Morning at the Office

General Convention

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Matthew 25:31-46 Sheeps and goats and tigers AMEN

Opinion: Of sheep, goats and aliens Print
By Miguel De La Torre
Friday, June 12, 2009

De La Torre
(ABP) -- We should always be careful with biblical interpretations that divorce theology from action. How do we guard from reducing the mystery of God into a simple salvation formula that cheapens what was costly to God? No doubt we all can lead others through the “Roman Road to Salvation,” but have we simplified salvation so much that it requires nothing from us?

Please don’t misunderstand what I am trying to say. Without a doubt I recognize salvation to be a gift of God’s grace. But, if there is no radical outward manifestation reflecting an inward conversion, then we are left questioning if such a conversion took place.

To read Jesus’ words is to be offended. He challenges our comfort, our lifestyle, our patriotism, and how we are to relate to the world around us. I have no doubt that if Christians (yours truly included) were to actually humble ourselves and literally follow Jesus’ teachings, the world would be turned upside down. But the fact that Christianity -- both liberal and conservative brands -- is so irrelevant in world affairs indicates how much we have watered down God’s Word so that our interpretations of Scripture can remain complicit with the ways of our society.

Imagine with me what Jesus would say today about immigration. Not what a Christian patriot would say, nor even an American Christian, but the Jesus who took the time to walk the migrant trails and talk to those who were hungry, thirsty and naked. I would imagine that he would recast his famous parable concerning the sheep and the goats something like this:

And on that day the Son of Man will return in all his regalia, accompanied by the host of angels. Then will he set up his throne and be seated before all the people in full glory. And before him all the nations will come together; and he will separate them, one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right, but the goats will be placed on the left.

Then the King will say to those on the left, “Away from me, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for Satan and his demons. For I was hungry while crossing the desert and you did not give me food, because you placed vain nationalistic patriotism before basic human rights and dignity. I was thirsty while following the resources and labor stolen from me through your foreign policies and you didn’t give me water because you feared I would use up all your social services. I was an alien within your midst, and you questioned my legality rather than recognizing me as a carrier of the imago Dei. I was left naked by my journey, and you gave me no clothing because you feared my brown body. The desert crossing left me ill and you didn’t visit me, because you assumed I brought diseases into your country and you were afraid of catching something. And when the migra threw me in prison, you did not come to me, smug in your self-righteous belief that I was responsible for my predicament.”

Then the goats will reply, saying, “Lord, when did we see you in need of food or drink? I would have sent you a check, but I didn’t want to break any laws. You can understand that, can’t you? Or, or when were you an alien? You weren’t one of those illegals, were you? Lord, tell me, when were you naked? I mean, I always give the clothes I outgrow to my church; didn’t you find something there that fit you? Or when were you ill, or in prison? If I’d have known I would have sent you an electronic greeting card!”

¡Basta!” The Lord will reply. “Verily, verily I say unto you, because you did it not to the least of these, you did it not to me.”

Then will the King say to those on his right, “Come, you who have the blessing of my Father, into the kingdom prepared for you and the angels since the foundation of the Earth. For I was hungry, and you left food for me on the migrant trails. I was thirsty, and you filled tanks and jugs with water in the desert so that I could drink. I was an alien, and you made me familia. I was naked, and you clothed me physically, emotionally and spiritually. I was ill, and you set up a medical aid center in the desert to bind my wounds. And when I was thrown into prison and abused, you fought for my rights to humane treatment.”

Then will the upright make answer to him, saying, “Lord, when did we see you in need of food, and give it to you? Or in need of drink? Or naked, or an alien, or ill, or imprisoned?”

And the King of Kings will answer and say to them, “Compañeros, verily I say to you, because you did it to the least of these, you did it to me.”

And these will go away into eternal life, but the goats on the left into eternal punishment and damnation.

And, my dear hermanos y hermanas, what separates sheep from goats is not what sinner’s prayer they recited, what church they belonged to, nor what theology they professed. What separates sheep from goats is what they did -- or did not do -- to the least of these.

