May is Bicycle Appreciation Month (or some such title) with the week of the May 20th being Ride Your Bike to Work Week (different dates in different locations).
So, in honor of all that, a little humor:
An 80-year old man goes to the doctor for a checkup.
The doctor is amazed at what good shape the guy is in and asks,"How do you stay in such great physical condition?"
I'm a cyclist," says the old guy, "and that's why I'm in such good
shape. I'm up well before daylight and out and ride my bicycle."
" Well," says the doctor, "I'm sure that helps, but there's got to be
more to it. How old was your dad when he died?"
"Who said my dad's dead?"
The doctor is amazed. "You mean you're 80 years old and your dad's
still alive. How old is he?"
"He's 100 years old," says the old cyclist. "In fact he rode with me
this morning, and that's why he's still alive . . . he's a cyclist
too."
"Well," the doctor says, "that's great, but I'm sure there's more to
it than that. How about your dad's dad? How old was he when he died?"
"Who said my grandpa's dead?"
Stunned, the doctor asks, "You mean you're 80 years old and your
grandfather' s still living! Incredible! How old is he?"
"He's 118 years old," says the old cyclist.
The doctor is getting frustrated at this point, "So, I guess he went
bike riding with you this morning too?"
"No. Grandpa couldn't go this morning because he's getting married
today."
At this point the doctor is close to losing it.
"Getting married!! Why would a 118 year-old guy want to get married?"
"Who said he wanted to?"
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
In Praise of Conservatives, Fundamentalists and Republicans
Just to let you know I could be even-handed if I so chose…
Here’s to Miss Marie, my fifth grade Sunday School teacher, who ensured that I knew the books of the Bible by heart and had me learn a memory verse from the Bible every week. Who prayed for my salvation and gave me a tiny old lady hug the day I got saved, with tears in her eyes. She loved me well.
Here’s to countless others who taught me in Sunday School back in the day. To a person, they were impossibly great individuals.
Here’s to my mom and dad. They taught me peacemaking with their literal take on the Bible.
Here’s to Pastor Schaefer, my first pastor, who preached the Bible inside and out. Who I can’t recall if he taught we should take the Bible literally (probably did) but who definitely taught us to take it seriously. He also loved well.
Here's to the fella who was the best man in my wedding. He, in his sort of fundamentalism, helped lead me to where I am today with his fiery interest in seeking God's ways.
Here’s to Charles Sheldon, the author of “In His Steps” (the book from which the now-trite, “what would Jesus do?” phrase came - found here online). I don’t know that he was a conservative, but suspect that would how he would be identified today. His book taught that, in order to take the Bible seriously, we must take seriously how we treat the “least of these.”
[This would be the book that most likely started me in the steps that I walk now. Being written at the start of the century last century, it could probably be called a bit formal, stuffy and overly earnest in writing style, but it changed my life.]
Here’s to Mark Hatfield, Republican Senator from Oregon and Harold Stassen, Republican politician in several roles. They give a good connotation to the term “conservative politician,” that has been so sullied of late. May their tribe increase!
Here’s to all the kind, dedicated, loving, strong conservative men and women out there who represent their faith communities and families so well. They help make America great and the world a better place to live.
Here’s to Miss Marie, my fifth grade Sunday School teacher, who ensured that I knew the books of the Bible by heart and had me learn a memory verse from the Bible every week. Who prayed for my salvation and gave me a tiny old lady hug the day I got saved, with tears in her eyes. She loved me well.
Here’s to countless others who taught me in Sunday School back in the day. To a person, they were impossibly great individuals.
Here’s to my mom and dad. They taught me peacemaking with their literal take on the Bible.
Here’s to Pastor Schaefer, my first pastor, who preached the Bible inside and out. Who I can’t recall if he taught we should take the Bible literally (probably did) but who definitely taught us to take it seriously. He also loved well.
Here's to the fella who was the best man in my wedding. He, in his sort of fundamentalism, helped lead me to where I am today with his fiery interest in seeking God's ways.
Here’s to Charles Sheldon, the author of “In His Steps” (the book from which the now-trite, “what would Jesus do?” phrase came - found here online). I don’t know that he was a conservative, but suspect that would how he would be identified today. His book taught that, in order to take the Bible seriously, we must take seriously how we treat the “least of these.”
