As most of you probably already know, President Bush gave the commencement address at
We seek open and honest dialogue about the Christian faith and how it is best expressed in the political sphere. While recognizing God as sovereign over individuals and institutions alike, we understand that no single political position should be identified with God's will, and we are conscious that this applies to our own views as well as those of others. At the same time we see conflicts between our understanding of what Christians are called to do and many of the policies of your administration.
As Christians we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort. We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in
As Christians we are called to lift up the hungry and impoverished. We believe your administration has taken actions that favor the wealthy of our society and burden the poor.
As Christians we are called to actions characterized by love, gentleness, and concern for the most vulnerable among us. We believe your administration has fostered intolerance and divisiveness and has often failed to listen to those with whom it disagrees.
As Christians we are called to be caretakers of God's good creation. We believe your environmental policies have harmed creation and have not promoted long-term stewardship of our natural environment.
Our passion for these matters arises out of the Christian faith that we share with you. We ask you, Mr. President, to re-examine your policies in light of our God-given duty to pursue justice with mercy, and we pray for wisdom for you and all world leaders.
--Concerned faculty, staff, and emeriti of
35 comments:
I guess that letter serves its purpose, but I'd like to see The Faculty give examples and details for each accusation, and what they would have done instead. Then I'd like to hear a clear response from The Administration. Dusty, could you make that happen please? Thanks.
by the way, why can we no longer edit our comments? I had to delete my last comment because of a spelling mistake.
Are you asking me to represent The Administration? I too would like to see examples and details for each accusation.
Silly kids.
First paragraph (the war): this one seems to already have a pretty clear example-- we went into Iraq with guns blazing for apparantly no pressing need for force.
2nd (hungry and impoverished): significantly reducing taxes on stock dividends-- the most wealthy people in the country (CEO's and other corporate bastards) make the majority of their money not from salaries but from dividends; this is essentially a tax break for the very, very wealthy.
3rd (intolerance and divisiveness): "Defence of Marriage" ammendment. Reckless diplomacy. "axis-of-evil" and similiar statements. This one really just goes on and on.
4th (environment): Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Unfortunately, the faculty of Calvin didn't form a paragraph that let's me talk about the general attack upon democracy and democratic principles on display in such fine places as the "Patriot" Act, the Teri Schaivo three ring circus, imprisoning American citizens in military brigs without lawyers and attempting to take away thier right to trial by jury, and the lenient attitude towards torture expressed by our current attorney general and secretary of state.
It shows that, in America, the qualifications for being a "Christian" in the public sphere are: 1)oppose abortion and 2)oppress homosexuals (thus the exclusion of any other topics from the category "moral issues"). War, peace, poverty, hunger, orphans, minorities-- these don't seem to matter much (although they were the constant concerns of the incarnate Christ).
On a related note, I don't know if any of you saw the interview with Howard Dean on this week's "NBC News, Meet the Press". It was pretty interesting as a whole, and they talked about a lot of things that we've touched on in the blog. towards the end, Dean happened to make these comments that directly relate to this issue:
"Look, I fit into some of those categories. I don't go to church all that much. I consider myself a deeply religious person. I consider myself a Christian. And I don't--you know, some of the other Christians would dare to say that I'm not a Christian. Frankly, it's what gets my ire up. We get back to the Rush Limbaugh stuff. I am sick of being told what I and what I'm not by other people. I'll tell you what I am. I'm a committed Christian. And the fact of whether I go to church or not, people can say whether I should or shouldn't, I worship in my own way. It came out in the campaign that I pray every night. That's my business. That's not the business of the pharisees who are going to preach to me about what I do and then do something else.
"You know, I care about values a lot. And one of the reasons that I care a lot is because of my upbringing. And it was a--I grew up in a Christian household. Now, because I grew up--I'm a congregationalist. People say, "Well, those are liberals." Well, since when do Christians get tagged liberal or conservative? You either believe in the teachings of Jesus or you don't. I do. And I'm not ashamed to admit it. But I don't go around wearing it on my sleeve. And I think that's a private matter. And I'm happy to talk about it. I've been through a political campaign. There are a lot of folks to whom, you know, that's very important. I respect that. But I'm not going to be lectured to about my own private morality and my own private business by people who don't have the moat taken out of their own eye."
