|
“Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children, the angering of the orderlies in the front parlor of the charnel house. We could not, so help us God, do otherwise.
“For we are sick at heart, our hearts give us no rest for thinking of the Land of Burning Children. And for thinking of that other Child, of whom the poet Luke speaks. The infant was taken up in the arms of an old man, whose tongue grew resonant and vatic at the touch of that beauty. …..
“We have jail records, we have been turbulent, uncharitable, we have failed in love for the brethren, have yielded to fear and despair and pride, often in our lives. Forgive us. We are no more, when the truth is told, than ignorant beset men, jockeying against all chance, at the hour of death, for a place at the right hand of the dying one.
“We act against the law at a time of the Poor People’s March, at a time moreover when the government is announcing ever more massive paramilitary means to confront disorder in the cities. It is announced that a computerized center is being built in the Pentagon at a cost of some seven millions of dollars, to offer instant response to outbreaks anywhere in the land; that moreover, the government takes so serious a view of civil disorder, that federal troops, with war experience in Vietnam, will have first responsibility to quell civil disorder. The implications of all this must strike horror in the mind of any thinking man.
“The war in Vietnam is more and more literally brought home to us. Its inmost meaning strikes the American ghettos; in servitude to the affluent. We must resist and protest this crime.
“Finally, we stretch out our hands to our brothers throughout the world. We who are priests, to our fellow priests. All of us who act against the law, turn to the poor of the world, to the Vietnamese, to the victims, to the soldiers who kill and die, for the wrong reasons, for no reason at all, because they were so ordered—by the authorities of that public order which is in effect a massive institutionalized disorder.
“We say: killing is disorder, life and gentleness and community and unselfishness is the only order we recognize. For the sake of that order, we risk our liberty, our good name.”
Daniel Berrigan; Catonsville Nine; statement at sentencing.
There are some topics which seem certain to cause acrimonious debate on this forum. This is especially true since Barack Obama has become the President …. for there could be unity in our opposition to George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, when they prosecuted the foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and compromised the rule of law – indeed, the Bill of Rights – here at home. But when President Barack Obama holds office, and the military kills a US-born radical cleric as happened this week, the event results in heated, often emotional, arguments: was it a justified act of war? Or was it murder?
I believe that these debates and arguments are a good thing. If one can step back from the emotional component, and focus on the rational points that both sides of the debate take, it would seem nearly impossible to define this incident in simplistic, black versus white, purely right versus purely wrong terms. Both sides make important points, which suggests that this is among those issues that is best understood as being in that gray area that a nation inhabits in times of war.
Religious wars in particular involve deep pits of quicksand that can suck logical thought, and thus rational behaviors, from any nation. I say this while fully recognizing that there are non-religious dynamics in these wars: the attack on 9/11, and those pesky natural energy resources are undeniably involved. Yet the role of fundamentalist religious passions – both in the Islamic nations in and near the Middle East, and in the United States – are fueling the fires of hatred and violence.
Our Constitution was created in a manner that intended for civilian control of the military, and a wall of separation between church and state. The reasoning is both obvious and extremely significant. There can be no democracy if the military has the level of influence on national life that President Eisenhower warned against, much less if “the generals” dictate policy to the President. More, there can not be social justice in either domestic or foreign policy, if any religious system dictates the standards. This in no way takes away any rights from the military or any religion. It simply seeks to protect the rights of everyone else.
Yet the hue and cry from the rabid right-wing, frequently using Fox News as its megaphone, is that there is “war” against religion in America. Their use of modern technology still aims towards the same goals as any blood-thirsty “religious” leader from times past: to whip an unconscious crowd into a frenzy; to convince them that “others” pose a dark and evil threat to their way of being; to superimpose “God's Will” over the leader's madness; and to create a domestic/civil war. Had anyone been unaware of this, or somehow had doubted this harsh reality, the recent highlight of a republican presidential primary debate, when the crowd of spectators hissed at and booed a gay soldier, That none of the republican candidates had the true patriotism, much less human decency, to confront that spasm of hatred, illustrates that not one of them is qualified to serve in high office in a democracy. For, as John Lennon wrote, a conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words.
I recognize that the general topic of “religion” is prone to such toxicity on this forum that it has its own designated, typically lonesome, neighborhood – much like 9/11, Israeli-Palestinian issues, and the wide cluster of topics that, both correctly and incorrectly, are deemed to be “conspiracy theories.” Hence, I will exercise caution here, because my focus is not “religion” per say, nor a “conspiracy of silence” in other than Lennon's obviously intended meaning. Rather, I am speaking of “religion” as a tactic that is both used and abused in our social, political, and economic domestic cultural wars. For that hissing and booing of an American soldier – a man willing to risk his life for the ideals of a democracy that is every bit denied him as it was to those black soldiers who fought in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam – is rooted in the religious right's cult of death.
