black churches and the homes of black leaders in Birmingham before this one. But even before that outbreak of violence, Birmingham had become known as “Bombingham” because over 50 bombing attacks against blacks, black churches and black institutions in the years after the First World War.

The church had served as a focal point of the Freedom Summer where Civil Rights activists and students from around the country had met, trained and organized to register blacks to vote. This made it a prominent target for violence.

SixteenthStBaptistBomb05

Early in the morning of September 15th four members of the United Klans of America Frank Bobby Cherry, Thomas Blanton, Herman Cash and Robert Chambliss placed a box of 10 sticks of dynamite under the church steps near the basement. A time delay detonator was set o ensure that the church was filled when the bomb went off. The blast occurred as children were entering the to listen to a sermon, ironically entitled “The Love that Forgives.”

The attack was a heinous crime and an act of cold-blooded premeditated murder that maybe a number of years before might not have made the news in much of the country. But this was 1963 and over the preceding months of the Freedom Summer opened the eyes of people across the nation to what was happening in the South. The brutal attacks on many blacks, civil rights workers and student volunteers during that time raised the profile of the Civil Rights Movement and shown the ugly hatred towards blacks held by many Southerners hidden underneath the veneer of polite Southern hospitality.

765026275

Blacks protested and were met with a massive police response coordinated by Governor Wallace that brought about more violence, and more dead blacks. A day later a young white lawyer, Charles Morgan Jr.; a true Southerner by right and heritage spoke to the White Businessman’s club of Birmingham. His words were forceful and to the point. Instead of simply asking why, the young man began his speech with this poignant remark:

“Four little girls were killed in Birmingham yesterday. A mad, remorseful worried community asks, “Who did it? Who threw that bomb? Was it a Negro or a white?” The answer should be, “We all did it.” Every last one of us is condemned for that crime and the bombing before it and a decade ago. We all did it.”

He continued, “A short time later, white policemen kill a Negro and wound another. A few hours later, two young men on a motorbike shoot and kill a Negro child. Fires break out, and, in Montgomery, white youths assault Negroes. And all across Alabama, an angry, guilty people cry out their mocking shouts of indignity and say they wonder, “Why?” “Who?” Everyone then “deplores” the “dastardly” act. But you know the “who” of “Who did it” is really rather simple.”

Not only was the attack heinous, but, the response of many in law enforcement at the local level and even at the office of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was criminal. Hoover refused to investigate, and although a witness identified Chambliss, he was not charged with the bombing; instead he was charged for having a case of dynamite without a permit. He was fined $100 and given a six-month jail sentence.

robert-chambliss

Robert Chambliss 

Thought FBI agents had investigated the crime and discovered evidence against all four men, Hoover ordered the evidence not be provided to local or Federal prosecutors. So for eight years the crime was covered up.

However in 1971 Bill Baxley was elected Attorney General of Alabama. Baxley re-opened the case and requested the FBI files, which had been suppressed by Hoover, who had died in 1972. In 1977 Chambliss was indicted and convicted of first degree murder, he died in prison. Blanton was tried in 2001, convicted of four counts of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Cash died in 1994 with ever having been charged with a crime and Cherry was convicted in 2002, sentenced to life in prison and died in 2004.

The attack and the deaths of the four girls served as a catalyst in the Civil Rights Movement. In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. However it did not end the fight for equality, and others would die in its aftermath, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who died at the hands of an assassin’s bullet less than 4 years later.

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 many blacks have been elected to local, state and federal offices or served in some of the highest ranks of the military, judiciary, and at the Cabinet level. Two, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have served as Secretary of State, two, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, as Attorney General of the United States; one, Clarence Thomas, as a Justice of the Supreme Court; and one, Barak Obama elected as President of the United States. Black sports stars, actors and singers are celebrated as heroes among much of society.

