Sunday, March 12, 2006

What He's Typed Will Be a Window Into His Madness



If you don't like long posts then you won't like this. It is, in all, a long post. But it is also a collection of little posts- sort of. It's what happens when I second guess myself about what I should or shouldn't post.

THE SET-UP
So if you remember, I wrote the "Defense of Torture" post last Tuesday. How self-referential. It's not much but you can see what I've been occupied with, in part, lately. It may not seem like it, in my treatment of the subject, but I am really bothered by the fact that as a nation we endorse torture but are so quiet about it. I figure we should be whole hog for it and completely defend it as a great thing that should be done everywhere and to everyone or put an end to it. Anyway, the next thing I was working on was an exercise in seeing things form another person's perspective. Even though the president has a very low approval rating, there are still a number of people that think, with everything they know now, he is doing a great job and would vote for him again if he was running today. I wanted to understand, not conservatism- I understand that and am quite conservative about a few things myself, but the mindset that religiously apologizes and supports this president no matter what. That is the point that I can't relate to.

So I was going to take something like lying about not spying on people without wiretaps and look at it from another perspective. Questions about the possibility of objectivity aside, I was going to craft a defense of it- not the act of wiretapping, but the lying about it first off. That's what I was going to try to frame. Then I would frame the wiretapping itself. But as I was doing that, I was getting angry. I can frame a position and defend it as rational, but I could not accept it as right. So I quit that, because I was offending myself and started this...

THE RANT
I'm a pretty fair-minded guy. I try to see and understand where people are coming from and get a sense for who they are and why they do what they do. You can be absolutely convinced of something and be certain of your rightness in it, and I will try to see why you think "X" is good. I don't just mean in matters of taste either. For example, I don't happen to think being dunked in water is much of anything when it comes to churchy stuff. But I understand that for some people it might be the turning point of their lives and if they didn't do it they would just die.

That said, I have to admit I could not conceive people voting for Bush twice. I was blind-sided by that one. I think it perhaps speaks to my lack of cynicism that I was unable to understand how controlled by fear people were and I could definitely not then appreciate just how absurd things would become in the future which is our now. (I'm leaving out my thoughts about how much of our elections mirror Latin American electoral irregularities to make another point.) I thought, "Drag- Iraq is gonna get a lot uglier before it gets any better," and "Ugh- there goes Alaska." All because people didn't want to change horses midstream or some other crapical nonsense like that.

I didn't vote for Bush the first time. I was one of those jerks that voted for Nader; I've done a lot of things I regret. I was also a Deaniac until he tried to find religion. That was awkward. Then I counted my losses and figured, if I'm not voting for Bush, it was Kerry or bust. I know I could've voted for anyone I wanted to in California and it would've gone to Kerry no matter what- I guess I was atoning for my Nader ballot four years prior. I write this in the interest of full disclosure; I've never been a fan of W, but I never thought things would look like this. I do not hold any illusions about what kind of people generally seek power, but I am astounded by the level of vileness we now tolerate.

When I wrote that last sentence, I started to get angry. I was angry at imagining people who think the president is not only doing a good job, but a job that is "the good." But I continued...

I'm not talking about policy decisions or ideologies I disagree with. There are plenty of those, I am rather focusing on outright deceptions, lawbreaking, and a disgusting moral deadness that makes me sick. Can you sense a bit of a tone change here? Setting aside most of the first term, not because the "My Pet Goat" term was good, but for the sake of the post I'm sticking with the second. In just the second, take your pick: the illegal Plame Leak that endangered at least one CIA operative and who knows how many more for the sake of political points, cherry picking intelligence on WMD and distorting intelligence on the same to excuse an invasion of Iraq, saying no one could have anticipated the extensive destruction of hurricane Katrina AFTER being briefed about the extensive destruction of hurricane Katrina, authorizing warrantless, illegal wire taps and lying about authorizing warrantless, illegal wiretaps, endorsing torture and lying about endorsing torture. Any one of them is outrageous and a couple of them are impeachable offenses. It shows you how truly unimaginative I am that I was so concerned about drilling for oil in Alaska. I never thought DOJ lawyers would ever say, "even if the tactics were considered [torture], detainees at Guantanamo would have no recourse to challenge them in court." Really that's where we are. I'm writing "What the hell?!" but thinking WTF. Who are we?

