Continuing to Reflect and Respond

Those who preach a message of hate, anxiety, or fear are teaching false doctrines. That's a paraphrase of what our pastor said yesterday morning in his homily. I would add that those who preach vengeance and war as "Christian" responses are also preaching false doctrines. War may be inevitable in many situations, but it is never a Christian response in my opinion. A nation may need to go to war in different circumstances, but as far as I'm concerned Christians become people of prayer to minimize the casualties and the repercussions of war on those involved. Which, by the nature of our citizenship, includes us as well.

But a look around Facebook, the Internet, or 24/7 news will show that to be a person of peace in the midst of such violent times is downright a minority opinion. So is acceptance of those who are different. So is the willingness to call our own Christian history into question as a historic role model for what we see happening today.

One of my friends on FB drew upon the Crusades as a possible way of seeing what we might be called to do against ISIS. Of course it wasn't just ISIS that is invoked as the enemy. It is Islam. Which they imply is far worse than Christianity. When I point out the historic inaccuracy of such views, I become one of those liberals trying to excuse the terrorists instead of condemning.

No, I say. I condemn terrorism.

• Islamist terrorism in Paris or Beirut; 
• Christian terrorism in Northern Ireland, the KKK in the American south or against abortion clinics and abortion providers; 
• Tribal terrorism in central Africa; 
• Ethnic terrorism in Eastern Europe.

Terrorism is terrorism. End of statement. It is always abhorrent and horrific and aims at innocent people. The terrorists of any type see no one as innocent. If you are not with them, you are supporting the evil of their enemies.

The Crusades, some say, were an appropriate Christian response to Muslim oppression and persecution of Christians. I have a number of responses to that:

• The world of the Crusades is not the world we live in. For example:
• Nation-states as we understand them today did not exist. When they did in embryonic form in Western Europe, there was a higher power than the state government- the Church.
• When the Church called for the Crusades it was a call to a war of aggression and the gain of territory and wealth. Sure it was couched in the language of kicking the "infidels" out of the Holy Land, but it was still a war of power.
• When some Crusaders entered areas under the hegemony of the Eastern Orthodox-style churches, slaughters of locals sometimes occurred because these couldn't be "real" Christians. They weren't "western."
• How did the Crusades recruit? They promised the Crusaders that they would get a quicker entry into heaven as a result of their fighting. (Note: This led to what were called "indulgences" and the later protest against that by Martin Luther.)

Any of this sound familiar? The church may not have promised whatever number of virgins, but they did promise entry into God's kingdom as a payment. Many fell into line quite quickly for any of a number of reasons- escape poverty, escape jail sentences, get a family member out of Purgatory, hopes to get rich, a desire to be powerful when feeling powerless.

Others cry out- "Why don't national Muslim leaders speak out? Why don't they condemn the attacks?"

A not very in-depth Google search will find many, many examples of such anti-terrorism statements. What do people want them to do, go fight ISIS with guns in Syria to show they are opposed to the terrorists? Even international Christian leaders such as the Pope have been unable to stop Christian violence by their supporters- and many believe the Pope has unlimited power over Catholics. The National Council of Churches makes statements condemning racism and terrorism, but they are dismissed by those who disagree with them. Yet, it is expected that western Muslim leaders- a significant minority in this country- and within world Islam- will make condemnations that make some sort of a difference.

ISIS and their supporters will only laugh and put targets on the names of those condemning them. We are expecting "western values" to make a difference with a group of terrorists who are out to DESTROY western values. Anyone, even other Muslims, supporting what can be seen as western values will be suspect.

Yes, to have western Muslim leaders speak out has important reasons

• Call American Muslims to resist recruiting
• Remind American Muslims of the possibilities they have in the "west"
• Remind us all that ISIS et al. are the reason many refugees left their homes to come here
• Take a stand for peace
• Ease our Euro-centric American fears of Muslims.

What then are we to do? Where is this going?