But despite these advances, racism is still quite prevalent. One of my former co-workers from Georgia, a white Southern Baptist minister and retired military chaplain noted that many whites may not be explicitly racists in interpersonal relationships with blacks, but have an attitude that blacks still need “to stay in their place.” He noted that he thinks that quite a few believe that many whites believe that this is a large part of the reason that President Obama is opposed and even hated by so many whites. It is not just politics or ideology. While politics may play a role the root of the hatred is racism because I cannot for the life of me imagining any white Democrat, including Hilary Clinton getting this kind of treatment.

But the sad truth is there still is an undercurrent of unrepentant racism in the country and not just the South. In fact many places in the South have seen greater advances in racial relations than other parts of the country. That is not to say that there are those who would attempt to disenfranchise blacks, some of the voting laws recently passed are designed to ensure that significant parts of the black population, specifically the elderly and students living away from home have greater difficulty voting. It is actually a more insidious method than past Jim Crow laws because the drafters of these laws hope to keep just enough black and other poor or minority voters from voting to ensure that they maintain power. Some of those who drafted or supported these state laws designed to disenfranchise voters have openly admitted that fact.

Not only is racial prejudice experienced by blacks, it is experienced by many Americans of Hispanic origins, some of Asian descent but also by those of Middle Eastern, Iranian, Pakistani or Indian descent. And yes, people of all races, including racial, ethnic and religious minorities can be as racist and violent as the men who bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church 52 years ago. Racism is an ugly part of our human condition and no matter whom it is targeted against, and who does the targeting, it is wrong and needs to be fought.

The Southern Poverty Law Center http://www.splcenter.org lists nearly 800 active hate groups of all types operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others. (See the Hate Map here https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map) The number is down from recent because a number of more the virulent White Supremacist and militia groups have gone underground, shut down websites and social media pages.

Too many people have died in this struggle to stop now. If today you read this before or after going to church, remember those four little girls who died at the hands of four murdering, racist Klansmen. Likewise remember that there are others out there full of hate who would not hesitate to do the same again and others who would actively support those efforts. Sometimes even in the name of God.

As for me I will fight it no matter whom it is against.

Charles Morgan Jr. closed the speech which brought about death threats against him and his family and forced him to leave Birmingham with these words.

“And who is really guilty? Each of us. Each citizen who has not consciously attempted to bring about peaceful compliance with the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, every citizen who has ever said “they ought to kill that nigger,” every citizen who votes for the candidate with the bloody flag, every citizen and every school board member and schoolteacher and principal and businessman and judge and lawyer who has corrupted the minds of our youth; every person in this community who has in any way contributed during the past several years to the popularity of hatred, is at least as guilty, or more so, than the demented fool who threw that bomb.”

10morgan01-190

Charles Morgan Jr.

Charles Morgan died in 2009, but after he left Birmingham he went on to lead a remarkable life, especially in his commitment to Civil Rights and Justice. The New York Times obituary noted:

“Among his many cases as a civil rights lawyer, Mr. Morgan sued to desegregate his alma mater, the University of Alabama; forced a new election in Greene County, Ala., that led to the election of six black candidates for local offices in 1969; and successfully challenged racially segregated juries and prisons. After the civil rights movement began to subside, Mr. Morgan, as a leader of the American Civil Liberties Union, fought three celebrated court cases involving protests against the Vietnam War.

He represented Muhammad Ali in his successful court fight to avoid being drafted. He represented the civil rights activist Julian Bond in the early stages of an ultimately successful lawsuit after Mr. Bond had been denied a seat in the Georgia legislature because of his antiwar views. And he defended an officer when he was court-martialed for refusing to help instruct Green Berets headed for Vietnam.”

We cannot ever let ourselves forget that it was supposedly Christian men who bombed a church and killed those four little girls, and that as long as all of us fail to live up to our responsibilities such things will happen again. If we do not, we are as guilty as those who throw the bombs, shoot the bullets, and those preachers, pundits and politicians who deny the fact that these things are still commonplace. Sadly the candidate of the Republican Party for President as well as many GOP operatives and candidates for office dow the ballot seem to have no interest in justice and Trump’s many supporters in the badly named “Alt-Right” which would be better called Klansmen and Nazis long for the return of the society that allowed the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church.