So I am angry. But I don't leave things external, I can't help but bring things back to me and the church- I am so selfish

Admittedly I am tired of the assumption that because I am an evangelical Christian, I am a fan of the president. I am tired of the assumption that these somehow correspond with each other. In one sense, that's just a silliness I need to get over. People who call themselves Evangelical Christians tend to have supported W and largely still do. On the one hand, in some way, I can deal with that and still be a part of the community I am. What I can't do though is let it be thought I support this garbage, what I can't do much more of is stand by as we collectively ignore it. I am tired of our silence that is tacit approval and I'm tired of pretending that thoughtful Christians can disagree about wether torture is good or lying to engage in a war of aggression is right. That certain Evangelicals have the influence they do in this government and public sphere but do not use it to clearly speak against these things disgusts me. Go ahead and cite Romans 13. Forget everything else about our Constitutional form of government wherein law governs and not the whim of a single administration. We'll pretend that doesn't exist. It may say the governing authorities have the right to do whatever the hell they want but it does not give us the right to stand by and say it is good.

Just like I could not agree with someone who said my dad cheating on my mom was good, I cannot agree with someone who says these decisions, these actualized choices, are good. Maybe that just makes me a baby. Maybe I'm the one with a problem because I can't just say things will be good in the long run so they must be good now.

So I stopped writing this because it was getting myself frustrated, but I couldn't write anything else without dealing with this. That's just weird. So, I thought I might address it obliquely. and came up with this:

Burning Down the House/Reichstag
I know I can seem paranoid. I know I can over-react to things. My wife once had to drag me from a supermarket checkout because I was ranting about bread. I needed a loaf of bread so grabbed what I thought was a cheap loaf. But it was an expensive loaf misplaced on the cheap loaf shelf. Expensive may be relative- if you think nothing of filling up your H2 with premium from Shell instead of the regular unleaded from ARCO and drive it to your 7 million dollar home above Sierra Madre, $4 for a loaf of bread may be nothing. But to me $4 seems a bit much for a loaf of bread.

So when the cashier rang up my sale I was surprised at the price. I said something to that effect. She suggested I could go get the cheaper loaf. She's right I could've, but I was suddenly gripped by principle. I started in on some nonsense about food production, ownership, poverty, and the farce of supply and demand pricing that is foisted on our children blah blah blah. Oh I paid four dollars for the bread, but she had to know I was against it. That was dumb, my wife grabbed me by the arm and said, "Nobody cares about your bread, let's go." She wasn't my wife at the time- all I can say about that is she's very lucky I am so forgiving.

Anyway- I know I can be crazy. That said, I still wonder. I wonder in the same way someone might wonder in Berlin in the late Spring of 1933 about how "weird" things might get in the future. I wonder if someone being fired for a bumper sticker won't be news someday. I wonder where our talk about torture (as it were) will lead us....

Then I stop with this. Then Tom Fox is found dead. Then I decide to post this. And it is all bracketed by a trip to the hospital for a hernia.

So there it is. Now it belongs to the ages though none of it is finished. And I think that's how I like it and want it.
Because things aren't finished.

9 comments:

Unknown said...

Robert, thanks I enjoyed your thoughts..err, rants and the subject matter that you tackled, I too don't like being placed into the Evangelical category all that much when it comes to the president. Go Nader....! ah..anyways I hung out with a friend of yours, Chris Frazier last night. He told me about you. He's a really cool cat.

Paddy O said...

Now, the odd thing to me is that I did vote for Bush twice, and might a third time depending on the choices, and if this was constitutionally allowable.

That's odd to me because two otherwise agreeable people can so entirely disagree.

I note this not for political purposes... but just because I think it curious. I do think some of it comes down to what kind of perspectives we're pouring into our heads.