For those of us who live a life marked by power, possessions, and privilege: Our only hope in entering Paradise, based on the words of our Lord and Savior, is by having one of the least of these vouch for us.

-30-

Miguel De La Torre is associate professor of social ethics at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver.


EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP's staff, board of directors or supporters.

Comments (2)Add Comment

Monday, June 08, 2009

Cohesion, morale and order "Tailhook"


Today the Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration and refused to review Pentagon policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Kevin Nix, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "What happened today puts the ball back into the court of Congress and the White House to repeal the law, and that's where we think it should be right now."

Nix said there are no objective studies showing unit cohesion, morale and order are harmed by openly gay people.

Do you think there are objective studies showing unit cohesion, morale and order in the military are harmed by men or women who cheat on their spouses? Are they just red blooded American boys and girls if they go and have sex outside of marriage? Anybody remember "Tailhook"?
Is this discipline? Is this morality?

Saturday, June 06, 2009

D-Day at 65 -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/

Operation Overlord: D-Day to Paris

By Lloyd Clark
In the space of three crucial months in 1944, the Allies progressed from landing 150,000 troops on five Normandy beaches, to a victory march through Paris. Lloyd Clark charts the remarkable execution of Operation Overlord.
Charles de Gaulle led the victory parade through Paris


Initial focus

Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of north-west Europe in June 1944, was a remarkable achievement. It provided the springboard from which forces from Britain, the United States, Canada, Poland and France could liberate western Europe from German occupation - before advancing on Berlin to defeat Hitler.

The planning for Overlord began in the spring of 1943, and at the outset focused on where best to penetrate the system of German coastal defences. Stretching from northern Norway to the Franco-Spanish frontier, these defences were known as the 'Atlantic Wall'.

'Operation Overlord ... was a remarkable achievement.'

After an assessment of the alternatives it was decided that an initial assault force of 150,000 men would land on the beaches of Normandy, in northern France. Although here the English Channel was wider than at the Pas de Calais, Normandy was chosen because its beaches were close to English ports, were within range of Allied aircraft stationed in England, and had the useful French port of Cherbourg nearby.

With Normandy chosen, the supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, American General Dwight D Eisenhower then tasked his staff with the more detailed military planning for the invasion.

British General Sir Bernard Montgomery was put in charge of land operations, while lieutenant generals Omar N Bradley (commanding US First Army) and Sir Miles Dempsey (commanding British Second Army), took charge of the actual assault troops.

The final plan demanded that three airborne divisions be delivered to Normandy, to protect the flanks of the main invasion force of five divisions assaulting the beaches.

First landings

US jeeps and French civilians at Carentan, 1944
Located between Utah and Omaha beaches, the capture of Carentan was crucial
The details of this plan were worked on during the winter of 1943, and on 1 April 1944 heavy bombers began to soften up the German defences all along the Channel coast.

The defences in Normandy had recently been improved by the German general Erwin Rommel, but he had placed more emphasis on the Pas de Calais area. This led to a distinct lack of German armoured support further west and, unhelpfully for Rommel, a fundamental divergence in opinion within the German high command as to how best to deploy what few assets they had.

'... the Allies massed over one million troops in southern England ...'

As the arguments raged and the Germans endeavoured to deal with their pressing defensive conundrums, the Allies massed over one million troops in southern England, as well as an invasion fleet of nearly 5,000 vessels, in preparation for the great offensive.

In the early hours of 6 June 1944, two American and one British airborne division began landing in Normandy and, in spite of their scattered drops, managed to achieve their critical objectives.

Meanwhile, the beach assault troops, packed into their landing craft and supported by a huge number and variety of naval vessels and aircraft, approached the Normandy coast.

