Perishability of words

A couple of weeks ago, I shopped for one last time at Durham’s Book Exchange. The Book Exchange is a local bookstore that appears to have been selling books almost from the time that people first settled in what has become Durham, NC. Now, competition from chains and online retailers has caused this local institution, in an all too familiar story, to close shop.

The Book Exchange in order to liquidate its inventory featured large paper bags that an individual could fill with his or selections for the incredibly low price of ten dollars, something under forty cents a book. The deal was simply too good to skip.

The next day, I found myself reflecting on the number of words printed in the thousands of their remaining books. If on average, a book in their inventory has eighty thousand words, then twelve thousand five hundred of their books contain a billion words. In its heyday, the Book Exchange must have held billions of words.

Dust and must permeate the Book Exchange. The hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of words that remain mostly feel unwanted. With many copyrights in the early 1980s and before, the knowledge found in many of those books is now out of date, scholars having updated, revised, or abandoned the opinions and analyses expressed therein. Even tastes in fiction have largely changed, leaving novels, plays, and poems in want of new owners.

In the past several years, I have read with interest several reports that major newspapers are facing consistently decreasing ad revenues. Several formerly important newspapers have recently declared bankruptcy. People increasingly turn to the internet for news.

Amazon this month announced the launch of a new, slimmer version of the Kindle, its electronic book reader. Only 1% of all books are now available in electronic format. However, experts anticipate that number will dramatically increase the next few years.

Some years ago, the waste in printing the lengthy items that I received electronically to aid my reading of them disturbed me; I intentionally began to cultivate the habit of reading those items on my computer screen. I found that this practice was both ecologically more responsible and simplified note taking.

My ruminations about words prompted my recollection of this verse from Ecclesiastes, “The more words, the more vanity, so how is one the better?” (6:11) In this electronic age, words seem even more transitory, more elusive, perhaps more vain, than in print. Yet even when Ecclesiastes was written, words had proliferated to the point that they became easy to trivialize, easy to ignore. Finding meaning in life may be more difficult in this ocean of words than ever before. Certainly choosing what to read and what to ignore is more challenging.

Ash Wednesday

Rabbi Burton Visotzky in his book, The Genesis of Ethics, sketches a contemporary parable appropriate for Ash Wednesday:
In a large modern synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, [the Day of Atonement,] the holiest day of the year, the rabbi wraps his cashmere prayer shawl around his Armani suit. With the practiced timing of years in the pulpit, as the last congregant slips into her seat, the rabbi throws open the ark and falls prostrate before it. Flat on his face, he proclaims before the Lord, ‘Master of the Universe! Today is Yom Kippur and we must beg your forgiveness. I am overwhelmed by the Task! I am an unworthy vessel. I am but dust and ashes!’

The cantor, shrouded in a white silk robe covering his Calvin Klein summer-weight suit, takes his cue and falls before the ark. Flat on his face, he proclaims before the Lord, ‘Master of the Universe! Today is Yom Kippur and we must beg your forgiveness. I am overwhelmed by the task! I am an unworthy vessel. I am but dust and ashes!’

Finally, the beadle of the synagogue, [their verger,] an old European Jew in a baggy mismatched jacket and trousers, takes his turn before the ark. He, too, falls prostrate and sobs, ‘Master of the Universe! Today is Yom Kippur and we must beg your forgiveness. I am overwhelmed by the Task! I am an unworthy vessel. I am but dust and ashes!’

At this, the cantor hisses to the rabbi, ‘Will you just look at that! What gall! Just who does he think he is to call himself but dust and ashes?’[1]

Visotzky parable echoes Matthew’s warning against a hypocritical, flamboyant public demonstration of repentance that lacks any factual basis.[2] Ash Wednesday is not the day in the liturgical year on which we publicly flaunt our unworthiness, as in Jesus’ teaching and Visotzky’s modern parable. Nor is Ash Wednesday intended as a day that pushes us in the opposite direction, of utter self-abasement and a subsequent feeling of total worthlessness.

Instead, Ash Wednesday signifies the start of Lent, forty days in which the Church encourages people to examine their spiritual lives. How have you transgressed, fallen short, or missed the mark? The process is a diagnostic examination, analogous to annual physicals and periodic automobile tune-ups that promote proper functioning. Periodic examinations of one’s spiritual life promote improved spiritual health.


[1] Burton Visotzky, The Genesis of Ethics (New York: Crown Publishers, 1996), p. 66.
[2] Matthew 6:1, 16-18.

Moral hazard of housing relief

Ruth Simon and Nick Timiraos in “Finessing 'Moral Hazard' Is Tough in Housing Plan” (Wall Street Journal, on February 23, 2009) wrote about the “moral hazard” that the Obama administration’s mortgage relief program poses.

The tension Simon and Timiraos paint is ensuring that genuinely needy homeowners receive relief while not aiding those who do not need or deserve assistance. Some critics, for example, object to aiding people who treated their homes as “cash machines” or who knowingly borrowed more than they could afford.

Any assistance program will invariably miss perfection, erring either on the side of helping those who really do not need the aid or on the side of not aiding some of the truly needy. Humans always fall short of perfection, a point that Jewish, Christian, and Islamic emphasis on the need for forgiveness underscores.

Moral evaluation of any housing assistance program requires answering at least these questions:
1. Is home ownership sufficiently valuable to society to warrant government financial support? The answer to this is not necessarily affirmative, e.g., renting offers highly mobile people advantages that owning does not. What costs and benefits (and how to estimate each) comprise this calculation? Would government funds allocated for mortgage assistance contribute more to society’s welfare if used to fund universal healthcare, infrastructure improvements, debt reduction, etc.?
2. Who should pay for government financial assistance to mortgagees? Is it fair to ask people who have no mortgage or an affordable mortgage to aid people whose plans failed to accommodate the current economic crisis? Is it fair to reduce future generations’ standard of living to bail out this generation? If this generation should pay, what proportion of the burden should fall on which taxpayers?
3. What are the criteria by which to identify those meriting mortgage assistance? Exclude or include all who used their house as a “cash machine?” Who believed their house was primarily an investment rather than a residence? Who lied on a mortgage application? Who naively trusted realtors and mortgage brokers regarding their maximum affordable mortgage? Who must cope with loss of one job, two jobs, or lost job(s) and became ill? Are there other important criteria?
4. In which direction should the program err, aiding some who do not deserve the assistance or not helping some of the deserving? Which option will be best for society as a whole?

None of those questions has a simple yes or no answer. Most answers to those questions hinge upon either a utilitarian calculus or a clearly defined sense of justice as fairness. Ethical utilitarian calculus asks what is good for society as a whole, not for an individual. John Rawls’ concept of justice as fairness similarly presumes a broad, social perspective instead of a highly individualistic one. The issues demand analysis in terms of not what is good for the person facing foreclosure on their residence or for an individual taxpayer but for our society as a whole. In other words, what is your vision for the type of country in which you want to live?

Among important elements of my personal answer to that last question are a society that values individual initiative, promotes meaningful caring for all people, distributes opportunities and burdens equitably, restricts unfettered greed, ensures basic necessities of life for those who have made poor choices, and generally relies upon a well-regulated capitalist economic system. The current economic crisis has resulted from our having collectively deviated from many of those principles.

In the rush to do something, few decision makers seem to have focused on these basic yet very important questions. American impetuosity and a drive to solve problems today seem to have displaced carefully reasoned analysis. Perhaps a temporary moratorium on foreclosures makes more sense than an expensive public program, well-intentioned but lacking solid moral foundations. Careful consideration of the basic moral issues raised here might allow our political process to move beyond partisan political expediency and instead to focus on what is good for the United States and its residents.

The too silent Muslim majority

Police have arrested the husband of a thirty-seven year old Muslim woman in an affluent Buffalo, New York, suburb on charges of beheading his wife. (Eric Gorski, “ Gruesome killing poses another test for US Muslims,” Washington Post, February 21, 2009.) Will the silent Muslim majority vociferously denounce domestic violence? Or, will the silent Muslim majority once again remain silent? This tragic incident, like the acts Islamicists perpetrate in the name of Islam, affords Muslims another opportunity to enter the public square, constructively engaging their own members and communicating to non-Muslims that Islam is truly and unmistakably a religion of peace and submission to the one God.

Liberal

Steve Thorngate in his recent post at Theolog, Labeling Christians, points to issues surrounding several terms. He also notes that the term “liberal” has fallen into ill repute. During my military service, several chaplains from conservative traditions such as the Southern Baptists worked for or with me, respected me, and to my amusement could not bring themselves to describe me as a liberal, even though I self-identified that way.

Among the good alternatives to liberal are post-theism and progressive Christianity.

However, I like “liberal” in its classical sense of respecting a diversity of beliefs and, in a theological sense according to the Oxford English Dictionary, viewing many traditional beliefs as dispensable or at least needing new interpretation.