Sadly my friends, if we allow a racist like Donald Trump to become President we will be at least as guilty as the brazen killers who continue to try to kill the dreams of those who are not like them. As for me, I hope that I will be as committed to stand for the rights of the oppressed and for justice as did Charles Morgan no matter what the results of the upcoming election.

Peace

Padre Steve+

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, History, Political Commentary

Hell Hath no Fury Like a Fundamentalist Scorned: Phyllis Schafly Dead at 92


Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

I never rejoice in the death of anyone, but there are some people who because of their body of life’s work that I will not miss. Phyllis Schafly is one of them. She was one of the leading religious agitators who fought to deny equal rights to women by stopping the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment which by an act of Congress would have guaranteed women the same rights as men, and to the end of her life was a strident opponent of equality for LGBTQ people, and immigrants. 

Schafly used her religious beliefs as a weapon to deny rights to fellow citizens, and in doing so became one of the most forceful advocates of a supposedly Christian theocracy which mobilized millions of voters and made her the darling of the political preachers of the religious right for over forty years. Most recently she had cast her political power as a leader of the Christian Right behind Donald Trump. Honestly, I can think of few people who so vehemently and successfully used the power of religiously infused politics to such a degree as Schafly, and the words of James Spader’s character in the television series The Blacklist seem to apply to this now dead woman, “hell hath no fury like a fundamentalist scorned.” 

But there is always a price for such foolishness. Schafly and her allies in the political Christian Right who so desired to bring about the Kingdom of God by attempting to both subvert the Constitution through biased religious lawmaking, by demonizing her opponents, and by denying the very source of life of our nation, the proposition that all men are created equal actually helped destroy the real spiritual influence of the Christian faith in the United States more than anyone. They sold their birthright, discredited the church, and for what? The illusion of political power and influence. 

A few years back the Barna Report, a very reputable Evangelical Christian polling organization noted that the fastest growing segment of the American religious mosaic was “the nones,” people who have no preference in religious belief, and the fastest growing subsets of the “nones” are Atheists, Agnostics, and Free Thinkers. In fact number one of the reasons cited by Barna is that a vast majority of young people, including those who grew up in the church, described the church as too political. A February 2016 study by Barna noted that almost half of non-religious Americans view Christianity as extremist, and dangerous. That should trouble any Christian leader, but it never bothered Schafly or for that matter any of her political preacher allies. Likewise according to a Barna study released in October 2014, nearly half of the ever rising number of “the unchurched” find it hard to name a single positive contribution of the church to society. 

But the situation is worse if you look at why young Christians leave the church. According to a Barna survey in September 2011 young Christians believe that the church is overprotective, shallow, antagonistic toward science, that they feel judged by older church members who are simplistic and judgemental, that church is like a “country club” that is antagonistic and unwelcoming of outsiders, and that it is a place unfriendly to those that doubt. Specific comments by large numbers of Christian young people who are feeling the church include that it is “too political,” “fear based and risk adverse,” and that it “demonizes those outside the church.” But I think the most damning finding of that survey was that twenty percent  of Christian young people said that “God seems missing from my experience in church.” 

Throughout her life Phyllis Schafly made her money and fame by demonizing all opposition, she rallied supporters by promoting fear, and she, maybe even more that the Elmer Gantry types of charlatan political and prosperity preachers is in large part responsible for the current sad state of the Christian church in the United States. I remember back in the late 1970s and 1980s the hold that she had on churches that I attended. She was practically deified for her opposition to women’s rights, and LGBTQ people. She could be found at the side of any political hack willing to give her a place in the podium almost to the day she died, even this summer she appeared at the side of Donald Trump, as always casting the pearls of the Gospel at the feet of a man whose life and work exemplifies the complete opposite of what was once considered Christian virtue. 