Main attack

British soldier and French civilian pick their way through what remains of Caen, July 1944
In the battle for Caen, Allied bomber raids reduced the city to rubble
The beaches were attacked at different times due to the tide, beginning at 04.55 hours with an assault in the American sector at what had been code-named 'Utah' beach. The second landing took place on the American 'Omaha' beach, followed by the Anglo-Canadian assaults on 'Gold' and then 'Juno' beaches, before the British hit 'Sword' beach at 07.25 hours.

The landings were, in general terms, a great success, although there were heavy casualties on Omaha and the British failed to take Caen as planned. Nevertheless, by the end of the day, 150,000 men had managed to get ashore and a firm foothold had been established for the cost of 2,500 dead.

'... a firm foothold had been established for the cost of 2,500 dead.'

In spite of the considerable success achieved on D-Day, the Allies had to create a beachhead swiftly and then conduct breakout operations if they were to take full advantage of their position. The build-up of adequate supplies was therefore crucial to Allied aspirations. Recognising this, two purpose-built 'Mulberry' harbours were floated across the English Channel and anchored just off Omaha and Gold beaches.

Exploitation phase

HMS 'Rodney' shells Caen prior to the attack, July 1944
HMS 'Rodney' shells Caen prior to the attack, July 1944 - the battle continued until August
The capture of the port of Cherbourg was also deemed necessary for the exploitation phase, and thus elements of US VII Corps commenced operations to push up the Cotentin Peninsula.

Having reached the peninsula's west coast on 18 June, the Americans then turned north toward Cherbourg. They reached the port on 21 June, but it took a further eight days of fighting before the town fell, and by that time the Germans had destroyed most of the vital port facilities.

Elsewhere, although Montgomery continually probed the German line in order to find a weak point, he found time after time that his troops were constantly thwarted by the bocage terrain - small fields surrounded by thick hedgerows and sunken lanes - which greatly assisted the German defenders.

'... his troops were constantly thwarted by the bocage terrain ...'

Even so, he continued to engage the enemy in the east, such as in Operation Epsom, which opened on 26 June. This was an attempt to put pressure on Caen, so that the Americans could quietly build up their forces in the west prior to a break out.

This planned offensive became increasingly necessary once the euphoria surrounding D-Day had worn off, as politicians and the military on both sides of the Atlantic wished to see the campaign move on.

The response of the land commander (Montgomery) was to order a direct assault on Caen. This was known as Operation Charnwood, in the course of which the city was reduced to rubble by bombing raids. Canadian troops then struggled through its streets, and by 10 July, when the attack ended, had penetrated as far as the river Orne.

The southern and eastern suburbs of the city remained in enemy hands, but pinning the Germans in this area suited Montgomery's strategy. He continued to fix them in the east by launching Operation Goodwood on 18 July, while the Americans drove from St Lô towards Avranches in Operation Cobra.

Goodwood was a tactical failure, which cost the British heavy armoured losses and failed to make much ground. Bradley's American forces in the west, however, did gain from it - by being able to complete their preparations for Cobra without the German army being allowed to draw its sting too early.

'Goodwood was a tactical failure ...'

Cobra was launched on 25 July but failed to make headway until the following day, when American armour smashed its way through to Coutances. By 30 July the Americans had taken Coutances and Avranches, and US VIII Corps, part of lieutenant general George S Patton's Third US Army, pushed on in an attempt to capture the Breton ports.

Making for the Seine

Canadian soldiers at the side of a road near Caen, August 1944
Operation Charnwood enabled Canadian troops to establish a foothold in Caen
The Americans moved quickly, but Bradley deemed that a reorientation in the thrust was necessary, and on 3 August ordered Patton to leave a covering force in Brittany and divert the rest of his army east to the Seine river. This would outflank the German forces facing the Anglo-Canadians around Caen and force a withdrawal.

Montgomery supported this move and directed Dempsey to attack towards the Vire river, in Operation Bluecoat, in late July. This was an attempt to ensure that the enemy did not redeploy to counter Patton's advance.