Iranian space and nuclear weapons programs

Iran has successfully launched a satellite and verges on having a nuclear weapon. (“Iran: Nuclear, Space Progress Despite Sanctions,” New York Times, February 7, 2009; James Hider, “Binyamin Netanyahu warns of Iranian nuclear threat,” Times Online, February 21, 2009; Catherine Philp, “UN nuclear warning after discovery of extra 209kg of uranium in Iran,” Times Online, February 20, 2009). Those recent reports triggered three different thoughts.

First, the United States, Russia, and Europe no longer have an unchallenged technological lead in space exploration. Other nations have developed the capability to launch satellites, initiated manned space programs, and now look to space as their next frontier. Meanwhile, the U.S. space program contends with an extensive and ineffective bureaucracy, routinely experiences cost overruns, and has lost the broad and enthusiastic popular support it once enjoyed.

One source of these problems is the risk aversion that pervades contemporary U.S. culture. Space missions, as with any human endeavor, will suffer from an occasional human mistake. NASA should examine tragedies and errors any lessons for future efforts, incorporate those lessons into its procedures and processes, all the while continuing to move smartly forward. Allowing the space program to stall because of an unwillingness to take risks has cost the U.S. much of the competitive advantage it once had.

Compounding the pervasive risk aversion is the costly compulsion to avoid future mistakes. No human system will ever be a zero defect system. That observation is especially true when humans engage in genuine exploration with inevitable unforeseen results and factors. Attempting to reduce risks to zero has grossly inflated the cost of space missions. Mistakes from which people learn actually advance knowledge.

The development of human flight has some parallels with the Iranians launching a satellite. Human flight resulted from pioneers who took risks, did the unknown, and whose commitment to that process was so strong that they accomplished this relying on their very limited personal finances. The Iranians, eager to cultivate international prestige, surely launched the satellite for a small fraction of what the U.S. typically spends to launch a satellite, even though the U.S. has launched satellites for decades. The Iranians were also willing to put lives at risk, e.g., had the missile exploded on the launch pad or misfired on a trajectory that caused it to crash in an Iranian city.

I am confident that I am far alone in saying that I would willingly have ridden a space shuttle the day after either shuttle tragedy. The thrill of exploration and my confidence in NASA far exceeds the risk. After all, the shuttles had flown safely many times before either accident.

Second, the Iranian launch and U.S. response helped me to put some U.S. foreign policies into perspective. What moral right does the United States have to dictate to other countries the space or weapons programs that those countries may sponsor? Never before has a country, particularly one allegedly without imperial designs, sought to determine the internal policies of other countries. This step has expanded U.S. defense into an entirely new realm, seeking to secure the United States by preventing other nations from pursuing policies that those nations deem in their national interest.

Perhaps this policy made sense in the early days of nuclear weapons when first the U.S., and then the U.S. and Soviet Union, were the only nuclear powers. Today the roster of nations possessing nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon development programs steadily lengthens. The policy of nonproliferation is not only morally suspect but also dead in the water. Commercial enterprises willing to sell equipment essential for the production of nuclear weapons to any nation able to pay and the availability of weapons technology on the Internet has greatly reduced the barriers to obtaining nuclear weapons.

The world desperately needs to identify a new approach to nations with nuclear weapons, one that discourages their development, stockpiling, and use. Such a policy will presume that a nation capable of developing nuclear weapons recognizes that in a nuclear war there are no winners – all of the participants lose. Such a policy also presumes an ability to analyze issues from a variety of perspectives, not simply that of one’s own nation.

Iran stands to lose as much from selling a nuclear weapon to terrorists as the United States might lose from that Iranian action. Iranian Shiites have many enemies, e.g., the Sunni Islamicists who comprise the vast majority of Muslim terrorists, view all Shiites as apostates, enemies of Islam who if anything are more detestable than are non-Muslims. Furthermore, the Koran includes a list of people warriors are not to harm in battle. Complying with that teaching precludes the use of nuclear weapons. A nation founded upon adherence to Islamic law seems unlikely to violate the Koran so egregiously unless pushed into a corner.

The U.S., for its part, should further reduce its own stockpile of nuclear weapons and more vigorously seek to purchase radioactive waste and weapons materials to prevent those materials from falling into the wrong hands.

Thirdly, the Iranian launch made me aware that Israel poses as much of a threat to world peace and stability as does Iran. Since World War II, Iran has fought only one war, a mutually disastrous war with Iraq. Since Israel’s founding in 1947, it has repeatedly waged. Arab nations initiated the first several of those wars. More recently, Israel twice invaded Lebanon and last year invaded the Gaza strip, a part of the Palestinian Authority’s territory, not part of Israel.

No nation lives in safety. The United States in spite of its unparalleled efforts has failed to create a risk free world for itself; the U.S. is unfortunately increasingly vulnerable to nuclear attack from terrorists and from other nations. Developing trust and friendship with other nations represents a strategy more likely to avoid war than attempting to live in a world without risk.

Israel preemptively and successfully attacked Iraq’s nuclear program in 1981. In September 2007, Israel preemptively attacked a facility in Syria, claiming that it housed Syria’s nuclear weapons program. An Iran with nuclear weapons and a missile delivery system poses a more immediate and real threat to Israel than to any other nation. Iran probably now has sufficient uranium hexafluoride that if enriched would enable Iran to produce a nuclear weapon, something which many defense analysts believe no Israeli government can accept (Defence chiefs urge hawk Netanyahu to strike deal with Syria, Times Online, February 22, 2009). The answer is not for Israel to strike Iran, hoping once again preemptively to destroy that capacity. Doing so is immoral because it will continue a spiral of ever-increasing violence.

Instead, Iran and Israel must find a means of mutual accommodation. What happened to Jews in the Holocaust must never, under any circumstances, happen again – to Jews, or to anyone else. The Holocaust, however, does not justify an unending cycle of preemption and resultant escalating of hostilities. Indeed, from a Jewish perspective only defensive wars are morally justifiable and Iran has not attacked Israel.

Gays and lesbians serving in the military

Should the United States allow openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve in the military?

The moral perspective of civil rights and duties offers one framework for answering that question. In a democracy, every citizen has an equal obligation to defend his or her nation. That obligation is not a function of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

Other nations, including Great Britain and the Netherlands, currently permit (or in some cases require) people to serve in the military without regard to gender orientation. Those militaries follow historical examples, such as the Greeks (notably Alexander the Great by all accounts), in allowing persons with a same-sex orientation to serve. Although those militaries are significantly smaller than the U.S. military, scale is irrelevant in discussing this issue. More importantly, U.S. social attitudes towards gays and lesbians have become far more accepting over the last few decades. Persons with a same-sex orientation now serve far more openly in the U.S. military than ever before.

The unacknowledged presence of gays and lesbians rarely becomes an issue; when made an issue, processing the gay or lesbian for a discharge generally consumes more administrative time and energy than dealing directly with uniformed objectors. Furthermore, discharging a person for reason of her or his sexual orientation wastes the resources spent recruiting, training, and integrating that person into the military. In other words, citizens not only lose a valuable national resource but also waste considerable tax dollars when the military discharges a gay or lesbian.

Conversely, not allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military deny them their civil rights to the extent that people join the military for the benefits available. In a recessionary period, the military is for many young adults an employer of last resort (for others, the military is the employer of first choice). The military also offers excellent health, education, and training benefits, providing many with an all-important first job that sometimes becomes a career. Those who object to homosexual conduct for religious reasons have every right to hold those views. However, they do not have a moral right to dictate acceptable conduct for others, an especially egregious offense if it involves denying others their civil rights.

From a second moral perspective, utilitarianism, the nation that excludes certain classes of people – such as all white males – from military service intentionally and ill advisedly deprives itself of the contribution that those individuals could make. In general, only an individual’s abilities and aptitudes should limit how each person contributes to national defense. Those with poor eye-hand coordination should not fly jets, for example.

Policies governing sexual behavior, misconduct, and harassment should apply equally to all persons, regardless of gender orientation. Complaints about the risks or problems of allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military are ancient shibboleths rooted more in homophobia, the complainant’s discomfort about his or her own sexuality, the security risk that such a person poses (an issue that openness makes moot), or immoral discrimination.

Opponents of allowing openly gay and lesbian persons to serve in the military because of the effect that such individuals may have on unit morale, command climate, or military readiness overlook two realities. First, many persons with a same-sex orientation have served honorable careers in the military. No research exists to show that the military’s policies have resulted in a significantly smaller percentage of homosexuals in the military than in the civilian population. Their presence has not demonstrably diminished readiness, nor has that happened in foreign nations that allow such individuals to serve openly. Second, a command unable to ensure the safety of all assigned personnel or in which morale depends upon excluding a certain type of people has fundamental problems unrelated to homosexuality. Mutual respect among personnel and obedience to all lawful orders and regulations is one of the foundations essential for the fighting effectiveness of any unit. Pinning problems on the presence of homosexuals attempts, and all too often successfully in the past, to divert the attention of higher authority away from the real problem.

In other words, no cost or disadvantage to allowing openly gay and lesbian persons to serve in the military is readily apparent.