I used to visit National Review every day, and you visit alternet everyday. That leads to two increasingly diverging views on such things, and our own established opinions lead us to emphasize those parts we agree with and dismiss those parts we disagree with.

Yet, issue by issue, I would guess we would agree on most things. Except for the pacifism thing... and maybe that colors everything else.

My only issue comes in assuming that if people disagree on things political they are either "evil" or at the very least not at all a good Christian. Sometimes I think people can have values and perspectives and suchlikes that differ, meaning even though you're totally politically wrong I still like you Skybalon.

Skybalon said...

Hey why can't you all just be like c wess daniels and say I'm great? What's the matter with you?

Anyway I don't use the term evil to say I am good or better than someone else, but to describe an act. I tend to think there are not clear scriptural mandates for what is always bad (I guess another reason I'm not a good Evangelical). To wit, lying, sometimes okay, killing frequently okay, stealing okay a couple of times. I think this is the case to remind us God is good, not us. But this doesn't mean we have no idea of what is right.

We can get a pretty good sense of what God expects in the Law and Prophets and we can really know God in Jesus and I believe the Spirit speaks to us and convinces us of truth (cuckoo). Now, as certain as I pretend to be, all I can know is what I know and not what I hope others might know.

That said, I am convinced, that practically and morally we are making horrendous mistakes and committing terrible evil as a nation. It might be fine for a nation to do that, but for Christians to stand by while it happens is pathetic.

Skybalon said...

Oh yeah- and there's kind of a circle here. The last post- He's Evil...- was started as a comment to this thread but became its own post, though I still commented here. Weird huh?

Paddy O said...

Chris, of course it matters what you read. You say lies and ineptitude. That comes from what you read, and while it seems to suggest a love for peace, in my estimation comes exceedingly close to that other great commandment, which is "no bearing false witness".

What you read, the news you get, what you pour into your soul affects your perspective, and getting all worked up about a President who in all estimation is the same man in private and in public, and who in all estimation genuinely feels he is doing the right thing even if you disagree is not Christian love. You can't pick and choose who to be loving towards.

The fact also is that America's entry into this did not start the killing. The goal is to stop it, and whether meditating on Peace or getting in and finally stopping those who cause evil is the way to do it is a good question.

The fact is that you define your Christian faith in a certain way with all manner of periods and standards and whatnot.

My politics and my positions do reflect my faith, in every part of my life they reflect my pursuit of Christ and my understanding of both his peace and his justice. This is the God who will judge the world, who valued David as being a friend, who took the whip and beat up merchants in the Temple. Jesus is not a tame man, and I have a hard time thinking that he would be somewhat sympathetic to attempts at stopping violence in this world by means of violence against evil men.

Of course this is about what you read. A person fills their souls with condemnation, with rhetorical attacks, with hate filled assaults on a man's character and that affects everything, making even responses that seem Christ like turn into something utterly unloving and unpeaceful. It a fact your peace ends with who you see as an enemy, and it is Bush who is your enemy, not terrorists, not wicked men who rape, and pillage, and destroy for their own bank accounts.

Doing something for Christ can often be the biggest betrayal of our own filling of Christ, in which we let hatred, and evil, and spite, and the breaking of other commandments all go towards some "higher" cause.

You charge Bush for being unChristian in his decisions that war in Iraq will bring eventual peace to the region. I don't get how your attacks on him are any more Christian, for they are filled with hate, filled with bile, and reflect an attitude gleaned from spite, not love.

There is a debate here, and it is not Christian to suggest that because I disagree with you my faith is out of whack. I disagree on policy issues but respect the pursuit of Christ that leads us even to different conclusions. What I do not respect is anyone who would condemn someone for making a differing decision, who would rain insults and bile upon a man who is a Christian brother whether you like him or not, and who would suggest that Christ only agrees with the positions you choose.

Jesus is not tame pet for us to manage, and the complications of this world entail complications of response.

Evil is being done. But, the political question is where the evil lies. I'm of the opinion that had the good samaritan kicked the asses of the robbers before they beat up the man, he would have been an even better Samaritan.

David was a man of war. Solomon was able to build the Temple and made peace. Who is the better servant of our Lord?