The American plan worked well, and in spite of a German counter attack at Mortain on 6-7 August, captured ground quickly. On 8 August, Patton's men took Le Mans and then swept forward to seize Nantes and Angers before approaching the Seine via Chartres and Orléans.

'The American plan worked well ...'

The Allies made good progress, but there was a feeling that the Germans could be further undermined by an operation that aimed to trap them in a great pocket, created by envelopment. Thus, as some of Patton's troops struck out to the Seine, units further to the north were ordered to advance to Argentan, where they were to link up with Anglo-Canadians attacking south from Caen and Falaise.

Before the Falaise Pocket was closed on 21 August, approximately 40,000 Germans escaped the clutches of the Allied troops. But significant numbers of Germany's forces were nevertheless destroyed and, as a result, the German army in Normandy ceased to exist. Meanwhile, Patton's troops had continued to charge eastwards, and on 20 August had crossed the Seine at Mantes-Gassicourt.

Paris

Two French soldiers in the shadow of the Arc de Triomphe, 1944
Charles de Gaulle gave orders for the French 2nd Armoured Division to liberate Paris
In Paris, meanwhile, Communist-led members of the French forces of the interior had seized various public buildings in the capital in anticipation of liberation. Fighting through the city, however, was not a prospect that Eisenhower relished, and he intended to by-pass the capital altogether in order to maintain pressure on the withdrawing Germans.

At that moment, General Charles de Gaulle, the leader of the Free French, took matters into his own hands. Fearing a Communist take-over, he ordered major general Jacques Philippe Leclerc to lead his French 2nd Armoured Division into Paris in order to liberate the city. Eisenhower had little option under the circumstances but to order US units to follow.

As French troops fought their way through the suburbs the population of Paris rose in revolt against their occupiers, but it was not until late on 24 August that tanks of the French 2nd Armoured Division reached the centre. It took another 24 hours to complete the liberation, and on 26 August, in spite of German snipers, de Gaulle led a victory parade down the Champs Elysées. In this way ensuring that he, rather than the communists, was in control of France.

'... the population of Paris rose in revolt against their occupiers ...'

Despite suffering massive setbacks, Hitler's forces were not beaten yet. While the end of the war in Europe may have been in sight at the end of summer 1944, there were many more miles to travel and plenty more battles to fight before Allied troops finally set foot in the German Fatherland.

Find out more

Books

Battle Zone Normandy Series by various authors (Sutton Publishing, 2004)

The Battle of Normandy 1944 by Robin Neillands (Cassell & Company, 2004)

Decision in Normandy by Carlo D'Este (Pan Books, 1984)

Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy by Max Hastings (Guild Publishing, 1984)



Related Links

Articles
Multimedia Zone
Historic Figures
Timelines
BBC Links
External Web Links


Published on BBC History: 2004-05-10
This article can be found on the Internet at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/overlord_d_day_paris_01.shtml

© British Broadcasting Corporation
For more information on copyright please refer to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/about/copyright.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/

BBC History
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/

Thursday, June 04, 2009

And with thy spirit. President Obama, Cairo University, June 4, 2009


Alleluia, alleluia! So be it.



June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt


1:10 P.M. (Local)


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.


And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
2:05 P.M. (Local)


###

Monday, June 01, 2009

Christians (Reconstructionists) killing Christ

Among military chaplains, fundamentalism is taking hold

Click image for detail

[Episcopal News Service] As an Episcopal priest who is also a retired member of the U.S. Army Chaplain Corps, I am prompted to write after reading a very disturbing article in the May edition of Harper's magazine: "Jesus Killed Mohammed: The Crusade for a Christian Military."

In the story, author Jeff Sharlet writes that a voluntary association called the Officer's Christian Fellowship (OCF) is aggressive and coordinated in furthering its evangelical agenda. The story states that several high ranking officers have inappropriately used Pentagon facilities and other national symbols for their Christian propaganda in the media and that they have been challenged legally and successfully.