John Rawls’ concept of justice as fairness offers a third helpful moral framework for determining whether to allow person’s with a same-sex orientation to serve openly in the military. Rawls offers method for determining what is fair has two key components: the original position and the veil of ignorance. “Original position” means that an individual should consider the issue from all sides, with all involved as free and equal persons; the “veil of ignorance” means presuming not to know the position, if any, one actually holds.

Analyzing the issue of whether persons who are openly gay or lesbian should serve in the military from the original position requires considering people of all sexual orientations equal. If that premise is correct, then why should sexual orientation preclude some from the obligation (or benefits) of military service? Examining that proposition from behind the veil ignorance underscores its inherent fairness.

In sum, no reasonable moral objection exists to rejecting anyone as unsuitable for military service because of sexual orientation. The U.S. should immediately scrap its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, apologize to persons unfairly discharged, and eliminate sexual orientation as a criterion for military service.

Tax compliance

The United States’ personal income tax system historically operated on the premise that most taxpayers will voluntarily comply, to the best of their ability, with the tax laws. Lately, computers and changing attitudes call the validity of that premise into question.

Computerized data enable the government to match tax returns against data submitted from other sources, e.g., employers submit payroll data to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against which the IRS matches data submitted on personal income tax returns (Form 1040). Prior to the advent of computers, labor costs prohibited matching such data on all but the relative handful of returns actually audited. Hence, the system necessarily relied on voluntary compliance.

Few people probably enjoy paying taxes. The immensity of federal and state revenues compared to most personal incomes can easily spawn a sense of disconnectedness between what an individual pays and what government spends. Several Obama administration of nominees, notably Treasury Secretary Geithner, the first Health and Human Services nominee former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and the first chief performance officer nominee Nancy Killefer have all had tax compliance problems. These high profile examples of prominent and affluent individuals not complying with the tax laws can expedite changing mores toward non-compliance (cf. Sandra Block, “Nominees' tax problems could prompt more people to cheat,” USA Today, February 5, 2009).

Yet humans live in community because of the mutual benefits all members of the community enjoy. Government deliverers many of those services; income taxes provide government’s primary source of revenue. Basic services that many take for granted but would not wish to live without include: national defense that assures the nation’s continued independent existence; a criminal justice system that (imperfectly) protects the weak from the wrong by assuring the rule of law; public education (albeit of admittedly varying quality); etc. Some governments are beginning to place information about where they spend tax dollars on the web, hoping to create both more transparency and more “buy-in” from taxpayers (“Track my tax dollars,” The Economist, February 5, 2009).

Although government is assuredly inefficient and expends some of its fund on absolutely wasteful projects, the benefits of residing in the United States clearly outweigh the costs. Otherwise, more people would choose to live in a different country; fewer people would risk life, limb, and criminal sanctions to immigrate illegally to the U.S.

Taxes are an inescapable cost of living in community. After a quarter century of government service, my opinion that the vast majority of government employees attempt to be good stewards of our tax dollars remains unshaken. The amount of waste in dollars may appear large to most individuals but as a percentage of total government spending, the amount of waste is probably comparable to the level of waste in an individual’s budget. (Waste connotes fraud, waste, and abuse, i.e., paying more than necessary for a good or service, buying a product that does not perform as advertised, buying a product that remains unused, etc.). The government should engage in unrelenting and constant efforts to reduce that wastage. However, the existence of fraud, waste, and abuse in government spending does not mitigate in any degree or manner the responsibility of people to pay their taxes.

Several factors may explain changing attitudes. First, the size of government may leave people feeling more distant and less a part of the government than ever before. This change parallels the shift in focus from local to federal as the basic provider of services. Second, a growing number of people in this technological era may wrongly presume an ability to function independently rather than having a more constant awareness of human interdependence. Third, the tax system has become so complicated and riddled with special provisions that arguing it equitably distributes the tax burden among all seems absurd. A fundamental overhaul of the tax system that established straightforward reporting of income and progressive brackets (higher earners pay a higher percentage) might restore a broader perception of tax equity and justice. Both a Rawlsian sense of justice as fairness and utilitarianism (higher earners have broader economic interests and thereby benefit more from government outlays) support the case for progressive brackets. The disadvantage to simplifying the tax system in an era of high unemployment would be the number of tax lawyers and accountants left jobless!

Meaningful tax reform seems unlikely. Until that happens, the IRS should increase its compliance efforts, and persons who fail to pay their taxes fully and on time should not be elected, appointed, or confirmed to significant government offices. Daschle and Killefer were right to withdraw their nominations. Dashcle’s situation as former Senate Majority Leader seems especially egregious and inexcusable. The Obama administration should have more fully vetted both prior to nominating them.

The Muslim silent majority

Muslim communities around the globe are too often silent in the face of Islamicist terrorists. However, the Muslim community in Mumbai has responded with moral courage to the horrible terrorist attacks in that city. They have steadfastly refused to allow the nine Islamicist terrorists killed in the attacks to be buried in the city’s Muslim cemetery. Muslim community leaders are emphatic that no one who perpetrates such horrendous crimes is a Muslim. (Thomas Friedman, “No Way, No How, Not Here,” New York Times, February 17, 2009)

Muslim communities in various countries have legitimate grievances. Western nations too often have trampled on Muslim sensitivities and rights. Christians too often have acted with a morally and theologically unwarranted superiority toward Muslims. The entirely lopsided and single-minded support that the United States has given Israel in its disputes with Palestinians illustrates both sets of grievances. However, none of that justifies morally reprehensible actions such as terrorist bombings that target innocent people.

Now is the time for the silent majority of Muslims to speak out against violence perpetrated in the name of God by those who identify themselves as Muslims. Doing so, as is true of Mumbai’s Muslims, honors the prophet Mohammed and God as well as building bridges mutual respect to other communities. These bridges establish the credibility necessary for progress in constructively settling legitimate grievances.

Weapons procurement

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has questioned the need for the U.S. Air Force to purchase the number of F-22 fighters originally requested (August Cole, “Air Force Says Fewer F-22s Needed,” Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2009). His rationale for pushing the Air Force to reduce the number of the world’s most advanced fighter they want to procure is the same rationale that I voiced with respect to Iraqi weapons purchases, i.e., the F-22 is not mission appropriate for answering the terrorist threat.

I wonder if the U.S. needs any F-22s. Perhaps the best course of action would be to skip procurement and progress toward developing an even more advanced fighter. Doing so would adversely effect employment in the aerospace industry but might constitute better stewardship of tax dollars. Defense is important. However, unnecessary overspending on defense wastes those funds; spending them to rebuild infrastructure, improve education, expand healthcare, or even to reduce taxes provides greater benefits to all.

Five decades ago, President Eisenhower warned about the power of the military-industrial complex to sustain or increase spending for unnecessary weapons systems. Of particular concern to him then was the overbuilding of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and ICBMs. Yet both Kennedy and Nixon ran for President in 1960 arguing that the U.S. faced a missile gap with the Soviet Union.

Eisenhower knew that no missile gap existed; the U.S. already had more than sufficient capability to destroy every Soviet target worthy of a nuclear weapon; submarine launched weapons provided a surety of launch that neither the ICBMs nor bomber fleet could match. Yet the Air Force, the aerospace industry, and others, loosely aggregated as the military-industrial complex, carried the day.

One bullet away

An article in the Economist suggests that the U.S. policy in Afghanistan has been one bullet away from disaster because the policy relied exclusively on Hamid Karzai (“Changing the Guard in Kabul?” February 12, 2009). The article perhaps borrows its title from Nathaniel Fick’s book, One Bullet Away, which chronicles his adventures as a Marine during the invasion of Afghanistan. For an OnlineNewsHour interview with Fick, follow this link Online NewsHour: Former Marine Discusses His Book "One Bullet Away" -- November 11, 2005.

The Economist article underscores the riskiness of hinging a policy on a single, highly visible individual in a country that has a long history of assassinations and attempted assassinations on its leaders. Karzai’s popularity has plummeted, the government has little control over much of the nation, and the Taliban and other forces are openly in revolt. This past week the Taliban successfully executed suicide attacks on government buildings in Kabul. Karzai is at risk.

A careful reading of the article also reveals the paternalism that has characterized the U.S. government’s attitude toward Afghanistan and its government, e.g., that is the clear implication of Karzai’s comment, “The Afghans determine who leads Afghanistan…We are not a colony.” The U.S. typically views the world through its own interests and perspective, a natural enough approach. However, the U.S. because of its dominant position as the only global superpower too often expects other nations to recognize the wisdom of U.S. goals, the value for all derived from cooperating with those goals, and rarely brooks dissent. Bi-weekly telephone conversations between Presidents Bush and Karzai were hardly an opportunity for mutual encouragement and exchange of views, but a time for President Karzai to receive the latest guidance and direction from his primary sponsor. Afghans have legitimate reasons to consider Karzai an American “stooge.”