By the way Robert, you are great.

Skybalon said...

I'm of the opinion that had the good samaritan kicked the asses of the robbers before they beat up the man, he would have been an even better Samaritan.
But Jesus told a different story. He told that story for a reason. That story is tough enough to live. We should get that part right before we start qualifying it with what we think would make it better.

Paddy O said...

You really think that story is tough to live? Hmmm... I guess I don't see that. Help people around you who need help. I think it gets tough when we lose sight of the people right around us and get busy walking over to other places, and feeling we have to walk up to Galilee when their are people on the road to Jerusalem we right by now.

I think peace begins by bringing peace within our own context. I also think if Jesus was around I'd ask him about the ass kicking thing.

I'm certainly not arrogant enough to say Jesus would definitely agree with me. But I think the point is that the Samaritan went to a great deal of trouble for someone in need. Asking how this story would adapt to different contexts, and different timing seems part of applying Scripture to our own lives. Would the good Samaritan have watched the fellow get beat up if he arrived on the scene an hour earlier? Or would he have leaped in and tried to fight them off?

I wonder about that, and it affects how I view issues of war and peace, even if it's outside Jesus' immediate point of describing who is my neighbor. I don't think a good neighbor would watch while I'm being beat up by villains. Seems pertinent to the broader question to me.

Indeed, I dare say we'd be missing a good many good sermons if we didn't let an analysis of Scripture go past the immediate point.

Paddy O said...

Oh, and you're still great.

By the by, you said, "I am convinced, that practically and morally we are making horrendous mistakes and committing terrible evil as a nation."

What you have to understand is there are Christians, and most likely the President included, who thinks that horrendous mistakes and terrible evils are being committed around the world, and as a nation to not use our resources to fight this would be a terrible evil in and of itself.

I think both sides have merit, and both sides have areas of curious myopia.

I wonder if, in the complexity of the Spirit, both sides can also be right.

We are to act, but we are to act in ways which increasingly reflect a certain character. You are appalled when people in acting act wrong, I am appalled when people so worried about acting wrong don't act.

I think Wyatt Earp was right, you prefer Sheriff Behan. Law versus order, what what?

Oh, and you are also a very cool cat, as is c. wess daniels.

Skybalon said...

I may be great, but here's why I am a "bad Quaker," I see governance does in fact, at times, require violence. I am with Origen on this: sin requires governance. (Aside: that must be understood as Origen articulated it- real freedom is in Christ; authoritative coercion, i.e. government as is commonly understood, is for those who need it, and sadly, many need it.) Governance most always requires coercion, coercion is frequently violent. I previously explained this, and I think made it clear that I do understand "there are Christians, and most likely the President included, who think that horrendous mistakes and terrible evils are being committed around the world." I am one of them. It was a terribly long post where I wrote that, so I guess it's miss-able. But you keep indicating that you allow only the possibility of two options, use our resources to fight evil or not, act or not act, acting wrongly or not acting at all, only two sides possibly being right. To bifurcate (excuse me as I push up my glasses) misses entirely what I've been saying. Why do you keep returning to the refrain that to do anything is to do it as it has been done?

I am not a doctor, but if we were kayaking off Catalina and a Great White mistook you for a seal and took your legs with that mistake. I would do what I knew to do to save you. That would not preclude a doctor from coming along at anytime and saying what I had done was stupid and more harmful than what a more intelligent, well-trained person with the correct resources applying them properly could and should do/have done. I would not demand that this better informed person honor my mistakes by continuing along the same path of treatment I devised or that they limit themself to the tools I decided to use because of my ignorance. Iraq is not two kayakers on the oceanside of Catalina, nor is the world that illustration, but the point is doing something and doing nothing are not the options. We are always doing something (nothing being impossible to do) but the degree to which the something we do is appropriate or right is the question.

It adds nothing to say humans act wrongly, it is simply understanding what it is to be human: our decisions and actions are contingent though some are better than others and what is better is an infinite scale to perfection. What that means practically is what I have said before and what I intend to address again in my next "real" post.