When I learned of Mrs Schafly’s death I was watching an episode of The Blacklist. Reddington made the comment “you know what my problem with religion is? Man. Like anything that has potential to be beautiful, man will turn it into somethings ugly.” I could not help by think of the irony. 


Schafly spent her last year nearly destroying the Eagle Forum organization that she helped to found by endorsing Trump, a man who she called “the last hope for America” even as she filed a lawsuit against nephew Tom from trademarking his Schafly Beer because she was the person who made her name famous. 

Truthfully, like I said, I never rejoice in the death of anyone, even someone like Mrs Schafly whose actions I believe we’re so detrimental to so many people and to the church itself. I pray that she finds God to be more merciful to her than she was to others, and I do hope after a life spent demonizing and denying the rights of people that she despised, I hope that her tortured and embittered soul finds some measure of peace that she seemed unable to find in life. 

What a shame… 

So until tomorrow,

Peace,

Padre Steve+ 

7 Comments

Filed under civil rights, Political Commentary, Religion

How Despots Gain Power


Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

Today I am traveling back home after a wonderful visit with friends and family in Huntington, West Virginia. The visit was nice, I got a chance to do some serious reflection, especially as I walked about the city and along the Ohio River waterfront, visited the Museum of Art, and walked the entirety of its wonderful Ritter Park. 

I did some writing but spent more time in reading and reflection than anything. I kept up on some of the headlines but didn’t let myself get beaten down by the negativity and cynicism of our time.

Last night I read the short but poignant little but by the British military historian B.H. Liddell-Hart entitled Why Don’t We Learn from History. The book was written in not long before his death in 1970 and it is good quite good. It deals with a number of issues, including the conflict between history and propaganda, or when faith, especially religious faith as treated as historic or scientific fact; especially when propaganda or faith is preached as if it were history, if it were truth. But he also contrasted democracy and totalitarianism. 

Liddell-Hart was a realist, especially about democracy and totalitarianism. While he admitted the inefficiencies of democracy, he realized that it was far less dangerous than the “stupidity” of totalitarianism. In fact it was important for him to note just how this inefficient system was for freedom. He wrote:

What is of value in “England” and “America” and worth defending is its tradition of freedom, the guarantee of its vitality. Our civilization, like the Greek, has, for all its blundering way, taught the value of freedom, of criticism of authority, and of harmonising this with order. Anyone who urges a different system, for efficiency’s sake, is betraying the vital tradition.

There was was much to ponder in his book and I will probably write some more of my thoughts on it, but since I am going to be traveling I will quote what he said about self-made despotic rulers and how they come to power. When I read it I was struck by just how much Liddell-Hart in his description of a despot describes Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump through the his campaign and especially his remarks on immigration hours after returning from a brief meeting with Mexican President Pena Nieto. 

We learn from history that self-made despotic rulers follow a standard pattern. In gaining power: They exploit, consciously or unconsciously, a state of popular dissatisfaction with the existing regime or of hostility between different sections of the people. They attack the existing regime violently and combine their appeal to discontent with unlimited promises (which, if successful, they fulfil only to a limited extent). They claim that they want absolute power for only a short time (but “find” subsequently that the time to relinquish it never comes). They excite popular sympathy by presenting the picture of a conspiracy against them and use this as a lever to gain a firmer hold at some crucial stage.

He wrote about how they behave in power as well, but for now I will close and let you my readers ponder his statement before I follow up with Liddell-Hart’s observations from history on how despots act once they achieve power. 