The article suggests that the United States is now considering other options to head the Afghan government. True partnership would leave that decision entirely in Afghan hands. The United States has occupied Afghanistan for seven years. During that time, the U.S. has spent billions, the death toll of Afghans and foreigners now totals over five thousand, and the country by all accounts is on a downward spiral. Surely, after seven years of “tutelage” the Afghans should be ready to assume responsibility for themselves.

The phrase “one bullet away” points not only to the danger of building a policy around a single individual but also points to the fragility of the entire occupation. The U.S. and its NATO allies instead of planning to expand their presence should instead plan a realistic exit strategy that turns Afghanistan back to the Afghans by the end of this calendar year.

Arms sales

Iraq is spending $5 billion to equip its forces with modern U.S. equipment. (“After the surge, the splurge: Iraq spends $5bn rebuilding its forces,” The Times Online, February 17, 2009)

Proponents contend that much of Iraq’s military equipment purchased during the Saddam era is now useless, either destroyed in combat or ruined through post-war neglect. Iraq remains one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. Much of the equipment appears irrelevant to the task of suppressing insurgents, e.g., the purchase of heavy battle tanks and jet fighters. Employment of excess force alienates a civilian population; combating lightly armed insurgents while winning the hearts and minds of the people requires taking the risk of fighting with small arms rather than heavy weapons. Use of excessive force to minimize U.S. casualties has repeatedly created problems for U.S. forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

One comment left on The Times website in response to the article satirically suggested that arms sales, not oil, was the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq. Although that is untrue, the U.S. does appear to use arms sales to oil producing countries as a way to recover some of the money spent on oil.

Torture, human rights, and international law

The International Commission of Jurists has warned that torture of suspects apprehended in the Global War on Terror has undermined civil rights in the United States, Great Britain, and other nations. The report said that the Bush administration’s claim that its war on terrorism justified human rights abuses was “spurious” and had damaged the standing of international law. (Kevin Sullivan, “Judges: Torture, Abuses Undermine Values in U.S., U.K.,” Washington Post, February 17, 2009)

Science and religion

An Austrian Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. Gerhard Maria Wagner, whom Pope Benedict has named to become a bishop, has announced that he will ask the Pope to rescind the appointment. Wagner previously attracted media attention when he declared that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans for its sin. Austrian Catholics are afraid that Wagner’s elevation will turn people away from the Church. (“Austria: 'Katrina' pastor giving up promotion,” Washington Post, February 15, 2009)

This controversy highlights one of the difficulties that a modern worldview informed by scientific advances poses for traditional religious worldviews. People formed traditional religious worldviews before the advent of the scientific method. The scientific method presumes a regularity in the functioning of the cosmos associated with identifiable laws or principles. Through developing theories, predictions based on those theories, and measurements to determine the validity of the predictions and theories, the scientific method attempts to identify those laws or principles. Current theory is just that – current theory, always subject to revision in the light of new data. Newtonian physics, for example, dominated physics for about a century until its apologists could no longer withstand the accumulated weight of data and phenomena that Newtonian physics could not explain. Quantum physics, which supplanted Newtonian physics, may someday meet a current fate.

Identifying natural events such as earthquakes with the wrath of God does not make sense from a modern worldview informed by science. In what manner did God disrupt natural processes to make Katrina strike New Orleans rather than elsewhere?

Theologically, such claims are equally specious. Wagner’s opinion about Katrina presumes that the people of New Orleans more sinful than those elsewhere and accepts the innocent injured or killed as “collateral damage,” in the infelicitous euphemism of modern war. Surely, a God who loves deeply and wants to give life would not willingly inflict damage and destruction on people or the planet.

Concomitantly, religious people need to tread very cautiously in identifying something as a miracle. Doing so raises similar questions about God capriciously violating the laws or principles that God set in place when God created the cosmos. Theologically, why would God heal some and not all if God truly loves all equally? Why does God allow some to wallow in wealth and others to perish in extreme poverty from famine and disease?

Simplistic, overly facile answers, whether from those who seek to live in an awareness of God or from those who seek to live believing there is no God, fail to acknowledge the full spectrum of human experience and the complexity of that data.

The value of a life worth living

I find these ideas of Robert Kennedy's about the value of a life worth living still relevant and important forty years after he spoke them:

For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Out gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them.

It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman’s rifles and Speck’s knives and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither or wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans

-- Robert F. Kennedy, 1968 (quoted in Richard Parker, John Kenneth Galbraith, p. 647)

Darwin, evolution, and wisdom

This past Thursday, February 12, marked the two hundredth anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. Darwin’s research culminated in his groundbreaking works, The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man, forever changing the landscape of theological-scientific interaction.

The young earth and creationism movements are futile, ill informed, and wrongly motivated attempts to protect the truth of Christianity by turning the Bible into something that its authors intended, i.e., a science textbook. The Bible’s authors wrote to teach people about God; the biblical writings incorporate at various points elements of science drawn from the prevailing worldview in the author’s geographic and temporal location. Thus, interpreting biblical texts requires an awareness of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek sciences from different historical eras.

Evolution remains a theory. However, scientists have accumulated more evidence in support of the theory of evolution than for almost any other scientific theory. Refusing to accept that evidence or the theory of evolution as the best available explanation of human origins is to choose ignorance over knowledge. The truth needs no protection but, given sufficient time, will overcome all challenges, making young earth and creationism anti-evolution explanations of human origin both futile and wrongly motivated.

That said, the theory of evolution exposes some traditional Christian theological formulations as mistaken. First, humans are not special but part of a continuum of life on this planet. That has implications for concepts of the human spirit or soul as well as the value of other life forms. Second, Christians have mistakenly viewed the fall as moving people away from perfection in utopia; the fall now requires reinterpretation as a move forward in human development. The myth of the fall, wrongly interpreted as the beginning of sin, points to the emergence of autonomy among God's creatures on this planet. Third, evolution by emphasizing the apparent randomness of genetic mutations and survival of the fittest selected by and preserving mutations that best adapt to the environment eliminates easy and simplistic understandings of God's continuing activity in the cosmos. Viewed differently, evolution by clarifying ways in which God does not act pushes contemporary Christians back to the time honored via negativa, the path that leads to God by discarding all idolatrous and inadequate images and concepts of God that finite humans attempt to formulate.

Martin Luther King, Jr., in Strength to Love, wrote, “Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control." What wisdom do people need in this two hundredth year after Darwin?

One element of necessary human wisdom is humility. Dethroned from our hubris filled putative position at the apogee of the cosmos, we need to recognize that God values all creation. Ecological stewardship is fundamental to honoring the value that God places on the cosmos. Whatever biblical teachings about subduing the earth may mean, those teachings do not justify destroying creation, presuming that life exists only on earth, or assuming that this planet is the only one with life.

Another element of necessary human wisdom is the ambiguous hope that emerges from recognizing that God's creative action continues in the present. God is not yet done with the cosmos. New life forms continue to emerge on earth, e.g., new viruses and bacteria. Perhaps humans will mutate into a new life form or perhaps humans, like dinosaurs and Neanderthals, represent a dead end on the earth’s tree of life. The future is an open possibility; God continues to act.

Yet another element of necessary human wisdom is that humans seem genetically programmed for reciprocal altruism. Humans behave in ways that deny an egoistic, overly simplistic understanding of survival of the fittest. For example, humans frequently sacrifice self-satisfaction or even life itself to protect a spouse or children. Humans will do the same for the larger community, even if that means an individual’s genes lose the opportunity to replicate. Humans help one another having learned that this best promotes the survival of each. Thus, humans honor self-sacrifice in others as a way to promote that virtue in those who still live. In other words, genetics explain why the principle of “love one another” or “do unto others as you would have them do you,” often known as the Golden Rule, has found expression in all major religions. We are inherently communal animals. Tracing the course of human history traces the broadening of human concern from the nuclear to extended family, from the family to the tribe, then to the nation, and in this century to the global community. Actions and policies that assert the rights of some not all, that promote the prosperity of some nations and not all, retard rather than promote humanity’s apparent trajectory.

Rethinking evangelism and church growth

Thousands of Britons recently donated $200,000 to place this ad on London buses under the auspices of an atheist organization: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” In response, various Christian groups ranging from the Russian Orthodox Church to the Trinitarian Bible Society are placing ads on the bus insisting that God does exist. (Mary Jordan, “Christian Groups Answer Atheists With Own Ads on British Buses,” Washington Post, February 6, 2009)

The entire endeavor appears to me to be a tempest in a teapot, much ado about nothing. How many people will actually decide whether to believe in God based on a poster read while riding a bus? The ads, pro and con, will generally confirm pre-existing beliefs. To presume that such ads are decisive in causing anyone to become an atheist or a believer trivializes the faith journey of everyone involved.

The ads, however, do raise questions about evangelism, i.e., what it is and how to do it. Evangelism is encouraging another person to resume or to continue his or her faith journey. That definition importantly and respectfully broadens the traditional Christian definition of evangelism still held by evangelicals, a definition that requires converting people to a Christian faith journey.

