The Golden Rule in an Age of Terror

I've been pondering why Bush and the Republicans seem to be failing so miserably in foreign policy. And it seems to boil down to the moral failure to relate to other nations by using the Golden Rule. That's surprising, really. This is a president who claims the Bible as his favorite book and dismissively says he doesn't consult with his own father because he has a higher Father. Yet when it comes to conducting his policies in light of Jesus's teachings, Bush couldn't be more off base.

It's so familiar a precept that perhaps it is taken for granted: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Religions the world over seem to have a version of it, though with a subtle difference, emphasizing refraining from doing what you wouldn't want others to do to you. That it is so universal says something of central importance to human societies: it's the key to productive, cooperative, and friendly relationships on both an individual and national level. Of course, it's not humanly possible to do it perfectly, not with our families, our neighbors, or other nations. Christians as well as other people of faith are just called to do their best to follow it. When we do, we are living righteously, and doing our part to live in right relationship with others.

Yet Bush's policy, for the most part, could not be more diametrically opposed. Beginning with unilateral withdrawal from treaties the U.S. was party to (and to which previous Congressional approval had given the force of law), the administration set a tone of superiority and disrespect for the opinions of others, both that of Congress and the other nations signatory to those treaties. Long before the "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq on a flimsy pretext that has now unraveled, the administration began leading the U.S. into a immoral morass. After 9/11. the administration decided the Geneva Conventions wouldn't apply to any possible terrorist suspect captured. Instead, they set up a system in which "enemy combatants" would have no access to lawyers, no hearings before judges, no right to hear the evidence against them (and challenge it), no checks and balances, no way to present evidence of innocence and get out. Presumed guilty, held indefinitely, incommunicado, without hope. The administration justified the use of torture by American troops and intelligence officers --a shocking development-- and assumed a right to go into foreign countries, even those of our allies, and spirit individuals away in a process called "extraordinary rendition" to other nations known to allow the use of torture.

"As you [do] it to the least of these, my brothers, you [do] it to me," Jesus said. Those who did kind acts of mercy would be welcomed by his Father, but those who mistreated the ill, poor, and the prisoner would be thrown into the fire and burned. Is the President, who claims the Bible as his favorite book, unfamiliar with this prominent passage from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25?

When one looks for fruits of the spirit in the President, the sure signs of being a Christian, one fails to see them: peace, joy, love, faithfulness, gentleness, patience, self-control. Instead Bush manifests a disturbed spirit, angry, critical, impatient, and domineering. It seems evident he has failed to be obedient in following Jesus's teachings. If he had, he would be conformed to the likeness of Christ more and more as time goes by, and would increasingly manifest love to all.

By going his own way, rather than Christ's, Bush pushed people of other nations away from himself, by demanding, bullying, and manipulating. Never once did Christ manipulate or bully or demand. He lived as he taught us to live, doing good to everyone because it was right and was the way he wanted to be treated.

When 9/11 first occurred, my reaction was as visceral and primal as most Americans. I wanted to fight back and hurt someone just as the terrorists had hurt the victims of the plane hijackings and their families. But simultaneously I felt a great longing for a call from my pastor or national leaders to repent and seek God and his ways. No one uttered that call, either at church or nationally but that feeling didn't subside. You see, I knew the President's explanation that those who'd attacked us were jealous of our freedoms was, at best, barely a factor. No, there were real and significant grievances against the United States, beginning with the coup orchestrated by the CIA's predecessor, the OSS, in Iran against their democratically elected leader Mossadeq after he decided to nationalize Iranian oil. After undermining Mossadeq, the OSS maneuvered the Shah of Iran into power. The Shah's brutal reign was much like that of Saddam Hussein's, leading to the disappearance and death of tens of thousands of his countrymen. But the American multinationals were happy, because their oil profits were secure.

Accounts reported in the foreign press abound of American power used to benefit American multinationals at the expense of native peoples in lands targeted for economic profiteering. Rarely do they make it into our mainstream media outlets. The connection between our multinationals' history of exploitation to the anger and hatred directed at the United States that motivate the terrorists is not widely known here at home, although Americans living abroad often are much better informed.

We are ignorant of evil done by those multinationals and our government and so we don't repent. We are blind to our sins, seeing only those of the other side. But we all sin. No reconciliation is possible without true repentance for our own sins and seeking to change and do better. That's part of doing unto others as we want others to do unto us. If we repent, it opens the possibility that they will repent. If we harden our hearts and refuse to see any sin but theirs, likewise they harden their hearts and see only our sin. But we Christians are called to be ambassadors of reconciliation. As a "Christian nation" with a Christian president surely those of us who ask ourselves, "What would Jesus do?" surely we know (or ought to) it would not involve anything but the Golden Rule.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." May it be so.