Peace,

Padre Steve+

Leave a comment

Filed under History, philosophy, Political Commentary

Reflecting on “Inherit the Wind”

donald-trump-prays-with-religious-leaders

Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

“As long as the prerequisite for that shining paradise is ignorance, bigotry and hate, I say the hell with it.” Henry Drummond (Spencer Tracy) Inherit the Wind

Today has been a very busy day at work but I have been doing some reflection and instead of watching the Olympics tonight I decided to again watch the classic film Inherit the Wind. I really do believe that it is well worth watching, especially when a charlatan with no Christian virtues whatsoever stokes up the hopes of conservative Christians by promising that if he is elected he will make Christianity great again. Of course the Christianity that he refers to is not that of Jesus, but that of Constantine and every other strongman who has used the Christians and the church to achieve earthly power and to crush any opposition. Noted televangelists have come to Trump’s side, many like John Hagee saying that Christians that God will punish Christians, that vote against Trump. That is why this film is still so pertinent.

It is fascinating that a play and film set about an incident that actually occurred in the 1920s remains so timeless. It is hard to believe that 90 years after the trial and over 50 years after the movie that our society would still be debating the issue in the movie and that legislatures and school boards are still attempting to pass religious doctrine off as science.

inherit-the-wind

It is a film about what is commonly called the “Scopes Monkey Trial” which was litigated in July of 1925 and featured an epic battle between populist three time Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan and famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow.

The trial was brought about after the passage of the Butler Act in Tennessee. It was an act that made it a criminal offense to teach evolution in any publicly funded school. The act stipulated:

“That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

The author of the act was Tennessee State Representative John W. Butler, a farmer and the head of the World Christian Fundamentals Association an interdenominational organization dedicated to a “New Protestantism” based on the Pre-Millennial interpretation of Bible prophecy.

itw2

Butler was heavily influenced by William Jennings Bryant who with his followers had gotten legislation banning evolution in 15 states. H.L. Mencken commented that over the years of his public life that Bryan had “transformed himself” into some “sort of Fundamentalist Pope.”

Butler was opposed to the teaching of evolution and the act passed the house by a vote of 75-1. No public hearings had been held on it and no debate proffered.

Butler’s legislation did face some opposition in the State Senate. However it passed there on a vote of 24-6 after the famous Fundamentalist evangelist Billy Sunday preached as series of revival meetings to incite public opinion in favor of the bill. Sunday’s message was clear, he preached that “Education today is chained to the Devil’s throne” and praised Butler and the House for their “action against that God forsaken gang of evolutionary cutthroats.” The bill was signed into law by Governor Austin Peay, but Peay expected little to come of it.

The American Civil Liberties Union put the law to the test using high school biology teacher John Scopes who was charged with breaking the law. The trial ended up becoming less about the guilt or innocence of Scopes or even the constitutionality of the law, but rather as the field where the conflict between religious and social issues and faith versus intellectualism was fought. Butler, the man who legislated the law on religious grounds covered it as a correspondent.

daytonscene

Mencken wrote of the trial:

“The Scopes trial, from the start, has been carried on in a manner exactly fitted to the anti- evolution law and the simian imbecility under it. There hasn’t been the slightest pretense to decorum. The rustic judge, a candidate for re-election, has postured the yokels like a clown in a ten-cent side show, and almost every word he has uttered has been an undisguised appeal to their prejudices and superstitions. The chief prosecuting attorney, beginning like a competent lawyer and a man of self-respect, ended like a convert at a Billy Sunday revival. It fell to him, finally, to make a clear and astounding statement of theory of justice prevailing under fundamentalism. What he said, in brief, was that a man accused of infidelity had no rights whatever under Tennessee law…”

 

It was an epic event covered by news outlets across the nation and the atmosphere in the town outside the courthouse was circus like, something that the movie depicts very well. The defense was not allowed to produce Scientists as witnesses, even to the chagrin of Butler who despite his opposition to evolutionary theory felt that it was not fair. When all was said and done Scopes had been convicted and a fine of $100 assessed, which was overturned on appeal. Bryan died a week after the trial and of the 15 states with similar legislation to Butler passed them into law.

