Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran Hooray
So Obama is hardly the pacifist I would like as a president (in my humanity I know that is not possible, but in my hopefulness, well I hope) and on that mark may only be better than John McCain because he doesn't incessantly joke about killing people. Seriously, Barack, I know you read this, escalation in Afghanistan and occupation are not the answer, but thank you for not constantly making light of the deaths of others.
Anyway we already know my thoughts on the war hero trope/tripe and tonight's speech sold more of the same but what really got me was the crowd's reaction when John McCain said he was a warrior who hated war so knew what to do to keep the peace.
That was an applause line, folks.
Granted, it wasn't a crickets chirping moment, but they cheered more for lower taxes.
That was troubling. The 13 year old curators of the YouTube haven't put that bit up yet- so if you missed it, you missed a lot.
This is a segue.
Soon after the CA Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to prevent same sex couples from marrying, our Yearly Meeting/Annual Conference/Equipping Center sent out reminders of what our Faith and Practice said about marriage and teh Gay. The reminders also included some "resources" one could consult on the legal and pastoral issues. I asked if these resources reflected our interpretation of Faith and Practice. Of course the response was that they were simply resources while F&P remained F&P. When I asked why we did not include a broader scope of resources or let F&P speak for itself... well there was no answer to that.
I would wager there are not many same sex couples sitting in our YM simply waiting for the state go ahead to get married. There are a few gay people that lurk about the periphery of our congregations, but hardly in numbers that would seem to warrant a Yearly Meeting-wide memo. Strange... no not strange... what's the word I'm looking for? Oh it'll come to me soon, but let's say strange for now. Strange that we would need to provide resources and reminders for an issue that really isn't a concern of ours. I mean it doesn't require that we address who we are, how we sin, where we struggle in any significant way to say "Gay, Boooooo!".
Memos about divorce, okay. Reminders about honest economics, sure, that makes sense. Advice about the need and how to forgive, I could see that as mattering to us. But harping on teh Gay is about as meaningful as taking a position on handicraft workers operating without the authority of the guild.
Similarly, when Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq, there were no Yearly Meeting announcements. When we actually started dropping bombs, we had nothing to say. It was that way for recent other "conflicts" as well. It's been that way.
Strange... No. Dangit, what's the word I'm thinking of?
That crowd and the lukewarm applause at the idea of "Not War" disturbed me. We are, thank God, not that crowd so I am not making the case that is exactly how we would respond (I am so praying we would not respond that way). But it did show how easy it is for death-mongering to be a default position; the idea of Not War is foreign and confusing. You don't applaud the idea of Not War. But that's the world, isn't it? It takes something transcendent, something divinely other to convince us that it need not be the case, to convince us, as the gentlemen said to McCain (and Obama should remember) "You can't win an occupation". I'd add, no one wins wars. But to the previous, add our reluctance to be confronted with actual sin (that which we actually do to participate in and legitimize death, injustice, and destruction) and you've got quite a recipe for, well, death, injustice, and destruction.
We're not that crowd, sure. But we are no more eager than they to confront how we participate in death, especially if it requires confession. Why should we be when there are GAYS somewhere that need to be told what we think of them?
Faithless. That's the word.
The Title of This Should've Been the Scene from Holy Grail Wherein Lancelot Butchers a Wedding Party
Hail to the thief (softly)- Radiohead
4 comments:
War is not a hot button issue. Its true that there is probably less than 1% of the "Gay" in our yearly meeting, but how many people do we know who have been affected by war? It's not like there are people that maybe we grew up with and have been apart of our congregation for twenty years. All I'm saying is when the "GAYS" start breaking the ankles and backs of my friends, thats when I'll start sending memos.
I'm sure you've never served in the military so why do you insist on insulting John Mccain's service and record.
At least he fought and served time in a P.O.W. camp so you could sit at a computer and attack him .
-Mark L.
That is a freakin awesome post. Love it. Yup, I don't know that there will ever be a candidate elected president from either party that won't be all for a war should the need arise.
Oh, Monster Machine, what you're doing is seeing how your actual life, the one you live as an actually existing person, rather than as the abstract concept of a person, relates to these issues. Clearly that's not what we're supposed to do, even if THE GAYS start breaking your ankles and back (given you're not referring to something else with that- I never know these days- you kids and all your euphemisms for sex acts).
Mark... Am I insulting his service and record? Two things, at least: First- I think I have been addressing his use of his time as a prisoner of war as his go to argument for everything- even why he should be president. His experience is sympathetic and I'm sure instructive/constructive to how he sees the world but it's not an all access pass. If I am insulting anything, it is the joke/cliche he and his surrogates have made of his experience.
Second, I see no reason to "honor" military service in itself. I am coming from a position that military service in our context cannot be a part of a Christian life. A non-Christian may think something else- even other Christians think something else. I think they are wrong but I can only be faithful to what I can be faithful and the same for them. Nevertheless, given the diverse reasons and experiences that lead one to volunteer for military service and the various reasons military actions are begun, it is an offensive absurdity to give some blanket of "honor" to every act or category of military service. I do not accept for a moment that Viet Nam as a whole was a legitimate affair, but the practice of raining bombs on civilian targets (an accepted military policy now) is especially egregious, perhaps even, if you will, DIShonorable.
Anyway, you're premise that one can only critique the machines of death if they've ever been a cog in that machine is silly. But I think we are all much more a part of that machine than we think. So I guess I have a place to speak to it even from your silly premise.
And I think you'll have to draw clearer lines of causality between McCain dropping bombs on civilians and my sitting at a computer. Unless you simply mean the world is as the world is in its entirety so that everything is a matter of cause or effect in relation to everything else. In which case you're right- they are connected but not by "so". "And" would be the proper conjunction there.
Todd H. I wonder if that's the case given the nature of our dominance and attitude toward securing that dominance. Are other countries as gung ho about war as we are? Has the US always been so excited to start a war?
I know the answer to those questions is "no" so I guess I should be asking- what is it about the nature of our dominance/place in the world that makes us so eager to wage war?
Post a Comment