It says that a popular OCF Bible study, Mission Accomplished, distorts the constitutional principle of the "wall" between the state and religion in order to create the idea that the wall surrounds the state with its official true religion protected on the inside. The wall is also intended to protect America from all other outsiders who do not profess the fundamentalist creed.

The article documents the harassment of cadets who are not militant fundamentalists at the Air Force Academy in Colorado and notes that 80% of the Protestant military chaplaincy self-identifies as conservative/evangelical.

The article quotes Mikey Weinstein, a former JAG Corps officer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), which legally challenges military leadership violations of church and state.

I have to ask whether there is enough active concern about this on the part of those Christians, like us in the Episcopal church, who live routinely -- and lovingly -- with neighbors who are different, and who do not believe as we do.

American fundamentalism will not go away. It has to be managed. I believe there is a need for a resolute stand to be taken with the gentle firmness that is a hallmark of our church. We need to manage the surge of fundamentalist triumphalism all over our country to be sure. But my first priority has to do with the endorsement of qualified chaplains. How can we do it? We must come to terms with our need to be persistent in finding qualified people in our ranks to fill chaplain quotas.

Churches that fail to fill their allotted quotas end up having them filled by fundamentalists. We need to direct our good candidates to our Episcopal endorsing office headed by Bishop George Packard. We should be recruiting them at every diocesan convention, and have a strong presence at the General Convention as well. We should be advertising and making contacts with people.

I hope this issue will be firmly addressed by all faith communities with sympathetic denominational endorsing agencies. Agencies, like ours, the American Baptist Convention, and the Jewish Welfare Board just to name two, represent faith communities that value the religious freedom and the diversity of our society. There are hundreds of other endorsing agencies authorized by the armed forces - one for every organized church or faith group by name except the Society of Friends or the Amish, since their members do not serve in the military.

I suspect that there is a continuing need for endorsing agency executives to support one another in resisting the triumphalist error that the Harper's article documents. (Fundamentalists believe that their mission is not accomplished until all whom they engage have become fundamentalists). Our corrective mission will have to be disciplined.

There are too many chaplains on active duty that come from backgrounds that are inflexibly biased with racially white, patriarchal, and heterosexist American delusions of superiority. What I hope to do is help the general readership of our church become more aware of the swelling river of this triumphalism, a movement that is both naive and arrogant, eroding the constitutional wall set up by our founding fathers between the government of the United States and religion. After reading the Sharlett article, I began to wonder: Could this wall fail?

Fundamentalism reflects a shortage of emotional security for a portion of our society that is under-educated for the twenty-first century milieu. I believe that portion is growing. It is anxiety, feelings of helplessness, and the loss of control people get which come from changes in the world they are not prepared to cope with, and do not feel they can manage.

In a recent Newsweek article, writer Jon Meacham (who is an Episcopal lay leader) reviews American religious history and reminds us that an America that is not Christian is the only kind of place where Christianity in its best forms can flourish.

Paradoxes are difficult, but they can be dealt with so long as individuals challenged by them have the resources of a community that is open, embraces ambiguity, and values diversity. Fundamentalists struggle to be rugged individualists in their campaigns to make those who are different from them into their clones. They hate ambiguity. For them there is no community. What they might argue to be community are really loose networks of mutually agreed-upon factions.

I am not finished with my study and prayer over the fundamentalism issue that I find so disturbing, but I have an observation. We as American citizens need to support and defend the very thing that guarantees a particular freedom that is actually in the best interests of the fundamentalists -- the free practice of religion.

What do we need to do and where do we start? Recruit chaplains who truly understand their job description. Encourage the Episcopal Church’s work in communicating this concern with the many highly competent endorsing officials in the other mainline churches.

-- The Rev. David Somerville currently serves as interim priest at Saint Athanasius church in Brunswick, Georgia.

» Respond to this article

Good News ?

BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition

Lowell's Blog

Daily Devotions

DailyLit: H. Rider Haggard's "She" (who must be obeyed)

PFLAG National Website