SCO_EVOL

The film is based on the play of the same name written in 1950 by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee. It was written during the height of the McCarthy Era and opened in 1955. The first film version starring Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond (Clarence Darrow), Frederic March as Matthew Harrison Brady (William Jennings Bryan), Gene Kelly as E.K. Hornbeck (H.L. Mencken) while Dick York played Bertram Cates (John Scopes). Lawrence and Lee invented some fictional characters including Reverend Brown played by Claude Akins.

The film directed by Stanley Kramer captures the raw emotions of the trial, the participants and the spectators who came from near and far. The depiction of the angry mob of Christians is terrifying to watch. In the film they sing:

“We’ll hang Bertram Cates to a sour apple tree, we’ll hang Bertram Cates to a sour apple tree, we’ll hang Bertram Cates to a sour apple tree. Our God is marching on! Glory Glory Hallelujah! Glory Glory Hallelujah! Glory Gory Hallelujah! His truth is marching on. We’ll hang Henry Drummond to a sour apple tree, we’ll hang Henry Drummond to a sour apple tree, we’ll hang Henry Drummond to a sour apple tree, our God is marching on.”

inheritwind

March’s depiction of Matthew Harrison Brady is riveting. The Brady of the film does not do justice to other parts of Bryan’s life. Bryan, outside his fight against evolution was ahead of his time in many ways. Earlier in his career he had pressed for Universal Suffrage, fought against war and labored against the social Darwinism of the banks, business and the Robber Barons. However the loss of three Presidential elections left him bitter and it is believed that he saw the trial as an opportunity to regain the limelight and perhaps build a base to again run for President. This speech by Brady is a fair characterization of Bryan’s beliefs:

“I have been to their cities and I have seen the altars upon which they sacrifice the futures of their children to the gods of science. And what are their rewards? Confusion and self-destruction. New ways to kill each other in wars. I tell you gentlemen the way of science is the way of darkness.”

The problem with the Bryan of the Scopes Trial was that he was a caricature of his former self, he played to the crowds. The trial played to the worst parts of his character and that shows in the movie depiction. Some Christians find this an unfair portrayal and even call it a lie, however even though March’s portrayal is fictional it does fit the spirit of the trial which is captured in the writings of many of the contemporary commentators of the trial. Mencken wrote of the real Bryan: It is a tragedy, indeed, to begin life as a hero and to end it as a buffoon.

 

wjb_pulpit

Another of those commentators, Marcet Haldeman-Julius wrote of the real Bryan:

“As he sat there in the court room, day after day, silent, fanning, fanning, his face set I was appalled by the hardness, the malice in it. No one who has watched the fanatical light in those hard, glittering black eyes of Bryan’s can doubt but that he believes both in a heaven and in a hell. At the same time the cruel lines of his thin, tight-pressed mouth proclaim, it seems to me, that he would stop at nothing to attain his own ends. It is anything but a weak face–Bryan’s. But it is a face from which one could expect neither understanding nor pity. My own opinion is that he is sincere enough in his religion. Also that in it is included the doctrine Paul so frankly taught–that a lie told for the glory of God is justified…”

scope2

But I think that the real drama and tension in the film comes from Spencer Tracy in his portrayal of Drummond. This speech is taken almost verbatim from the trial:

“Can’t you understand? That if you take a law like evolution and you make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools? And tomorrow you may make it a crime to read about it. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we’ll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!”

0237318_11378_MC_Tx360

I think that this speech is the real crux of the tension that we face even now. Legislators in a number of States have enacted laws of much the same kind of spirit as Butler and defended them with the same kind of fire as Bryan. Civil libertarians, especially secular ones bring up the same issues as Darrow did. I am a Christian and a Priest and my thinking about this is much like that espoused by Drummond in the movie.

So the film may be a fictional depiction of the Scopes Trial, but it is a film that I think that people would do well to watch. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me or the issues that I agree with brought up by the character of Henry Drummond. However, I think that everyone should watch the film and come to their own conclusions as well as to ask themselves how their particular ethic, whether secular or religious informs them in how they deal with this issue and so many others that divide us today.