First, I think we need to stop hiding our own history behind our self-righteousness. We have been here before in history and it wasn't pretty. It isn't pretty now and won't get any better as long as we believe we are blameless in the past. Rewriting - revising our history - to justify anger and vengeance is not helpful.

Second, we need to find more common ground within the country. We need each other. Name-calling doesn't work on the grade-school playground; it works even less in the political arena. It only further separates us. We don't need that!

What might be some of the common ground? How about:

• Being clear who the "enemy" is- radical extremists Muslims are responsible. Let's name that and NOT demonize all of Islam. 
• Stop "spin" to make everything Obama's fault or Bush's fault or God knows what else. That gets us as far as does name-calling.
• Find ways to increase dialogue with Muslims in the United States. Most of us know very few Muslims personally. Let's change that.
•  Admit that we are in a war. Pope Francis has said we have been fighting World War III as a piecemeal war. I believe he is right. But a war of this type may very well give us some possibilities we may not have had before to bring disparate nations and sides together. I don't give a damn how it started- we can't change that. We can look for ways to bring about a change.
• As a pacifist I have serious problems with war. It is never the best solution. It may be the only solution at some point, but that is not a reason to celebrate war. As a country we need to find ways to wage this war with as much of an eye to peace as we can. War will always lead to difficult and awful decisions.
• How does a pacifist support a war? With great difficulty; it is never an easy choice. 
• A pacifist needs to always be there in the midst of the discussion reminding  the nation of its humanity and its need to remain humane. 
• A Christian pacifist (which has never, NEVER been a contradiction) will remind all, themselves included, that we are all (on both sides of the conflict) created in the image of the Creator. 
• The deaths of civilians and innocent people (so called, collateral damage) are never acceptable and when it happens, confession and repentance is essential.
• Pacifists are not unpatriotic. We love our country and will always work hard to keep her strong and committed to our historic values. We may not take up arms and may often be seen challenging common wisdom as well as a warrior mentality, but we are not un-American. We will do what we can do to maintain our freedoms and hopes as a nation.

This is a difficult time. The government of the past two administrations as led us deeper into a war-mode. One did this by it's saber-rattling, regime-change, and general lack of insight. The other has attempted to downplay what is happening with groups like ISIS. Both have continued the American tradition that goes way back in history of poor intelligence often caused by the intelligence community giving those in power the news they want.

Unfortunately I don't see anything better happening no matter who gets elected. It is a time for new insights, new tactics, new understandings. I don't know what those new things are, but we are not living in the world of World War II or even Vietnam. This is new and dangerous. New insights and direction are needed.

So I pray. Not out of fear or anxiety, but out of the need to remain settled and centered in the ways of God. I also pray that I am not being a prophet- that these things will not come to pass, that we will not deepen the war-mentality and fall deeper into a new morass of unwinnable war. I pray that our values as a nation will not be lost in fear and a desire to have a perfect life.

Let me end with words of a hymn used in worship yesterday. These words form a prayer of hope in these days of growing war...

O God of every nation,
of every race and land,
redeem the whole creation
with your almighty hand;
where hate and fear divide us
and bitter threats are hurled,
in love and mercy guide us
and heal our strife-torn world.

From search for wealth and power
and scorn of truth and right,
from trust in bombs that shower
destruction through the night,
from pride of race and nation
and blindness to your way,
deliver every nation,
eternal God, we pray!

Lord, strengthen all who labor
that we may find release
from fear of rattling saber,
from dread of war's increase;
when hope and courage falter,
your still small voice be heard;
with faith that none can alter,
your servants undergird.

Keep bright in us the vision
of days when war shall cease,
when hatred and division
give way to love and peace,
till dawns the morning glorious
when truth and justice reign
and Christ shall rule victorious
o'er all the world's domain.

Words: William Watkins Reid, Jr.
Words © 1958, Renewed 1986 by The Hymn Society (admin. by Hope Publishing Co., Carol Stream, IL 60188).
All rights reserved.

When Will It Ever End?