(the entire transcript is found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7924139/)
Coye, could you please explain your position on the Artic Refuge? I have been referring to the following site for information, and I still feel both sides have good points. In my opinion the government and private companies seem to have good intentions and be good stewards of the environment in this case.
Here's the thing: let's say that you have a drug addiction that is causing many problems for you and those around you. Part of your problem is the dealers that you buy from-- some of them are pretty shady characters, and the mark-up is killing your cash flow. Anyways, you're explaining this sitation to me, and you mention that you think the solution to your drug problem might be growing your own stash. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you you're being an idiot. Now, is the best solution to our national petroleum addiction really drilling for oil in the midst of a wildlife reguge?
Also, the national park/ national wildlife reguge system was established for a reason: namely, to keep us from industrializing every acre of wilderness. Modern drilling technology may be safer than it has been in the past, but we are still running a risk of a spill or other catastrophe whenever we sink a well (not to mention the tankers that would carry crude oil between the icebergs and rocks of Alaska's arctic coast). And even if there never is a spill, the presence of wells, roads, pipelines, drilling equipment, docks, storage tanks, security buildings, airstrips, and all the other necessary equipment turn the "wilderness refuge" into an industrial zone, making a mockery of our intent in setting wilderness areas aside as "refuge". Teddy Roosevelt will be rolling over in his grave.
I think a better comparison to oil would be food. You don't like buying veggies from the corporate bastards at Jewel so you decide to turn your back yard into a garden. It's a pity you won't have grass to play in but it's more important to eat your vegetables.
Oil. Not the ideal source of energy but for now, we need it--especially at this stage in history where we desperately need to supplant the tyrant-run terrorist-feeding monopolies in the middle east.
1. no pressing need for force? nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Saddam's dangerous disregard for U.N. directives and inspection teams.
2. CEOs and other corporate bastards. I hope you're not branding these people bastards just because they're rich. Presumably it's because their wealth is built on corruption, vice, abuse and the like. Well, I'm happy to announce that capitalism/the stock market is a good system without that sort of corruption built-in. To be sure it's a powerful financier of bad as well as good, but let's not lose our heads here and disservice good Christian principles of private property, ownership, and investment.
If you haven't read it yet, read the article on Steve's site (sahv.com) about Christianity and capitalism.
3. Intolerance and divisiveness. That sounds like just what we need. Singling out murder, theft, adultery and evil-minded terrorists and cutting them off. I remind you of what Paul says, that governments are a terror to evil.
Oh, by the way, there were NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!! There wasn't even a viable nuclear program in Iraq. And disregarding UN directives...hm, that sounds like... George W. Bush, maybe?
Can someone explain to me how investment got baptised into a Christian principle? I guessed I missed that week in catechism.
And we should be spending money developing alternatives to the fossil fuel oligarchy, but Chevron, Texaco and General Motors have been lining the pockets of beaurocrats for decades to sqash research in alternative energy sources. Oil buys Tom Delay trips to Fiji, so why not bow before it?
Let's not forget that the Germans and the French (and practically everyone else in the world) are thieving adulterous terrorists-- and remember what Jesus said about adultery: "Cast that first stone, boys!"
Why did the U.N. send inspection teams to Iraq? To verify what Saddam was saying, that he didn't have WMD. Saddam did nothing to cooperate with these teams however or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrate that he was clean. He was defying the U.N.
This should have lead to action, but the U.N. is impotent and corrupt, so naturally it lead to nothing, and this is what Saddam was counting on.
Not good enough for the most powerful country in the world which recently suffered a devastating terrorist attack by people who there was good reason to believe were in league with Saddam.
A lone tyrant, sworn enemy of the U.S.A., aggressor against Kuwait, refusing to back up what he was saying. Something had to be done, and the U.N. was not going to do it. Consider the Oil-for-food scandal, implicating France, Russia, Kofi Annan. Consider the U.N.
Bush made the decision to go into Iraq based on solid CIA and British intelligence that Saddam had WMD. That intelligence turned out to be wrong. That doesn't make it a bad decision.
---
Did you read the article on Steve's site, Coye? about christianity and capitalism...I would like to think and talk more about this topic, but for now i've got to go.