I just know when I watched it again this week that it could have been in the news this week, only with a different cast of characters. My concern is that there is a very loud minority that wants to inflict its particular religious view on everyone and use the public treasure to do it. The attitude of many of these people is much like the characters from the actual Scopes Trial including their view that pushes both demonizes those they oppose and their desire to regulate the secular opposition to the sidelines.

SCOPES1

I know that the same accusation is made by religious people of secularists, however I have seen the results of religious wars in Iraq and the Balkans, and from history. Those conflicts and the brutality of religious people in them give me great pause when I see religious and political leaders here suggest curtailing the civil liberties and even using the law against those that they oppose. As Drummond asked in the movie: “Must men go to jail because they find themselves at odds with a self-appointed prophet?”

That is why this film is so important.

Peace

Padre Steve+

3 Comments

Filed under faith, film, History, laws and legislation, Political Commentary, Religion

A Suggestion of Assassination 


Friends of Padre Steve’s World

I had planned of starting a new series tonight about the Guadalcanal campaign since it began 74 years ago yesterday but I got distracted. Sadly it wasn’t unexpected but I had hoped to avoid writing  on Donald Trump until at least Labor Day. In fact, if he had just been his normal narcissistic self, or repetition of flagrant lies, I probably would have said nothing. Trump is so full of this stuff that it really is getting out and boring. 

But today he did something that went beyond anything I could have imagined that a major political party nominee would ever say. During a campaign speech in Wilmington, North Carolina he not only made false allegations on Clinton’s gun policy, he suggested that if she were elected and appointed Supreme Court justices that she would destroy the Second Ammendment. If he had stopped at that I would have let it pass, but he then told his supporters that “there was nothing they could do.” His actual comments which were delivered in a word salad manner were: “If she gets to pick her judges – nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know.” 

Of course there was the outright lie that if Clinton gets to pick judges that people have no choice. He seems to ignore the legislative process, but then if he causes the GOP to implode and lose their House and Senate majorities neither he or they have nobody else but themselves to blame. But that wasn’t all. He made a suggestion, which Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said could have been a “joke” that implied that “Second Amendment people” could do something. His spokesmen said that it meant that they would come out and vote, but the language, facial expression and body language of Trump spoke volumes. Since one of his advisers said less than two weeks ago that Hillary should be put before a foreign something that Trump never repudiated, and the fact that Trump has incited and encouraged physical violence against opponents, it was hard not to conclude that Trump was suggesting that his supporters kill Hillary Clinton, Supreme Court justices, or Federal judges. 

But Trump jumped the shark on this one. Rational people from across the political spectrum realized exactly what Trump meant. Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, herself a survivor of an assassination attempt said “Donald Trump might astound Americans on a routine basis, but we must draw a bright red line between political speech and suggestions of violence. Responsible, stable individuals won’t take Trump’s rhetoric to its literal end, but his words may provide a magnet for those seeking infamy. They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed.”

Former CIA Director and Air Force General, Michael Hayden told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “If someone else had said that outside the hall, he’d be in the back of a police Eagan now with the Secret Service questioning him.” Hayden added: “You’re not just responsible for What you say. You are responsible for what people hear. That was more than a speed bump. That is actually a very arresting comment. It suggests either a very bad taste with reference to political assassination and an attempt at humor or an incredible insensitively – it may be the latter – an incredible insensitivity to the prevalence of political assassination inside of American history.” 

Of course Trump spokesmen and supporters including Rudy Guilinani rapidly defended Trump by saying that he actually didn’t say or mean what he said. But context is everything. He provided cover for any person bent on infamy, or those bent on bloodshed. It is inexcusable and vile, and to hear people who say that they are all about law and order  defend the remarks and spin them beyond recognition goes beyond my capacity for understanding. We had four Presidents (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley,and Kenedy) killed by assassins in a period of less than one hundred years, and and at least four others (Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan) survived such attempts. Name one other civilized country where that has occured? To even joke about it on the campaign trail shows the moral and ethical depravity of Donald Trump. 