Again and again it happens. We cannot seem to be able to escape death and destruction in the midst of violence. It is a vicious cycle that always follows the same pattern. We could plot it on a timeline and wait for each to happen.

It starts with that bloody, horrific event. It could be a riot in Ferguson, a mass shooting in a school, or a terrorist attack in Boston or Paris. Everyone does their part and reacts in sadness, anger, horror, and shock. It is our part because that is how we humans respond to such things. It is a cycle of trauma that has become so commonplace in our 24/7 news cycle, highly interconnected world, that we don't even realize we are being traumatized and re-traumatized every time it happens.

News coverage can then go over the top, reporting more than they know and often depending on sources that have little if any connection to the situation. The NPR program, On the Media has a meme they post everytime something happens to remind us that we don't know what's happening yet. They call it The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook. We saw some of this happen yesterday on Facebook, for example, when people were posting pictures supposedly from Paris last night when in reality they were from the Charlie Hedbo event in January.

It doesn't take long for the politicians to weigh in. They all have their talking points, right, left, or middle. It's all there. You know what they are going to say and how others will react. Just watch the pictures, leave the TV off and you will know the progression of the story.

By now the "Pray for [fill in the blank]" posts will be up. New graphics for each situation or the ubiquitous candle(s) will have the word "Pray" superimposed. A quick check showed that about 15% of my "Friends" had changed their profile picture for the Paris situation.

Someone will come up with a unique graphic like the Eiffel Tower Peace Symbol last night. All these will go viral. They are sincere; I participate in this as well. It is important to be reminded that there is something possible for us to be involved in at that very moment. As we are praying for Paris or Beirut or wherever, we are also bringing ourselves into the presence of our God. We are seeking the peace we want Paris to have. We need the peace we are asking God to provide.

While that is happening the memes from the left- and right-wings begin to show up. Blaming becomes the word. That and revenge. Rhetoric will fly. Violence will be threatened or suggested by some. Others will try to defuse this with meaningless actions that only they will care about. (I kind of fit into that category. More later.)

Then we have a few days of "in-depth" reporting, comments, more information, interviews with victims families or eye-witnesses. The news cycle moves on.

Until the next time.

And I have absolutely no idea what to do about it.

How can I speak up? What difference can anything I say make? So I post a few things to challenge narrow thinking or attempts to demonize people. A few of my regulars respond. Some will agree; some will disagree. Those who disagree are friends who I respect and trust and we work hard at being respectful and appropriate. We will sometimes go into messaging so as not to overwhelm the posts. But we do not point fingers at each other and often just agree to disagree since we are reasonable people.

Is that enough? Is that what we can do? I have no idea.

 The cycle I have talked about above will continue. It will happen again somewhere, maybe even in my state or community. We will go through the same ups and downs. We need to find a way of approaching it with peacefulness.

I am reminded of the old saying

Think Globally
Act Locally

Maybe that means that what I am doing is a start, and at times, perhaps all I can do. It also means that I need to be sure I am in a peaceful place. I cannot engender peace around me  if my life is in hatred or anger or fear. Hatred, anger, and fear are what the extremists are trying to get us to feel. We will then shut down our thinking and fall into purely emotional responses. No one wins then- except the extremists.

It means something different to each of us. For me acting locally means that I need to find the peace within me- and then live it. That is why I will go to church tomorrow to envelop myself in my faith tradition and seek the peace that passes understanding. Then, and only then, can I move out to live it.

I pray that we can all find our source of peace and hope in these seemingly never ending cycles of violence and death.

Mental Health or Terrorism?

• A 20-something white kid wraps himself in a Confederate flag and spouts white supremacy- and kills people in a church.
• A 20-something Middle Eastern kid wraps himself in ISIS ideology and kills Marine recruiters.
• A 20-something white kid in Colorado with no apparent ideology walks into a movie theater and kills people.

Is it terrorism or is it mental health?
Is it true ideology or is it illness.