[This would be the book that most likely started me in the steps that I walk now. Being written at the start of the century last century, it could probably be called a bit formal, stuffy and overly earnest in writing style, but it changed my life.]
Here’s to Mark Hatfield, Republican Senator from Oregon and Harold Stassen, Republican politician in several roles. They give a good connotation to the term “conservative politician,” that has been so sullied of late. May their tribe increase!
Here’s to all the kind, dedicated, loving, strong conservative men and women out there who represent their faith communities and families so well. They help make America great and the world a better place to live.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Liberation Theology and the Pope
Excerpted from Spiegel Online.
...In the early 1980s, when Pope John Paul II wanted to clamp down on what he considered a dangerous, Marxist-inspired movement in the Roman Catholic Church, liberation theology, he turned to a trusted aide: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
Now Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, and when he arrives here on Wednesday for his first pastoral visit to Latin America he may be surprised at what he finds. Liberation theology, which he once called "a fundamental threat to the faith of the church," persists as an active, even defiant force in Latin America, home to nearly half the world's one billion Roman Catholics...
======
When I visited Nicaragua in 2003, I spent some time at a Liberation Theology base community in Managua - Batahola. I was impressed with the service. It was very moving - as was the artwork.
I don't agree with everything about Liberation Theology, but there is much I do like. Here's a photo of the main mural on the podium at Batahola. It's a nativity scene with a Liberation Theology edge. In the crowd of witnesses, you can see Oscar Romero and Che Guevera, among others.
To give you a sense of what Liberation Theology is about, here's the Batahola Mission statement:
The Batahola Norte Cultural Center holds as its mission to “live a style of life which is more congenial and just, according to the gospels, and directed towards the poor. By way of our culture and an integral education, we promulgate human rights, self-esteem and equality. We believe in the empowerment of the person and the value of sharing what we are and have in order to transform this society into the Kingdom of God".
...In the early 1980s, when Pope John Paul II wanted to clamp down on what he considered a dangerous, Marxist-inspired movement in the Roman Catholic Church, liberation theology, he turned to a trusted aide: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
Now Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, and when he arrives here on Wednesday for his first pastoral visit to Latin America he may be surprised at what he finds. Liberation theology, which he once called "a fundamental threat to the faith of the church," persists as an active, even defiant force in Latin America, home to nearly half the world's one billion Roman Catholics...
======
When I visited Nicaragua in 2003, I spent some time at a Liberation Theology base community in Managua - Batahola. I was impressed with the service. It was very moving - as was the artwork.
I don't agree with everything about Liberation Theology, but there is much I do like. Here's a photo of the main mural on the podium at Batahola. It's a nativity scene with a Liberation Theology edge. In the crowd of witnesses, you can see Oscar Romero and Che Guevera, among others.
To give you a sense of what Liberation Theology is about, here's the Batahola Mission statement:
The Batahola Norte Cultural Center holds as its mission to “live a style of life which is more congenial and just, according to the gospels, and directed towards the poor. By way of our culture and an integral education, we promulgate human rights, self-esteem and equality. We believe in the empowerment of the person and the value of sharing what we are and have in order to transform this society into the Kingdom of God".
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Birds and the...
BELTSVILLE, Maryland (AP) -- Unless someone or something stops it soon, the mysterious killer that is wiping out many of America's honeybees could have a devastating effect on the country's dinner plate, perhaps even reducing its people to a glorified bread-and-water diet.
Honeybees do not just make honey; they pollinate more than 90 of the tastiest flowering crops the country has.
Among them: apples, nuts, avocados, soybeans, asparagus, broccoli, celery, squash and cucumbers. And lots of the really sweet and tart stuff, too, including citrus fruit, peaches, kiwi, cherries, blueberries, cranberries, strawberries, cantaloupe and other melons.
In fact, about one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
======
Yikes. No doubt the work of alarmists and we needn't pay any attention to this... or the rising gas prices... or the degradation of the land, air and water... it will all be okay. If we ignore the environment, maybe it will just go away...
Honeybees do not just make honey; they pollinate more than 90 of the tastiest flowering crops the country has.