"And disregarding UN directives...hm, that sounds like... George W. Bush, maybe?" -Coye
Were there UN Resolutions prohibiting an invasion of Iraq? I thought the only real objection came from just a few European "bastards" who were getting pocket-linings from the Hussein regime, and the people they convinced.
Coye, by the way, I agree that we need to reduce and eventually extinguish our dependence on oil (and not just foreign). This will have to come either by some miracle energy breakthrough, or by getting out of the car mentality, making public transportation more viable. This will mean not designing cities for cars, building things closer together, getting rid of the depressingly huge parking lots. Can it happen? I hope so, but, well, it will take a huge change in how Americans think.
We don't really need a miracle breakthrough to significantly diminish our petroleum dependence. Hydrogen fuel cells are looking more and more promising, hybrid gasoline-electrics are slowly entering the market, and bio-diesel (a fuel made entirely from corn-- a renewable resource-- and so safe in it's pure form that you can drink it) is currently only slightly more expensive than petroleum diesel (and diesel engines need no modifications to run on bio-diesel with lower emissions than petroleum). Why aren't we spending our resources further developing these emerging technologies (along with wind and solar power, etc) instead of thrusting our oil drills into the virgin wilderness?
Oh, and there is a standing rule in the UN against invading foreign countries with military force. That is why we tried to get a UN resolution allowing us to invade Iraq, which we never received, which technically makes us a rogue state flouting international law.
"rogue state flouting international law" ...I like the sound of that.
"technically a rogue state flouting international law" I like that sound of that. Why, you ask? flouting international law is nothing, nay, is GOOD, if that law is not based on biblical principles of justice..
The U.N. however is composed of nations that do not agree on these principles. How could they? Communists, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists? How could they?
Perhaps in context of the U.N. these disparate faiths have come to some sort of agreement about right and wrong, good and bad. But it is an agreement of words and not action.
The wicked are hypocrites. They say one thing and do another. This is the U.N.
Naturally I agree that resources should be spent on developing the aforementioned energy resources. But private entities should do it and not the government. more appropriate and more effective.
Ryan, from your vantage point, is the US a Christian State?
not in the sense that it has divine backing for whatever it does. Would you say that Iran is a muslim state? Probably, but at the same time recognizing that there are other muslim states with conflicting idealogies. The United States is not Christian as much as some middle-east countries are Muslim, I guess, but it is a country with Christian heritage. European countries too have a Christian heritage, as you know, but they have turned their backs on it, it seems.
Our job as Christian citizens is to receive that heritage, expand it, and pass it on. I think Bush is doing a pretty good job of that.
Has there been a "Christian State" in the world lately? I think of "Christendom" but am not convinced. What else?
No, I would say that there has not been a Christian State in the world lately. I do not believe such a thing to be possible until the second coming of Christ--until what creation groans for comes to pass.
Regarding your statements on Islam:
From what I know, the grammar of Islam is nation building--the apex of Islamic practice IS the total Islamic State. But this is certainly not the way of the Church!
(Further note: I do not put Christianity and Islam in the same category--to do so seems to mean either dislocating Christianity from Christ or locating salvation in a set of common concepts.)
Finally, I would hope you'd put a few steps in between the receiving and expanding themes--steps like, weigh, test and purify. Though we are, in some senses, connected with a heritage which was shaped in part through the wisdom of men and women who feared the living God, we cannot simply take their words and actions and patterns as authoritative.
AND let us not pretend that the word American has any real substance to it (we are to be good citizens, yes, but in a rather ironic way!); rather, let us claim a heritage shared by all who have cried out in faith toward Christ Jesus our King! There is one Lord and one faith--woe are we who put any idea or piece of land or written document above this!
Note: Please do not read as if I'm attacking your position, I do not know your position on these things, I'm simply stating what I am convinced of concerning these things.
Appendix A
The grammar of Islam is land-based nation-based nation building (with its set laws governing virtually every social structure imaginable). You cannot be truely Islamic without seeking to build an Islamic state which is ruled by Islamic law.
Christians are invested in nation building, but it is not land-based: it is Spirit based: our law is Spirit and those who do not have the Spirit cannot follow this law. Tthere is no connection between the boundary of geography and the boundary of the Spirit. Our Nation is the Kingdom of God, our economy is the fruit of the Spirit--the riches of Christ--our constitution is the wounds and the body of Christ.