Nor will everybody, contrary to the basic premise of Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Life, will find her or his life purpose in evangelism, regardless of how one defines evangelism. Warren wrongly concludes that in the Christian Scripture God calls everyone to be an evangelist. Some receive that gift.

I find that Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point, offers a useful framework for understanding the connection of evangelism to church growth. Tipping points, according to Gladwell, transform isolated occurrences into a fad. In terms of church growth, a tipping point for a particular congregation moves the congregation from numerical stagnation to significant numerical growth. Gladwell contends that tipping points have three key elements.

Firstly, the congregation must energize and effectively deploy connectors, mavens, and salespeople. Connectors, as the word implies, are people who create links among a wide circle of acquaintances, friends, and family. Connectors introduce a person, or link that person, to someone already on a particular faith journey or involved with a specific congregation. Mavens are people who brim with knowledge about a particular subject; people frequently turn to mavens for advice in their area of expertise. Faith mavens are people who know about the different styles of liturgy, program, and group dynamics associated with area congregations. A faith maven, for example, can help one to realize whether she is a Christian in the Episcopalian or Baptist tradition or whether he is a Unitarian or a Muslim. Salespeople are so excited about what they have that they want to share it with others. Spiritual salespeople, the type that best fits the traditional Christian understanding of evangelism, have found a spiritual home and want to share the good news of that community with everybody else. In fact, all three types are important for aiding various types of persons on their individual spiritual journey.

Secondly, the congregation must create sufficient “stickiness” so that when new people do attend or participate, they experience a sufficiently strong attraction and level of satisfaction to motivate them to return. To maximize “stickiness” a congregation will need a multi-faceted approach that makes guests feel comfortable (friendly welcome, convenient parking, quality childcare, clean restrooms, informative signage, etc.). The congregation will offer programs with multiple entry points so that newcomers can comfortably join and programs that speak to a variety of interests and needs. Most importantly, the congregation will provide what attendees perceive as good value for the time invested, e.g., worship services with quality music and substantive content that flow rather than drag.

Right context is the third component required to create a successful tipping point. Right context, in a positive sense, means finding programming and content appropriate to the time and place. Demographics provide some easily accessible basic contextual information. Interviews with attendees and people in the area will yield contextual data about preferences and needs. Not every style or program is appropriate in every place. An Episcopal congregation with its heavy reliance on printed materials would find an illiterate community the wrong context. Conversely, a congregation situated in a Florida retirement community will find that programming targeting retirees resonates better than endlessly futile efforts to build a big, exciting youth program. Right context, suggest that for such a congregation, a youth program may be irrelevant.

In other words, as in the apparel business and automotive industry, one size and color does not suit everybody. Faith communities should articulate a theologically sound, contextually appropriate identity and mission, incarnate that identity and mission creatively and meaningfully (stickiness), and then intentionally engage connectors, mavens, and salespeople in spreading the word.

Numerically stagnant congregations located in geographic areas that are experiencing numerical growth (part of the right context) need to ask, Why not? Gladwell’s book on tipping points, unlike bus ads childishly arguing about God's existence, provides a helpful framework for identifying constructive answers.

Afghan drug trade

NATO has decided to target narcotics facilities in Afghanistan (Judy Dempsey, “NATO to Target Drug Traffic in Afghanistan,” New York Times, February 11, 2009). The Taliban now produces as much as 90% of the world’s opium (Dexter Filkins, “Taliban Fill NATO’s Big Gaps in Afghan South,” New York Times, January 21, 2009).

Presuming that NATO adheres to all relevant international and national laws, this move may appear to have multiple potential benefits: deny the Taliban their primary source of revenue while reducing the flow of narcotics into Europe and the United States.

That analysis sadly ignores the more intractable elements of Afghanistan’s role in the international drug traffic. First, Afghan farmers grow poppies primarily because it is their only viable cash crop. Most Afghan farmers do not grow poppies because of loyalty to the Taliban or anti-western sentiments. Targeting narcotics factories and dealers without concurrently attempting to reduce the size of the poppy crop seems unlikely to reduce, in the long term, by a substantial amount the quantity of drugs that reaches European and U.S. street markets. A key component of any potentially successful anti-drug program must be offering Afghan farmers a viable alternative. The current U.S. funded program to pay Afghan farmers not to grow poppies is a failure. The program lacks sufficient funds and has payment levels that are far too low to provide an attractive option to growing poppies.

Second, focusing on supply ignores the demand side of the problem in Europe and the United States. Reducing the supply has historically resulted in price increases for drugs sold on the streets, in turn leading to an increase in drug related crime. Demand side remedies should accompany supply side remedies to minimize if not to avoid those unintended, undesirable results.

A narrowly focused, anti-Taliban strategy may change the nature of the problem but will achieve little overall reduction in the problems stemming from the illegal drug trade. The program may disrupt Taliban finances in the short-run, but in the long-run continuing demand for illegal drugs and Afghan farmers without a viable alternative to growing poppies suggests that the initiative will not permanently disrupt Taliban finances.

Perpetuating racism

Avigdor Lieberman, head of the ultra-nationalist Israeli political party Yisrael Beitenu, has called for all Israelis to sign a loyalty oath in order to qualify for full Israeli citizenship. The oath would include a declaration that Israel is a Jewish state. His opponents charge that this constitutes a racist platform, intentionally discriminating against Arab Israelis. (Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner, “In Israeli Vote, the Winner is Gridlock,” New York Times, February 11, 2009)

Lieberman’s platform and the allegations of racism that it sparked underscore the complex nature of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Israel currently defines citizenship in terms of whether or not one is a citizen of Israel and nationality as Jewish, Muslim, etc. Attempting to eliminate those distinctions will inevitably further marginalize the already marginalized non-Jewish minority elements of Israel’s population. To adopt Lieberman’s platform will move Israel away from building peace with its Arab citizens and neighbors. Peace demands integration, mutual respect, and identifying ways in which Arab and Israeli can flourish together.

Similarly, Palestinian groups like Hamas must accept diversity of opinion and identity. Hamas claims to be an Islamic organization. Yet Hamas brooks no dissent, suppressing Arab dissenters through murder and brutal, crippling physical intimidation, e.g., kneecapping. Those tactics contradict the teachings of the Koran and Mohammed. (Sheera Frenkel and James Hider, “Amnesty allege Hamas violence during Gaza campaign,” The Times, February 11, 2009)

Israel and Hamas fighting until one or the other no longer exists, the apparent goal of both organizations right now, is conduct one might expect from juveniles and represents a policy destined to fail. Neither the Jews nor Arabs will soon depart Palestine en masse. Their only viable option for peace – for real flourishing – is to discover a pattern of coexistence that benefits each more than does the current violent struggle.

Support Our Troops

“Support Our Troops” has become a popular mantra in the United States since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, politicians have sometimes used that mantra as a political weapon and people mindlessly repeat it at other times. “Support Our Troops” does not denote unflagging agreement with current U.S. foreign policies nor should the mantra stifle political debate.

Instead, “Support Our Troops,” if truly genuine, will encompass at a minimum:
Sending U.S. military personnel into harm’s way only as a last resort. Last resort is one of five Just War Theory criteria for determining whether fighting a particular is just; Christians, western philosophers, and legal scholars turn to the Just War Theory to determine the morality of a war. The other criteria are just cause, right intent, right authority, reasonable chance of success, and proportionality. Warfighting unless an absolute last resort and morally justifiable inherently entails loss of life and is immoral. A nation should expeditiously end a war initiated in the belief that the conflict satisfied the Just War Theory criteria if it subsequently becomes obvious the war fails to meet that standard. Persevering in an unjust war with the attendant deaths and injuries on both sides is immoral. Political debates about wars and military actions honors troops who defend the representative democracy based on the United States Constitution.
Paying a living wage to the troops. Significant numbers of married junior enlisted personnel with children in the U.S. supplement their military pay with food stamps and other forms of public assistance. Sending someone into harm’s way in defense of our freedom and security yet refusing to pay that person a living wage is immoral. Except in a time of extreme national emergency, a nation that cannot afford to pay its troops adequately has mismanaged its finances or has too large a defense establishment.
Caring for troops who return home. The needs of the physically wounded are often glaringly apparent. Many personnel will survive wounds in Afghanistan and Iraq because of the high quality of medical care the military provides. However, significant numbers of those individuals will live the remainder of their life physically handicapped from that wound(s). The nation is morally obligated to ensure that these individuals have lifelong adequate medical care and any financial aid warranted. Similarly, the nation has an identical moral obligation to care for those who return with less visible but equally real mental health problems. Sadly, a higher percentage of personnel are returning from Afghanistan and Iraq with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than from previous wars.
Celebrating our troops as heroes. Celebrating military personnel is not simply a matter of medals, parades, and verbal affirmations, although all of those are important. Military personnel do not decide when and where the United States will go to war. That responsibility belongs to our elected leaders. No matter how strongly a citizen may disagree with the decision to fight a particular war, directing that dissent at military personnel is unnecessarily hurtful, does nothing to change the policy, and is wrong.
Praying for the troops. One should pray for all involved and effected by the fighting, those on both sides. God is no respecter of persons and equally loves all people. War, even when an absolute last resort and moral necessity, is a tragedy in God's sight.
Doing one’s share in the warfighting effort. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars exemplify wars in which a relative handful of citizens bear the burden of a war supposedly fought for the benefit of all. Deciding whether to serve in the military based on civilian job opportunities is wrong. Everyone has an obligation to serve the nation. Those too old, physically unqualified, or who have already served have an obligation to fund the war financially through their taxes and to support the troops. Wars that lack sufficient popular support to engage a nation’s populace broadly probably lack moral justification. For example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 certainly did not satisfy the traditional Just War Theory just cause criterion, which presumes Iraq had invaded another country. Instead, the invasion was a preventive strike, a type of war Just War Theory scholars almost universally condemn as immoral.