 

We don't seem to know how to answer that. All of the above cases- and countless others from Sandy Hook to Columbine have one thing in common- the clear presence of mental illness. There are events that are clearly terrorism-based. There are attacks against the event promoting images of Mohammed, the Middle Eastern soldier attacking his base, the shoe bomber, September 11. These are terrorism. As were the Oklahoma City and Boston Marathon bombings.

 

But most are not.

 

Someone out there has no doubt done the research and can tell me how many of the attacks are truly acts of terrorism and how many are the acts of individuals who may be attracted by extremist, violent ideology, but who are acting out there own violent illnesses and racist or religious ideologies and prejudices. These are often loners, perhaps even bordering on anti-social or psychopathic loners.

 

They are encouraged by the attention it gets and want to go out in a blaze of glory, taking their "enemies" with them, even if those enemies are other students, innocent bystanders or kindergarten kids. These are not sane individuals. These are terrorists in the broad sense of the word- people who are spreading terror. But they are not terrorists in the world-wide sense of that word.

 

They are fed and watered by our news media's need for big stories. They are nourished by a gun culture that even sees the answer to the violence as more guns and more potential for violence. I saw where one small town even tried to pass a local law that the head of every household should own a gun and know how to use it.

 

I would have been asked to leave that town as I would have refused.

 

Allow people to carry guns into movie theaters and these maniacs won't get away with it. But as the old saying is re-interpreted: Build better laws and protections against maniacs and you will simply promote better maniacs.

• What we need is a serious discussion on our culture.
• What we need is reasonable laws that help curtail gun violence and gun registration.
• What we need is a group like the NRA to be the group that starts putting together serious, thoughtful regulations and guidelines that can have an impact, not the mindless, unquestioning antipathy to any and all attempts to make sense of this insanity.

 

We are not having that. We are seeing people on both sides of the issue making extreme- and at times extremely stupid- statements that are meant to engender fear, not dialogue; disagreement and not unity.

• What we also need is an improvement in insurance coverage for mental health issues.
• We need better ways of identifying and treating those who may be in the midst of mental health crises.
• Finally, we need a greater awareness that mental illness is a disease that needs to be treated on a parity with other illnesses.

This will not eliminate mass shooting like we have seen, but it may reduce their frequency and give us a more healthy and open attitude in the country about how to deal with this serious issue. Stop the name-calling; stop the anger-inducing rhetoric; stop our unwillingness to face the issues. We can do this!

Maybe "Free" Speech Isn't "Free?"

I have always been taught that freedom of any kind also brings with it responsibility. The old adage that free speech does not cover yelling fire in a crowded theater. That has naturally come to mind a number of times in the past few weeks with the terrorist attack in Paris and all that occurred after it.

The question really arose most clearly when the first edition of Charlie Hebdo after the attack published another cartoon of Mohammed. I gather there were all kinds of rationalizations and justifications for the publication. Many of those were highly philosophical discussions that make sense in some western thinking process. There is also the very basic of freedom of speech. But the magazine knew that the publication of another cartoon would raise the possibility (and high probability) of problems. They published it anyway.

Is this the same as yelling fire? Were the editors being irresponsible and putting innocent lives in jeopardy? Sure it is part of our western ethos (though not always practiced) that freedom of speech is important, but at what cost?

When we are dealing with a different cultural understanding in a time and place of war and danger is it a good idea to inflame the situation putting our values on a people who don't share those values?

They are not easily answered questions, I know, but as our world gets smaller and the great diversity more easily accessed, we need to be looking at them as important questions. We Westerners have often been guilty of cultural imperialism, ignoring and even denigrating other cultures. A certain humility needs to be at work here.

Yes, I know this can feel like censorship. Is it censorship, though, when I decide that I don't need to be as inflammatory as I can because I can care about others? Is it censorship when I find better and less inflammatory ways to say what I want to say?

Those, too, are important questions that can make the difference between life and death for innocent people.

Who Do We Care About?

I know I'm not the first to say this, but I want to add my voice to the discussion, if only in a brief way.