Now I know a lot of gun owners whose position on the Second Amendment more closely resembles Trump’s than mine. That being said I don’t know a one who would ever try to kill a political opponent, or assassinate a President, Presidential candidate, or Federal judge. These are rational, law abiding people, but Trump is appealing to the hate filled and deranged conspiracy theory types. The latter are the kind of people who would attempt such an action. Trump’s words are also insulting to the vast number of gun-owners who are law abiding citizens, by using the term “Second Amendment people” Trump, lumped together the law abiding and the law breaking, the sane and the insane, the rational and the irrational. 

Anyway. I am tired. It has been a long but good day. I had another crazy PTSD nightmare last night, thankfully instead of my face hitting the nightstand I gave it an overhead kick during a close combat nightmare. But I got another three mile run in this afternoon and unlike yesterday my legs felt good the entire run.

So have a good night.

Peace

Padre Steve+

1 Comment

Filed under History, national security, Political Commentary

Hiroshima, Nukes, and Trump

Cloud-2

Hiroshima, August 6th 1945

Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

Today is the 71st anniversary of the first atomic bomb being used against the city of Hiroshima. In an instant ninety percent of the city was destroyed, 80,000 people killed, and tens of thousands more would die of radiation exposure in the weeks, months, and years following the bombing. Three days later another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. In the decades that followed, the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, and maybe even North Korea have constructed thousands of nuclear weapons, most of them more powerful than the ones used by the United States against Japan.

In the decades since, none of the countries that have built these weapons have used them. There is a good reason for that. Once a nation crosses the nuclear threshold today there is no going back. It was something that President John F. Kennedy understood, and he led the nation through a potential nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis, “We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth.”

I have always been concerned about the character and temperament of Donald Trump, especially when I think of the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons, Back in the 1980s during the Cold War I was a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defense Officer. I had to learn all about the effects of nuclear weapons on people. I could tell you how many Rads, or the absorbed radiation dose that a soldier could be exposed to and still function. I could tell you how best to survive a nuclear strike, what kind of structure, or vehicle would provided you some amount of protection from radiation exposure. I could tell you how long you could remain in an area where a nuclear blast, or in the case of the Chernobyl meltdown occurred, and I could plot fallout patterns. The maps we used to plot those things in our training included the city that I lived in. I know more about this than I ever wanted to, and those when I hear politicians or for that matter anyone advocating for the use of nuclear weapons, especially as a first strike option, I get concerned.

This week, Joe Scarborough of the MSNBC morning show “The Morning Joe” reported that a senior national security policy adviser was asked by Donald Trump “why can’t we use nukes?” three times within less than an hour. When I heard Trump’s acceptance speech, he said that he would defeat the Islamic State “quickly,” even as he derided the U.S. Miltary as a “disaster.” To me that meant only one thing, that he would use nuclear weapons as a first strike option against an enemy that has no capacity to destroy us. The Islamic State is evil, but it is not an existential threat to the United States or any of its allies, thus from an ethical, moral, legal, and military standpoint the use of nuclear weapons would be criminal.

I believe that it spoke volumes as to why he is unfit to lead this country, and why so many military and national security experts are not supporting him. The fact is that Trump has no self-control. He acts on emotion and perceived slights to his person. His prejudices are now legend, and his ignorance of basic national security strategy policy, government, and even the Constitution itself are shown on a daily basis. Barbara Tuchman wrote something that I think is very applicable to Trump. “Strong prejudices and an ill-informed mind are hazardous to government, and when combined with a position of power even more so.” [1]

When I read Tuchman’s words I can only think about Donald Trump with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

Anyway, it is something to seriously ponder. Have a great weekend.

Peace

Padre Steve+

[1] Tuchman, Barbara The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam A Ballantine Book published by Random House, New York 1984 p.138

1 Comment

Filed under ethics, History, Military, News and current events, Political Commentary