“Support Our Troops” is a powerful slogan – if one understands what it really means!

Global warming

Sammy Wilson, Northern Ireland’s Environment Minister, believes that God, not human actions, has caused global warming. (Shawn Pogatchnik, “Belfast environment chief bans climate change ads,” Washington Post, February 10, 2009). Humans should therefore stop trying to do the impossible, i.e., alter what God has initiated. Instead, humans should invest their time and resources into coping with the inevitability of global warming.

Wilson’s comments reflect scientific and theological errors. Science seeks to establish causal links based on measurable predictions. Scientists have collected sufficient data to demonstrate with reasonable confidence that a causal linkage exists between human actions such as greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Wilson blithely positing an alternative cause without bothering to offer a corrected interpretation of the existing data destroys any credibility he might have enjoyed because of his government portfolio.

Theologically, Wilson, a conservative Christian, needs to reread the book of Jonah. Forget the story of Jonah’s time at sea. Focus on the rest of the story. Jonah finally obeys God, goes to Nineveh, preaches repentance, the people heed Jonah’s call, and to Jonah’s great dismay God aborts the plan to destroy Nineveh. Similarly, if one accepts a prima facie reading of Genesis 3 (which I do not, but I strongly suspect Wilson does), did God intend humans to sin? If so, God brought evil into the world, an act incompatible with God's goodness. If not, then Genesis 3 offers a second of the many Biblical texts that point to human actions prompting God to change God's thoughts or actions.

The second theological difficulty that Wilson faces by attributing global warming to God is that God becomes deceitful, behavior Christians traditionally associate with Satan and not with God. The deception arises when humans who believe that God causes global warming examine the scientific data that link specific human behaviors to global warming. I cannot image any reason why God would deceptive evidence about the cause of global warming.

Sunday, February 15, is Evolution Sunday, the Sunday annually when many Churches remember Charles Darwin and his groundbreaking work in biology. Reconciling science and religion can be challenging, e.g., cf. the work of Keith Ward, senior fellow at the Metanexus Institute. However, blindly clinging to ideas that lack theological and scientific validity expresses an ignorance that insults scientists and religious believers.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq

Richard Parker, in his excellent biography, John Kenneth Galbraith, traces Galbraith’s consistent opposition to U.S. military involvement in Vietnam from the earliest decisions to deploy troops there to the war’s end. Galbraith visited Vietnam with surprising frequency and focused on Southeast Asia policy issues during his two-year tenure as the U.S. ambassador to India in the Kennedy administration.

Galbraith raised a very poignant question as the number of U.S. forces in Vietnam began to escalate that has helped me to clarify and articulate troublesome thoughts about the U.S.’s continuing presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Galbraith wanted military leaders to explain, and thereby justify, what increasing the number of U.S. troops beyond the eight to ten thousand already in Vietnam would accomplish that those eight to ten thousand plus the quarter million troops of the Army of South Vietnam (ARVN) could not do. If current troop levels could not defeat the Viet Cong, Galbraith insightfully concluded that the real problem was something other than insufficient military force. (pp. 362-377)

In retrospect, Galbraith was correct. Insufficient force was not the primary problem. The real issue was that the South Vietnamese government never won the hearts and minds of its populace. Popular support in South Vietnam enabled the Communist victory. Some U.S. military analysts will vehemently reject this conclusion, arguing that political restraints imposed on the U.S. military made it impossible to defeat the Viet Cong (VC) and the North Vietnamese Army (NVA). Presume for a moment that those political restraints had not existed, that the U.S. had employed whatever methods and force were necessary to defeat the VC and NVA. Victory would have left the U.S. occupying a country with substantial environmental and infrastructure damage inhabited by an antagonistic and resentful people.

Galbraith recognized that the South Vietnamese government’s corruption and the inability of ARVN, in spite of substantial infusions of U.S. equipment and trainers, to defeat the VC and NVA indicated the underlying problems that made Vietnam a “no-win” situation for the United States.

Consider the parallels between Galbraith’s cogent analysis and the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Karzai government in Afghanistan is notoriously corrupt and controls little of the country beyond Kabul. After seven years of training and logistical support, the Afghan army has slowly begun to develop into a viable fighting force. However, for many soldiers ethnic, tribal, and sectarian loyalties still take precedence over national identity. This severely limits the Afghan Army’s integrity as a cohesive, combat ready fighting force. Meanwhile, the opposition to the government proliferates and grows stronger.

The problem is not the quality of the individual Afghan Army soldier as a fighter. By all reports, they live up to their tradition of fierceness and courage under fire. Nor is the problem that the enemy they face has overwhelming firepower, training, numbers, or logistical support. U.S. and NATO contributions of air support, trainers, and supplies ensure the Afghan Army’s superiority with respect to each of those factors. The problem is that too many Afghanis, including large numbers in the Afghan Army, want all foreigners out of Afghanistan.

How else can one explain events in Afghanistan? Afghanis are slow learners who need more than seven years to develop military competence? U.S. and NATO trainers are inept and ineffective? Alternative explanations simply do not wash. The parallel with Vietnam – a corrupt government and a purportedly powerful military unable to achieve victory – should give great pause to anyone who advocates continued heavy U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

The situation in Iraq is disturbingly similar to that in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. In spite of billions in U.S. reconstruction spending, the quality of life for the average Iraqi as measured by basic services such as water and electricity has improved only marginally during the five years of U.S. occupation. Corruption is rife in Iraq and its government. By putting Sunnis on the U.S. payroll through the Sons of Iraq program, the U.S. has enabled the Iraqi government to appear to exercise at least nominal control in much of the country, apart from Kurdish areas. Many Iraqi dissidents seem to be biding their time, patiently waiting for the U.S. to exit, before attempting to grab power. Loyalties remain primarily to tribe, ethnicity, and sect, not to a unified nation. Iraq, for example, has yet to pass legislation apportioning oil revenues to its various provinces and population groups.

Stephen Biddle, senior fellow for defense policy with the Council on Foreign Relations, commented about the recent Iraqi elections, “There is just not a lot of customary willingness to submerge differences with somebody for the sake of some larger common goal. Permanent, large aggregations require a willingness to swallow compromises and disagreements even when it doesn't appear necessary for survival. The tribal social system [in Iraq] discourages all that." (Quoted in Greg Bruno, “Backgrounder: Iraq’s Political Landscape”)

The Iraqi Army has improved its effectiveness, but not to the level one would reasonably expect of a motivated, reasonably equipped, and trained force, many of whom have previous combat or at least military experience. Although the Iraqi Army wants more modern weapons than it now has, the Iraqi Army already outguns all insurgents and terrorists operating in Iraq today, e.g., the Iraqi Air Force is again operational. Iraqi insurgents and terrorists lack airpower, tanks, heavy artillery, etc. Using weapons similar to those available to insurgents and terrorists to engage them in combat may cost the Iraqi Army more casualties, but the Iraqi Army, if truly motivated, should prevail because of its superior numbers, training, logistics, and weapons. After all, the Iraqi Army has had the benefit of five years of U.S. training programs, ongoing mentoring, and outfitting.

The bravery, military skill, and innovation that Iraqi insurgents and terrorists routinely exhibit prove false any explanations of problems with the Iraqi Army linked to intrinsic Iraqi cowardice or military unsuitability. Nor do explanations about the incompetence of U.S. military advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military seem credible. The problem, as in Vietnam and Afghanistan, is that many in the Iraqi military and civilian population do not want the U.S. in their country. Iraqi actions speak louder than Iraqi words; they obviously want to find their own way, regardless of the cost.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. should focus on defeating al Qaeda and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. Only the bare minimum of forces necessary for those tasks should remain in Afghanistan. The U.S. and NATO lack the military, financial, and political resources to transform Afghanistan into a Western democracy.

In Iraq, the U.S. should withdraw as promptly as possible. Concurrently, the U.S. should push ahead with energy independence. The current recession has substantially reduced petroleum demand. Stimulus packages offer an opportunity to fund development of alternative energy sources through high priority programs similar to those that resulted in the first nuclear weapon and the first human walking on the moon. The U.S. will achieve maximum utility for itself and others by spending its resources on projects that offer both a promise of success and improved quality of life for all.