The Headline:

Nigeria's forgotten massacre: 2,000 slaughtered by Boko Haram, but the West is failing to help

Then the story:

Ignatius Kaigama, the Catholic Archbishop of Jos and president of the Nigerian Bishops Conference, spoke as bodies lay strewn on the ground in Baga, in north-east Nigeria, after a surge by Boko Haram fighters who took over the border town earlier this month.

He highlighted the stark difference between the West's willingness to act when 17 people were killed by militants in France and the approach to the slaughter in Africa.

Estimates of the death toll in Baga and surrounding villages, which were razed by fire, have been put at up to 2,000. Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly who could not flee in time, said Amnesty International, which labelled it the group's deadliest massacre yet...

The gulf in the attention between the murders in France and the Nigerian massacre was highlighted Twitter messages yesterday.

Imad Mesdoua, a political analyst at consultants Africa Matters, tweeted: "No breaking news cycle, no live reports, no international outrage, no hashtags." The actress Mia Farrow and Stephanie Hancock, of Human Rights Watch, were among those to observe that there had been "no outrage or headlines" about the Nigerian slaughter.

Harry Leslie Smith, the 91-year-old who electrified the Labour Party conference last year with a speech on the NHS, said on Twitter: "Note to the media and Western politicians that Paris isn't burning but Nigeria is."

--The Independent

Do we even care?

Why not?

Parisian lives matter; African lives do not?

Lord forgive our selfish self-centeredness and lead us to compassion and care.

Ask Someone Who Knows Something About It

The release of the Senate report on torture by the CIA has drawn a lot of attacks from Republicans. There are justifications, explanations, anger, fears and all kinds of things going around. When asked what made it legal, former President Bush said, "because our lawyers said it was." Most studies of torture (or "enhanced interrogation techniques" in 1984-type Newspeak) have found that it is a useless way of gathering information. It doesn't work because the prisoners have often been trained to give wrong answers, incorrect information, and misleading directions.

How do we know this? Because that is what we train OUR troops to do when tortured. But, of course, we are smarter than our average enemy and won't work on us will work on them.

The man who may know the most about torture-based interrogations is of course, a Republican, Senator John McCain (R-AZ). And of course he is attacking the report. Oh, wait. No he's not. He knows the truth behind torture and its impact. It does not save lives, it only gives the "torturing nation" a sense of power. It gets more mis-information than truth and ends up eating away at the soul of those who do the enhanced interrogations.

John McCain has said and done many things that I disagree with. He has, however, been doggedly consistent on this issue. For that I am glad. Thank you, Senator. Too bad your colleagues aren't listening.

Terrorist or Sociopath?

The lead of the article from the AP said this:

A Somali-born teenager plotted "a spectacular show" of terrorism for months, saying he didn't mind that children would die if he bombed a crowded Christmas tree-lighting ceremony, according to a law-enforcement official and court documents.

Reading over the article and news about this incident I wondered the very question I put in the title above. At least at this point as I write this, there doesn't seem to be any big link between this teenager and any major terrorist plot. It may only be a crazy (VERY CRAZY!) kid who has dreams of seeing death and destruction like on TV, the movies, or video games. That doesn't mean that lots of death and destruction is minimized by it. Not a chance. In fact the aimless, purposeless, cold approach just to have "a spectacular show" is downright more scary than an Al Qaeda plot. "Homegrown" terrorism is harder to understand.

Unless one looks at it from the view of psychology. We're talking sociopath. Officially, antisocial personality disorder. It often starts in adolescence as oppositional-defiant behavior. Sociopaths have no remorse, no thought to the consequences to anyone else of what is about to happen. There is no understanding of morality as most of us understand it. There is no need to justify, explain, or even want to recognize their actions. It just happens!

Sure, sociopaths will make good terrorists and there may be a connection between terrorism and sociopathy. The results are the same- terror, fear, death. But we should be careful to make sure we don't think that all sociopathic acts are acts of international terrorism. Yes, this one may turn out to be more than it seems today, but let's not jump to any conclusions. Sick sociopaths are not interested in international politics. International terrorism may sometimes get them excited, but they are not one and the same.