Dave, what is your source for information about Islam? I am no expert, but from what I know, only Shia Islam (the minority of Muslims, something like 10 or 20 percent) is concerned with having Sharia law institutionalized in the state. Sunnis seem to prefer secular governments over theocracies (Iran, for instance, is Shia, while Egypt is Sunni).
And, sociologically and politically, Christianity cannot be removed from its place alongside Islam, Hinduism, etc. in the category of religion. We cannot dislocate Christianity from Christ, but neither can we honestly dislocate it from its human religious practices. To do so would be a dangerous step towards claiming every action by a Christian or group of Christians as the sanctioned will of God (a kind of fundamentalism that mirrors the fanaticism of Osama et al.).
I got my info from a conference on Islam held at college church and also from my previous light-research sessions on the subject; but I spoke too quickly and too generally about a system that is quite complex. My statements on Islam are non-essencial to my point, and they are badly researched and concieved, so I will hereby retract them.
On the other hand, I will by no means retract my stated convictions that the Church, that which is true Christianity, has nothing to do with religion as sociologists define it. The true church is unseen, it is not your local church or a collection of people who refer to themselves as Christians, it is what is the body of Christ. When I say Christian or Christians, I use the strong definiton of it: it is always a destination, an already-but-not-yet, a process being spoken and worked out by God himself.
This does not negate the fact that we who call ourselves Christians are still full and wrestling with dead selves: too often our patterns are based off an economy of limit, and thus, we often look just like everybody else who operates out of an economy of limit.
We have had the beginning of this conversation before, and I am happy to see it through to the end.
While we have moved on to Islamic states, I want to toss in my two cents on the environment and rich people/poverty matters.
For starters, we do not need the oil from Arctic Wildlife Refuge. There is still oil available that we can purchase. As oil supplies diminish and prices increase, we are encouraged to use alternate sources of energy. Not drilling in the refuge encourages us to be making a transition that we need to make anyway. So why not leave the wilderness be. On to Bush's record of overall environmental stewardship, I was surprised that no one cited Bush's opening of formerly protected government forest to the possibility of logging as an environmental abuse or Bush's unwillingness to try and produce substantial regulation that would affect global warming. Few credible scientists deny that the effect is happening. Bush in my eyes is not a good environmental steward.
As for concern for the poor, Bush being able to talk in the way that the common man can understand and appreciate does not equal policy that cares for the poor. Many taxes that affect almost solely the rich have been removed, and cuts to programs that affect the poor must happen at some point if Bush is not willing to raise taxes.
Individual states have already cut or been tempted to cut programs that deal with poverty because they do not receive the same amount of federal funding that they did before Bush took office or the federal government have told the states to pay for programs that the Federal government once took care of.
Now, Coye branding CEO's and other rich people as bastards strikes me as harsh, but I am generally disgusted by the American attitude that care for the poor is an option for what to do with "their" money rather than an obligation. People too often see their money as an entitlement rather than a gift from God, of which God would prefer that we spend in certain ways over others. I am not advocating rampant socialism, and I do believe that people should not feel entitled to hand outs, but it's hard to ignore in reading the Old Testament prophets and the Gospels that care for the poor is expected of us by God. Granted many rich people have charities that they give to, but how much do they give, and what sorts of charities do they give to?
Note on Arab states: Egypt and Saudi might not have the best governments (most Arab states function under varying degrees of repression), but my point is that they are SECULAR governments, which was the point of contention. Clerics do not run Egypt or Syria or Indonesia (which has the world's largest Muslim population). It is also imporatant not to fall into the trap of conflating "Arab" with "Muslim": the human rights issues, repression, etc that are common problems in the Middle East may have more to do with Arab culture than with Islam, and judging Islam by the actions of secular Arab states is the twin brother of judging Christianity by the actions of the US and Europe. WE SHOULD NOT DO IT! Need we be reminded of the oppressive regimes, human rights abuses and war crimes committed by "Christian Europe" in the twentieth-century-- Fascism, National Socialism, Stalinism. Now, we as "Europeans" (and, globally speaking, we are European) can certainly evaluate the practices of Arab governments and condemn oppressive abuses of human rights, but we do so as repentent sinners-- as recovering abusers-- and not as bystanders with clean hands. Anyways, all of this is to say "don't make summary judgments about Islam based on Middle Eastern governments".