Economic revitalization

U.S. unemployment in January hit 7.6%, with another 598,000 people unemployed (Howard Schneider, “Unemployment Rate Hits 7.6 Percent in January,” Washington Post, February 6, 2009). Economic revitalization must now take priority over issues in the Obama administration.
John Kenneth Galbraith in the late 1930s observed that, “People with decreased money incomes and increased concerns for their economic security” tend to save rather than consume, make do with what they have, not add to their store of goods, and “thus are less rather than more response to lower prices.” (Richard Parker, John Kenneth Galbraith, p. 71)

Galbraith’s observation, made during the Great Depression, holds true today as people in the United States have abruptly begun to save rather than to spend (Jack Healy, “Consumers Are Saving More and Spending Less,” New York Times, February 3, 2009).

John Maynard Keynes’ insight that an economy has many possible equilibrium points underscores the importance of Galbraith’s observation for designing policy ukases to revive the flagging U.S. economy. Keynes was the first to recognize that an economy can find an equilibrium point with substantially less than full employment. Pumping money into the economy, whether directly to taxpayers, indirectly through tax cuts, or through government spending should thus happen in a way to ensure increased consumption, not increased savings.

Individual taxpayers who feel increasing anxiety about their economic well-being who receive tax cuts or rebates are likely to save rather than spend their increased income, minimizing the economic stimulus. Alternatively, government expenditures to improve or to rebuild deteriorated vital national infrastructure, especially improving human capital through education, health care, and other human services, will doubly benefit the economy by increasing employment and by enhancing American competitiveness. Economic research on 1930s New Deal programs supports that conclusion.

Of course, as Japan learned in an expensive lesson, not all infrastructure investment is equal. Since the Japanese real estate bubble burst in the late 1980s, Japan has invested trillions in its infrastructure, accumulating a national debt equal to 180% of its gross domestic product. Too much of that was spent on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure in rural areas with little likelihood of ever recouping the investment. (Martin Fackler, “Japan’s Big-Works Stimulus Is Lesson,” New York Times, February 6, 2009)

Rather than lobbying for tax cuts, those of us who enjoy a reasonably high level of economic comfort, and I include myself in that category, should lobby for increased tax rates for ourselves as the best available way in which to assist our neighbors in this financially difficult period. Increased tax revenues are unlikely to prove sufficient. Future generations already face huge unfunded obligations for Medicare and Social Security. Adding to their burden by funding the totality of a much-needed economic stimulus package through issuing government debt will unfairly limits their prosperity.

Iraq elections update

Good news continues to appear about the recent Iraqi election (e.g., “God takes a back seat,” The Economist, February 5, 2009). Nonetheless, even the most positive of articles notes that the election does not solve the underlying problems in Iraq. Perhaps the most helpful way to understand the election is to recognize that the election does not represent a step in the wrong direction.

The Economist article identifies a shift away from strict sectarian voting, a positive development. Most Iraqis are more secular than devout. The potential danger is that radical Sunnis and radical Shiites will refuse to accept a government based on anything except their understanding of Sharia.

Conversely, the article also remarks on widespread disillusionment by Iraqis with their political parties, a disillusionment some analysts blame for the relatively low voter turnout: “A more worrying cause was the indubitable sense of disillusionment with the political parties that have come to power since the 2003 American-led invasion.”

The general election (these were provincial) to be held within a year will indicate more clearly the direction that Iraq’s future will take. Most of the provincial elections did not pit candidates running against each other with a substantially divided, along sectarian or ethnic lines, electorate. Consequently, the provincial elections were naturally more peaceful (only eight of over fourteen thousand candidates were killed). Conflict, where it did occur, was in provinces like Anbar with sharply divided populations.

Civilian-military relations

Recent news reports have emphasized that President Obama is treating the military gingerly, trying to avoid mistakes that negatively affected President Clinton’s performance as Commander-in-Chief (e.g., Elizabeth Bumiller, “After Campaign Push, Obama Cultivates Military,” New York Times, January 31, 2009).

Those reports, along with the military leadership’s response to President Clinton, trouble me both as a citizen and as a retired senior naval officer. Set aside the merits of the particular issues now on the table, the timetable for withdrawing from Iraq and policies governing gays and lesbians serving in the military.

A military officer’s fundamental moral and legal duty, a duty at the center of each officer’s commissioning oath, is “to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The Constitution identifies the nation’s President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Orders the military receives from the President that do not violate the Constitution or other laws are just that, orders.

The timetable for withdrawing forces from Iraq is a military issue about which the President does well to consult the military for their advice. Similarly, personnel policies can affect force readiness and combat effectiveness. Again, the President, especially one without prior military service, will benefit from consulting military leaders for their advice.

However, once the President issues an order the time for discussion and consultation ends; the military’s obligation, morally and militarily, is to execute the order loyally and to the best of their abilities. That did not happen when President Clinton issued the “do not ask, do not tell” policy regarding gays and lesbians serving in the military. (That policy directed the military not to inquire about a servicemember’s sexual orientation and military personnel not to discuss their sexual orientation.) Instead, many in the military resented the directive and resisted full compliance with it. Those behaviors, tolerated if not supported by some senior officers, constitute dereliction of duty. Changing the military policy that barred gays and lesbians from serving in the military violated neither the Constitution nor federal law.

The military’s power is a force that the nation should wield externally, under the leadership of the President and the authority of Congress. The military should not be a force that wields political power within the United States. Doing so sets the nation on a slippery slope away from civilian democracy toward a military regime. In this century, the military has slowly accreted political power apparent in Congressional funding of military procurement, political decisions about force size and composition, and most recently about personnel policies. Two examples of this political power are the multi-pronged nuclear deterrence with airplane, intercontinental missiles, and sub-launched intercontinental missiles each with its own entrenched military-civilian advocacy coalition and unvaryingly including units from all four military services in high profile operations so all share the glory.

President Truman fired General MacArthur when MacArthur publicly criticized Truman’s strategic guidance for conducting the Korean War. Truman reasonably concluded that MacArthur was unable to give whole-hearted public support to carrying out the government’s policies and therefore replacing him was necessary.

Tensions between uniformed and civilian leaders seem inherent in our constitutional system. Presidents and their administrations will rightly respect the military expertise and genuine patriotism that most military personnel, particularly senior officers, have. Similarly, military personnel, particularly senior officers, will rightly honor the leaders the nation has elected, striving to fully implement those leaders’ policies regardless of personal sentiments. Anyone who does otherwise undermines the very system that all have sworn to defend; the oath military officers swear even includes the provisos “without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion.”

Retired military personnel have much to offer the nation. Among retired military personnel currently serving in civilian positions in the federal government are retired Marine General James Jones as the current National Security Advisor, retired Navy Admiral Dennis Blair as Director of National Intelligence and retired Army General Erick Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. However, they should contribute in ways that maximize transparency, ensure clarity of roles, and intentionally strengthen the civilian democratic government that they now serve in a new capacity.

Afghan agenda

The Obama administration’s call for a more limited U.S. agenda in Afghanistan (Karen DeYoung, “Obama Seeks Narrower Focus in Afghan War,” Washington Post, February 4, 2009) bodes well. The U.S. has the moral right to continue pursuing al Qaeda, attempting to apprehend Osama bin Laden and compatriots for trial. The U.S. also has a post-war moral obligation to assist in the economic development of Afghanistan. However, that remit does not extend to insisting Afghanistan adopt a style of government ill suited to its culture. Geography, culture, internal divisions, and other dynamics all limit what the U.S. can realistically expect to achieve through its aid programs there.

Thoughts on Marriage: Part II

The next step in that unfolding narrative of grace is to expand the concept of marriage to include a gay man marrying a gay man or a lesbian marrying a lesbian. This timely, grace filled step rightly extends the Christian concept of marriage to people whom the Church for too long has marginalized or demonized, the very categories of people with whom Jesus spent his ministry. The Church wrongly has attempted to foist a life and love denying form of sexuality – heterosexuality – upon people whom God created with a different gender orientation. Consequently, their gender preference has too often caused gays and lesbians to deny their very identity or to express their sexuality in promiscuous, exploitative, or other destructive ways. Same-sex monogamous marriage inherently promotes healthy lifestyles, models the union of Christ and the Church, and can powerfully mediate grace to all whom they encounter.

Conversely, contending that such marriages pose a threat to heterosexual marriage is as silly an evangelical shibboleth as pretending that Christian teachings about marriage have remained constant. Any married heterosexual who fancies him or herself threatened by gay or lesbian marriages has a delusional concept of her or his own attractiveness as a partner, perceives his or her marriage is in trouble, or fears his or her own severely repressed homosexuality.