Briefly, and only to lay some stones for foundation here, I understand and appreciate why “religion” is a segregated topic, even on the Democratic Underground. And for two rock-solid reasons. First, that cult of death has damaged and destroyed the lives of millions of good and decent human beings. It has inflicted pain on many forum participants, in the cruel manner that the self-justified level of being of the cult members demands. Second, in the manner of that “scientific method” that every school child should be taught, a democracy demands that citizens question literally everything …. for the very moment one suppresses the questioning spirit, they actually suppress democracy. The proof is in that slimy pudding of right-wing ideology, that unquestioningly follows the leader.
This brings us back to the recent killing of the cleric. When Usama bin Laden was killed, the right-wing attempted to marginalize President Obama's role. Likewise, in the current instance, we can agree that had George W. Bush been in office, the rabid republicans would be having a foaming orgy of celebration, for they worship death. Especially when it involves religion. But they repress those passions when a brown-skinned Democrat with a funny name is is office.
When Daniel and Phillip Berrigan protested the evils of the Vietnam War, and went to prison for doing so, the republican right did not speak about the repression of religion. No, they were offended that the Berrigans and friends damaged government property. When Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., engaged in civil disobedience, and went to jail, no right-wing preachers lent him any moral support. (Perhaps because they had none to lend.) No, they were angry that he violated those laws that entrenched hatred in our society. How dare he? Another fascinating example was when Minister Malcolm X helped people out of American gutters – to stop using drugs, committing crimes, and hating themselves – the right-wing marked him as a danger to this nation.
When the St. Patrick's Four committed civil disobedience in upstate New York, to protest the Bush-Cheney plans to occupy Iraq by brute force, the religious right didn't view their federal trials as being part of any “war on religion.” No, they are a death cult. When one of their own murders an “abortion doctor,” they wink and nod to each other, because they approve of violent death. They glorify in unleashing that beast. They love to hate.
Now, back to the concept that a conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words. There is no single group in America, in my opinion, that has remained silent during the cultural war being waged in our country, than the “religious left.” I say that, even though I recognize that numerous individuals have been outspoken, and many small groups have been active. I do not discount these contributions. But in general, there has been a deafening silence coming from the large religious institutions. Is it any wonder that so many non-religious people question our sincerity? Our dedication to our shared concerns? Our willingness to sacrifice our own comfort? No.
I'm focused on this topic, by the way, largely as a result of a conversation that I had last week with a retired law-enforcement official. His career included working at the state and national level, as well as some operations with a federal agency that is not supposed to be active domestically. He is conservative politically, but has a social conscience. As a survivor of a Catholic upbringing, he has no use for organized religion. He worries about the nation that his grandchildren are growing up in. Anyhow, he made a curious comment about the distinction that he and others in law enforcement make between “bleeding-heart liberals” and “bible-thumping liberals.” This led to a discussion that has occupied a large space in my mind, as I view reports (including a few in the corporate media) on the protests and police-gestapo tactics on Wall Street.
There is a desperate need today for individuals and groups from the outside of “organized religion” to take a public stance in support or – or better yet, hand-in-hand with – those protesters. And those in unions fighting corrupt right-wing republican governors. To add an important dimension to the struggle for social justice. To serve as a beacon of light, much in the manner that Bob Marley and Peter Tosh did ….. for they were more prophets of a righteous social system as they were musicians. Their message was the same as Phillip and Daniel Berrigan's.
Those prophets in the Old Testament were delivering a social and political message. Amos confronted the hypocrites' “religion”: “I hate, I spurn your feasts, I take no pleasure in your solemn assemblies …. let justice flow like a river, and mercy like an unfailing stream” (5:21-25). Amos also said, “I know how many your sins are, and how grievous your crimes: oppressing the just, accepting bribes, repelling the needy in court,” (5:12). And Isaiah said, “Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and who write oppressive decrees, depriving the needy of judgement and robbing my people's poor of their rights, making widows their plunder and orphans their prey”(10:1-2). They were talking specifically about these republican debates. Yes, they were.
And they spoke specifically about governments that based their domestic and foreign policies upon brute military force. Hosea spoke of rulers who “trusted in your chariots, and in your many warriors” (10:13), and who have “fortified many cities” (8:14); Isaiah warns those leaders who “looked to weapons” (22:8), and “who depend upon horses, who put trust in chariots because of their number, and in horsemen because of their combined power” (31: 1-2). They were also speaking directly to those police officers on Wall Street who have jumped at the chance to behave in the brutal manner of thugs. And I am not grouping all police officers into this violent gang of hoodlums; yet those with respect for their job must demand consequences for those who are criminals with badges and guns.
We live in strange, often violent, and always dangerous times. No one group or person can resolve the many threats to the social fabric. But we all can make a contribution.
Peace,
H2O Man
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