Above all with this situation, I am grateful that it didn't happen anywhere but in this sick kid's head.

If It Isn't Sufficient Anymore?
Here was a paragraph in the NYT last week that hit me hard:

“The old categories no longer apply,” Mr. Schäuble said in an interview with the magazine Der Spiegel. “We have to clarify whether our constitutional state is sufficient for confronting the new threats.”
--Link

It is a quote from Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany's top security official. He is speaking in the midst of a debate going on within Germany about what the new terrorist threats mean and how to prepare for them. Look again at the second sentence:

whether our constitutional state is sufficient...

Actually these words came as he was giving suggestions about what could be done to lessen threats. He feels that

Germany should consider detaining potential terrorists and sanctioning the killing of terrorist leaders abroad.

Mr. Schäuble, a conservative politician who is the country’s interior minister, also said that the police should be allowed to conduct clandestine searches of private computers by way of the Internet, a practice now forbidden.

--Link

My first reaction was "Thank goodness they are having the debate before they lose their rights." But my thinking then went toward the deeper philosophical-political issues, the whole process, and threat, and what it could mean to what we have understood in the West as freedom and democracy.

If a constitutional democracy cannot maintain its democracy and freedoms when faced with such a threat, democracy is far more fragile than we would have believed. If democracy and our constitutional government can only survive when there are no threats like Al-Qaeda, then why have so many died protecting it? That, for me, was the scariest thought. Somehow or another I believe that a free democratic country that will always protects the rights of its citizens can survive. Will there be those who utilize the "system" for their own ill-conceived ends? Of course. Politicians have done that for years. So have businesses and criminals. It has to work or we have been built on a lie. And I for one do not believe we have been built on a lie.

The lie comes when we think we should have to give up some of our basic rights and freedoms because someone is threatening us. The lie comes when we think that the government has the "right" to do whatever is necessary to protect us- even take away our basic rights. I fear that we might someday we may be looking at a document called the Constitution and shake our heads in sadness as we say that we had to ignore it to save it.

Kind of like that village in Vietnam that had to be destroyed to save it.

That is not freedom at work. That is not the constitution that we rightly hold so high. I know, I know. If I'm not doing anything wrong why should I be afraid? Well, it all depends on who makes the list of what's right and wrong. Those who made it to Nixon's enemies list were simply upholding democracy and expressing their opinions freely. That did not make them enemies of the state. The line is much too thin- vanishingly thin at times- between having freedom and having it taken away.

I hope that next year's election will include some honest and in-depth debate on this issue. There is a great deal at stake- not the least of which is 225+ years of people fighting and dying to keep us free.

A Day In a Book
I have just finished Ian McEwen's remarkable novel, Saturday. What this guy does with words and everyday life is nothing short of miraculous. At first you feel like he is plodding along, telling far too many little details, digging into far too many corners of his characters' souls, minds, and histories. Do you really care?

The answer becomes, quite simply, "Yes."

The central character is a British neurosurgeon. It is about a month before the start of the Iraq war, a Saturday when a large demonstration was held in London. Starting with an pre-dawn awakening and ends exactly 24 hours later as Dr. Perrowne gets ready to go back to bed after a day of ups, downs, tension, terror, and the boring. He reflects on life, history, his life, his children, his squash game, a disabled aircraft landing, the impending war, his wife, and the man who threatens his life.

Somehow I got the idea that these unrelated events can, if given time and space, be a commentary on each other- and on nothing in particular. It is a stunning book that made me reflect on the sources of terror and our human attempts to end it while unwittingly causing it.

I'm not sure I could take more than one of McEwan's books in a row. I need time to decompress and to allow life to return to some normalcy of pacing and insight. But he is truly a unique writer of extraordinary gifts and grace. Perhaps in the end it is only grace that will rescue us all from terror.