The time for silence ended years ago; now is the time for action. At General Convention this summer, the Episcopal Church should initiate appropriate legislation to
(1) Disentangle the Episcopal Church from the state with respect to marriage by canonically prohibiting Episcopal clergy from acting on behalf of the state in performing marriages (regardless of what civil law may allow), deleting all canonical provisions governing such acts, and deleting the existing rite for the “Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage” from the Book of Common Prayer;
(2) Create one rite for blessing all monogamous relationships, regardless of the gender of the two parties (a revised, gender neutral, and enriched version of the current Book of Common Prayer rite for “The Blessing of a Civil Marriage” could serve as the basis for this new rite for blessing marriages);
(3) Prophetically encourage all government entities (states, territories, etc.) with jurisdiction to define marriage as the legal union of two consenting adults regardless of gender.

The legal benefits of marriage are real and substantial. Two people who choose to live as one understandably want to share fully obligations to care for one another, responsibility for any children, property ownership, etc. Laws governing health care, child guardianship, inheritance, and a host of other issues stipulate preferential treatment of and protections for a spouse. Item #3 above is critical because those laws should apply to all marriages, regardless of the gender of the persons involved. By prophetically advocating equal rights for all, regardless of gender orientation, the Church walks faithfully in the footsteps of the Biblical prophets, echoing their call for justice.

The lingering entanglement of religion and state with respect to marriage is an unfortunate legacy of various United States denominations having emerged from (or continuing to be part of) established European Churches. God's grace cannot and does not wait for governments to act. By ending the misguided entanglement of the Episcopal Church and state in which clergy act as agents of the state when officiating at marriages (Item #1 above), the Church moves in time with God's grace, treating all monogamous relationships equally, using the same liturgical rite to pronounce God's blessing (Item #2).

For political rather than theological reasons, reasons that I, an ardent supporter of democracy, nonetheless find compelling, France over a century ago took away the authority of religious leaders to officiate at the legal ceremony in which the government approves of a marriage contract. After that civil ceremony, those for whom the religious ceremony holds meaning seek God's blessing in a manner appropriate to their faith tradition.

Separation of the civil from the legal is also good theology. Most clergy have officiated at marriages in which tradition, architectural beauty, location, humoring parents, or other extraneous factors motivated the couple to have a “Church wedding.” Any belief or even hope by bride or groom that God could or would bless their union was absent. Some beguilingly naïve couples, at least in unguarded moments, unsuspectingly divulge their real motives even while trying to pay lip service to their non-existent faith. Performing a wedding of this genre is rarely effective outreach. Instead, such weddings commercialize the Church (i.e., provide helpful income to some parishes), demean Christian believers, cause non-believers verbally to prostitute themselves, and distract from the real work of ministry. Those who too easily dismiss these objections would do well to reflect on the uniquely American phenomena of “mail order” clergy performing weddings, Vegas wedding chapels, contemporary wedding trends, and wedding extravaganzas that display conspicuous consumption. People will hear the Church’s proclamation of the gospel against that cacophonous background only if the proclamation is clear and unambiguous.

Admittedly, General Convention implementing the three recommendations above will have some unintended ramifications. Dissidents who have exited the Episcopal Church will feel their departures justified. On a positive note, given the experience of other American ecclesial bodies in taking similar steps, notably the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church can expect that few additional dissidents will depart.

Other provinces will bewail the Episcopal Church acting unilaterally, without first developing a consensus among members of the Anglican Communion. Completing the liturgical changes will require at least one additional triennial meeting of General Convention. Thus, any action General Convention takes implicitly, and even better explicitly, invites the rest of the Anglican Communion to enter into dialogue on subject of marriage. This topic, for very diverse reasons raises important questions not only in the United States, but also in Canada (same sex relationships), the United Kingdom (remarriage after divorce and same sex relationships), and Africa (polygamy). Provinces that have already separated themselves, de facto, from the Communion will predictably refuse to participate; recent moves by and messages from those provinces express their opinion that the Episcopal Church has already abandoned the faith. Confirming those provinces in their negative opinion will not cause any additional harm. The rest of the Communion, holding firmly to Anglican inclusivity and diversity, can profit from timely conversations about marriage from cultural, legal, and theological perspectives.

General Convention’s approval of the three initiatives will set the Episcopal Church firmly on a course of incarnating God's love for all in a radically inclusive manner that emulates the one whom it calls Lord. These initiatives are the faithful and logical next step in the unfolding narrative of God's grace. No alternative course will achieve the same result. This is the intended outcome, the one to which God has called us: to stand with God, in God's name, for all of God's people.

Thoughts on Marriage: Part I

In general, the Biblical witness about marriage appears to progress toward monogamy. Yet the Biblical basis for confidently declaring that marriage is uniquely between one man and one woman seems somewhat tenuous at best. Even a cursory reading of the Old Testament reveals multiple, acceptable patterns for marriage: polygamy, concubinage, Levirate, etc. The status of those teachings today is unclear. For example, Scripture nowhere teaches that the practice of Levirate marriage – a widow marrying a brother of her deceased husband in order to keep the husband’s property in the family – is obsolete.

By Jesus’ birth, the dominant cultural pattern for marriage among Jews was clearly that of one man married to one woman. However, nothing in Jesus’ teachings excludes other patterns, e.g., he never explicitly teaches that a person shall have only one spouse at any given time. Only when read with a presumption of monogamy do gospel passages appear to teach monogamy. For example, Mark 10:12 records Jesus teaching that if a woman divorces her husband she commits adultery. Read with the presumption of polygamy, the passage neither implicitly nor explicitly forbids the husband from having multiple wives.

Similarly, the NRSV translates 1 Timothy 3:2 as “married only once” instead of the more traditional “husband of one wife.” Yet both versions arguably presume that many people marry more than once; neither translation actually precludes the possibility that some Christians then practiced polygamy.

Only in the Pauline writings is the case for heterosexual monogamy stated directly (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:2). Even then, the teaching’s applicability may be problematic. Why elevate the authority of the Pauline corpus above that of the rest of Scripture? Perhaps culture rather than God shaped Paul’s thoughts about marriage as happened with his thoughts about slavery and women.

From a theological perspective, the Christian Church followed Paul, prevailing cultural mores, or both and from its early centuries taught that the sacrament of marriage was the indissoluble union of one man and one woman. Then the Church began to modify that narrow approach – thankfully!

First, the Church recognized that in some instances a purported marriage was just that, only a facsimile and not the substance of a marriage. Reasons the Church might declare a marriage invalid included the legal encumbrance of one party preventing him or her from being legally free to marry (perhaps because he/she was already married) or one party not intending a faithful marriage. The Roman Catholic Church’s annulment process still operates on this basis, emotionally scarring many. Senator Ted Kennedy’s first wife, Joan, notoriously refused to cooperate with her husband when he sought to have their marriage annulled. She contended that their progeny constituted living proof of a valid marriage; additionally, annulment would tacitly declare their children illegitimate.

Second, the Church improved its theology, shifting from supporting arranged marriages and considering women as chattel to promoting marriages based on mutual, consensual love and viewing women as equal partners with men. The Book of Common Prayer’s option for the Officiant at a marriage to inquire, “Who gives this woman to this man?” is an anachronistic, liturgical residue of the erroneous notion that women are property.

Third, by the beginning of the twenty-first century the Christian Church recognized that imperfect humans both make imperfect choices with respect to marriage partners and sometimes destroy reasonably good marriages. In other words, the Church finally discerned that grace abounds more if marriages that have died or become destructive end in divorce with the possibility of healing and remarriage rather than legalistically condemning the parties in such marriages to remain in hellish bondage or celibate. Sadly, the Church of England is among the limited number of ecclesiastical bodies retaining a more legalistic rather than grace-filled understanding of marriage and divorce. The Episcopal Church seeks a healthy middle ground between casual, serial monogamy and legalism with our process focused on healing those whose marriage has ended as an integral element of preparing for remarriage.

Let me be clear. I am an unabashed and wholehearted proponent of faithful monogamy. My brief review of marital practices described in the Bible and our evolving theological understanding of marriage simply emphasizes that concepts of Christian marriage have not remained static over the millennia. The history of Christian marriage is an unfolding narrative of increasing grace, albeit a history of slow and uneven progress.

Rendition

If a report in The Times of London (Tom Baldwin, “Barack Obama grants CIA permission to retain right to carry out renditions,” February 2, 2009) is correct, then not only that does that action represent a conflict with President Obama’s pre-election promises but also makes Obama administration renunciations of terror moot.

Rendition’s has only served one purpose to date, removing a suspect from U.S. jurisdiction and placing that suspect under the jurisdiction of a nation in which the suspect lacks the legal protections the U.S. justice system supposedly provides. In other words, rendition has facilitated interrogation through various forms of torture and human rights abuses.

Torture is ineffective in obtaining useful information, a conclusion that retired ADM Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence shares (cf. my prior blog entry). Rendition of a suspect to another nation for interrogation through torture is therefore illogical. Unless preserving an option for rendition is important for another reason, granting the CIA permission to conduct renditions, presuming the news report is correct, appears to make no sense.