Explanation of "corporate bastards" comment: my problem with CEOs et al is not the fact that they are rich-- merely having money is not wrong. What is wrong--and what American corporations are almost universally guilty of-- is best stated in the Book of James: "Listen! The wages of the labourers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts." People who live in excessive luxury financed by workers who aren't making a living wage have fattened their hearts on a day of slaughter.
Oh, and completely disregarding any "welfare" programs, cutting taxes for the very rich places a heavier burden on the poor because the country still costs the same amount to run and that money has to come from somewhere.
The Schaivo incident: this one's for you, Grady. (Thanks for your comments by the way; I've been wondering when you'd comment on this post).
This is my problem with Bush and the Congress regarding this issue: it was never about preserving life. The Republican party exploited a dying woman and her family in an attempt to grab more political power. Now, you might call me a cynical bastard for not believing in the altruism of our politicians, but let's look at their actions and their language. Even at the time of the incident, many congressional Republicans-- Tom Delay, most prominantly-- was far more vocal about "abuses" of power by a "radical judiciary." While the "err on the side of life" line was tossed about liberally before her death, since Ms Shaivo died the congress has not worked on legislation governing end-of-life decisions and the President has not really encouraged them to do so. What we HAVE heard a lot about are "activist judges" and the need for the congress and or executive to have more power over the judiciary. Delay even wants to ammend the constitution to end lifetime apointments for federal judges. Ms Shaivo's name is invoked NOT in favor of life-protecting legislation but as a weapon against the judiciary. The President and the Congress exploited a tragic (and private) situation for a political power-grab, and the news media sucked all the money and ratings they could out of it.
I have other reasons for taking the position I did, but I think this one should suffice for an explanation at present.
I generally avoid the type of conversation which has been used in the last couple days of posts. First, I'm not as well informed or up-to-date on some of these issues as I should be so I can't debate it too well. And secondly, I figure there's no point arguing against predetermined opinions.
But I just want to throw out the idea that in these policy debates, we should stand for a moment in the shoes of the Other. It's certainly a concept that's been flouted quite a bit in our postings. I don't take it personally, but I am a little flabbergasted at the strength of convictions against the current administration. For instance, it's just downright inaccurate and arrogant to suggest that the Republicans never had altruistic intentions regarding the Terry Schiavo case. To say that they callously hijacked the case to push their own agenda is only partially right. Yes, they used the case to push their own agenda because the primary problem (as they saw it) was the actions of the judiciary. But to say that it was calloused, manipulative, and isn't really intended to promote the life issue is ill-informed and offensive. No one can be blamed for pushing their agenda. That's the whole point of the process. The Democrats sure as heck can't point an innocent finger at the Republicans on that issue.
Look at the wrangling and political somersaults that have been made for YEARS in order to block judicial and federal nominations in the Senate. Or the way that anti-war protesters hijack the names and images of soldiers (who were all volunteers) killed in this war to bring attention to their own purposes.
Remember also that we have a system of checks and balances in place in our government. Yes, a few things can get pushed through without bipartisan support (i.e. the tax cuts), but on the whole, there is a lot of compromising that takes place in backrooms. Lots of congressmen and senators that may oppose a policy in public but support a compromise in private. All this to say - Republicans are not the devil. The system as a whole is the devil, but there also isn't much in the way of an alternative.
I would like to add a little defense for the administration against Coye's logic that the poor are bearing the weight of the government because taxes have dropped for the rich and government expenditures are up. The poor are not necessarily eating the brunt of the difference. The federal government is racking up a debt at a much faster rate than our economy is growing, meaning our ability to pay the debt off will be a greater hardship the longer that we ignore the problem. Neither the poor or the rich are paying for the government's high expenditure currently.