Making Sense of Joe's Defeat

Do you occasionally get emails from someone you've never met and are none too sure of how you ended up at the receiving end of their email? One came today expressing the writer's view that Old Joe Lieberman's loss was due to the drubbing he took from our "anti-Semitic media" (his words, not mine), who slam him because he's a pro-Israel Jew who supports our military's efforts against Muslim fanatics and terrorists.

But I have a different take on Lieberman's loss. I think it has much more to do with the fact that he is clearly in the pocket of corporations and has voted for legislation that favored special interests at the expense of his constituents. People around the country are fed up with crony capitalism and those who serve corporate masters rather than the people who elected them.

As far as his war stance, I suspect a huge amount of support in Congress (and, I'd hazard a guess, Old Joe's too) has been because it profits their contributors from the military-industrial complex, who show their thanks for all the business shoved their way by making big donations to those who vote for it. There is enormous spending going on beyond all reasonable requirements on weapon systems that aren't needed (as well as some that are), with no-bid contracts awarded, in a system begging for waste, fraud, and abuse (and that's getting just that, in spades).

Why do I think he's serving a corporate master rather than principle? Besides my educated guess above, just look at his vote in support of the bankruptcy bill which most of his constituents overwhelmingly opposed. The bill he helped pass lacked checks and balances and was a bad bill. It has harmed some in his own state as well as all around the nation. He wasn't the only Dem of course. Those names I recognized that I saw listed as voting with the Republicans on that one have a long, sad history of voting for the special interests.

I suspect a lot more incumbents (of either party) are in danger of being kicked out of office than have any idea of it now. If my Republican in-laws in Fort Worth are any indication of the mood of the country, many more incumbents will be packing up and clearing out their offices than usual this go round. Disgusted, outraged, and fed-up sums up their views at least as much as my own.

God and Illegal aliens

As Congress considers immigration reform, will they realize that our country's need for security should be balanced by a commitment to fair and equitable treatment, or will they bow to public pressure ginned up by the professional ranters on the airwaves?

I contend we should allow more Mexican and Central American citizens to qualify for legal work visas. The low number of work visas is a huge contributor to the issue of immigrants coming illegally. Waiting lines of up to forty years time (for some categories of applicants) are completely unreasonable and arguably cause many to give up on even applying for a legal guest worker visa. It would be much preferable to process those wanting to come by allowing more guest workers to come and get documentation so we know who they are. Having legal channels for access to the U.S. blocked to most just contributes to illegal entry. As a matter of national security, we cannot afford to make those wanting to come here have no means of coming here legally in a reasonable amount of time, if they pass scrutiny.

We should also have a way for those who have come illegally to pay fines and get in line to become citizens. Since the need to support their families in bad economic conditions in their home countries is often the reason they've chosen to come illegally after being unable to get a guest worker visa, the U.S. should have some compassion and make a way for them to eventually legally join family members already here.

I’ve travelled in Mexico and seen shantytown slums where every shack was made of trash (aluminum cans, etc.). Since NAFTA, American corn has been sold in Mexico at prices far below those local farmers can produce it. That’s because the factory farm’s production is quicker and less labor intensive. Many farmers have been driven off their land because they no longer can make a living. The towns can’t absorb so many and provide them with work, which leaves them with few alternatives to support their families except to try to make it to the U.S.

Surveys show Americans are overwhelmingly believers in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so I'm surprised at the antagonism from those who follow the Bible, whether it's the Hebrew scriptures or the Christian Old and New Testament for it is completely contrary to scripture. Here's what God says:
"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
As Christians and Jews grow in knowledge and understanding of God's Word, we are called to repent, re-think, based on learning God's perspective (and recognizing how short we have fallen). If we are obedient, we open our hearts in compassion and in hospitality to immigrants, regardless of their legal status.

That does not mean to throw wide the door and invite all who want to enter to do so. Remember the verse that we are to be wise as sperpents yet gentle as a dove. So we check each immigrant's background, which we can only do if we get them into legal lines. How're we gonna do that, you may ask? By giving them reasonable hope that they will be able to enter legally. If an immigrant can get a visa to come legally without too much effort, which one in their right mind would risk the cost and the danger to come illegally? No one!

The right thing to do is to make sure that injustices of the previous immigration "reform" efforts are fixed and people who had a minor brush with the law as a young person aren't picked up and deported or held in jail for years. There have been too many cases of that where the punishment does not fit the crime. In fact, immigrants may have already ‘paid their debt to society’ and yet be faced with deportation.