Most likely our generation both rich and poor will pay for it as the federal government is wracking up debt at a time that saving is a must to deal with all of the government's promises to the baby boomers, not just social security. Congress both democrats and Republicans and the president are not willing to balance the budget, let alone build a surplus because it's viewed as political suicide to deal with the matter. It should happen though. Since the economy is not in a recession and since we are in a "war" on terrorism that likely has no end, (war and recession are typically considered valid reasons to run a deficit) I see no reason for the neglect of fiscal responsibility other than cowardice, lack of true patriotism, and vote pandering by both parties.
Don't take my condemnation of the GOP as an endorsement of the Democratic Party-- half the time, the Dems are bigger idiots than the Republicans. It just happens that the Republicans are the ones who are currently trying to replace checks and balances and the need for comprimise with the rule of sheer force. When a single party has the Presidency and a majority of the House and Senate (like the GOP does now), the filibuster is the ONLY recourse the minority party has to demand a comprimise; Frist wants to reduce the number of votes needed to break a filibuster to 51, which essentially eliminates the filibuster since the majority party by definition has 51 votes in the Senate. Then we look at the House and see Delay calling for an ammendment that would make federal judges elected officials-- a move that would create the need for judicial campaigns, thus campaign finance, thus a judiciary owned by corporations (the same corporations who already own the White House and Capitol Hill, regardless of party affiliation). Put that together with the House and Senate making a bipartisan vote to circumvent decisions made by the judges in the Shaivo case, and I'm seriously worried about the future of democracy in America. No, I can't blame someone for pushing their agenda, but I can blame them for dismantling our Costitutional safeguards of the democratic process in order to do so.
Hmmm...I'm not really sure Strauss is defending the administration as much as he is attacking it from a different angle.
Here's a question Strauss: when the Americans of the future (that is, us) have to pay for the fiscal irresponsibility of the current government, who will suffer more from the burden, the rich or the poor?
Does anyone else remember Orwell's theory of perpetual warfare from "1984"?
I'm not claiming in any way that the Republicans' (or Tom Delay's) actions are wholly unmotivated by power moves or political advantage, but it's naive to think that they are alone or even worse than anyone else in that respect. This is my main point, I suppose. I am just as willing as you to condemn our leaders for petty power plays, for manipulating public feelings for votes, and for not following through on core constituent issues. But these faults aren't limited to the Republicans. Maybe it's more offensive coming from them because of our Christian idealogies. Frankly, though, I wouldn't put too much weight on Tom Delay at all. The majority leader in the House is really just a barking dog and the position doesn't have much power, especially when the Speaker is in the majority party.
As far as the best way to fix the problems in the judiciary, using a case like this is the best way I can see to do it. It's a lightning rod issue that puts it in laymen terms. That's the only way they can build support for the changes they want to make. I wonder what the family thinks about it, though. Has anyone heard anything in the news from them - do they feel like their being exploited?
Coye, corporations don't own the White House and Capitol Hill. Do they influence? Of course. And favors are done and deals are made. But the majority of our G-men remember their oaths and remember their duties. Have a little faith. We're still the best-run democracy in the world. Oh, and the filibuster is not a constitutional safeguard. There's nothing in the constitution about it at all. It's just a precedent, and new precedents are set all the time.
You know, Andy has said remarkably little (as in NOTHING) in this discussion that he started. That just doesn't seem right to me.
I'm getting to it... see my catastrophic computer crash excuse elsewhere on the blog.
Well, this seems about as good a place as any to recommend watching the new Al Pacino/ Jeremy Irons version of the Merchant of Venice. This seems an appropriate place because I was overwhelmed while watching this performace by Shakespeare's bulldog-like chewing on the relationship of the law and justice and mercy. It is food for thought. (and I thought Andy would be likely to read a comment on this post, and he's probably the only one who cares)
Hmmm... still no Andy.
It's funny, when I think of Calvin College, Social responcibility or Justice aren't the first things that come to my mind. And, hmmm, if they saw us, as a group, I wonder what they'd say about our love and Justice.
All I know is that I want to learn more and more what it means to pour myself out by means of the faith that I have in the King who pours into me. I wish I knew the rallying cry to call a generation to such a thing; toward a kingdom based on first-is-last and last-is-first, and quietness and trust for salvation, and repentence and rest for strength. Where each of us has given and gives and submits to the giving of others. O for words to raise up these bones (my bones included), words of power, words of trust, words of faith.
Post a Comment