Among them: apples, nuts, avocados, soybeans, asparagus, broccoli, celery, squash and cucumbers. And lots of the really sweet and tart stuff, too, including citrus fruit, peaches, kiwi, cherries, blueberries, cranberries, strawberries, cantaloupe and other melons.
In fact, about one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
======
Yikes. No doubt the work of alarmists and we needn't pay any attention to this... or the rising gas prices... or the degradation of the land, air and water... it will all be okay. If we ignore the environment, maybe it will just go away...
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Confederate Grave
The tombstone pictured is of a Civil War casualty – Captain Joseph Read, born Feb. 22, 1844, died July 13, 1864. The poem at the bottom reads:
Dearest Joseph, thou hast left us
Here thy loss we deeply feel
But it’s God who hast bereft us
He can all our sorrows heal
He was buried in a cemetery next to Otter Creek surrounded by a great variety of beautiful and colorful birds – goldfinches, scarlet tanagers, indigo buntings, cardinals and blue jays and the graveyard was alive with birdsong.
Otter Creek is next to Fort Knox and a highway and, in addition to the songbirds’ music, there was the considerably less-musical sound of jets overhead and trucks rolling down the highway.
The news of the day:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism in 2006, the U.S. State Department reported Monday.
The total number of terrorist attacks was up more than 25 percent from the previous year, according to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism…
The number of people killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq rose from 8,262 in 2005 to 13,340 last year, said Russell Travers, deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center…
Dearest Joseph, thou hast left us
Here thy loss we deeply feel
But it’s God who hast bereft us
He can all our sorrows heal
He was buried in a cemetery next to Otter Creek surrounded by a great variety of beautiful and colorful birds – goldfinches, scarlet tanagers, indigo buntings, cardinals and blue jays and the graveyard was alive with birdsong.
Otter Creek is next to Fort Knox and a highway and, in addition to the songbirds’ music, there was the considerably less-musical sound of jets overhead and trucks rolling down the highway.
The news of the day:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism in 2006, the U.S. State Department reported Monday.
The total number of terrorist attacks was up more than 25 percent from the previous year, according to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism…
The number of people killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq rose from 8,262 in 2005 to 13,340 last year, said Russell Travers, deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center…
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Spread the Word...
From Tony Campolo:
Charles De Gaulle once said that politics is far too serious to be left in the hands of politicians. I agree!
The politicians in Washington are painfully divided over what should be done about the war in Iraq. The Republicans talk about “staying the course,” which our nation can ill afford. The Democrats, on the other hand, propose a “cut and run” policy, and everyone knows that this would leave a vacuum to be filled with the chaos of all-out civil war. But some of us in the religious community propose a third option, which we believe could get America out of Iraq without leaving a total mess behind. Our plan has three parts.
First, we propose that American and British troops be replaced by an international police force composed of those who better understand the Iraqi culture. Leaders in Saudi Arabia proposed such a solution almost three years ago. Americans and Brits are not only devoid of any grasp of the language and the religion of the Iraqi people, but are defined by many Muslims as a Christian army that has invaded a sacred Islamic land. Our army’s presence is perceived by many in the Muslim world as a rebirth of the medieval crusades.
Second, we propose that the United States appropriate $50 billion to rebuild the towns and cities that the invasion of Iraq has left in shambles. This would be a small price to pay, considering the $2 billion we are presently spending every week in order to keep this war going.
Third, we propose that our president go before the United Nations and ask the world to forgive America for what we have done to Iraq, and how we have set back efforts for world peace. He should point out that he is asking forgiveness on behalf of almost all Americans – because we overwhelmingly lent support to the invasion of Iraq some four years ago. He should further point out that our original intentions were good! We Americans were told that we were invading in order to remove the threat of what we thought were Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Repentance of this kind is necessary because we need to re-establish our moral standing in the world, and confessing wrongdoing is a start for doing that. It is not weakness to admit that we did wrong, especially when the whole world knows that we did. Now is the time for us to live out that verse from 2 Chronicles 7:14, which reads:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
If you are willing to support this proposal, go to www.tikkun.org/iraqpeace. You will find an expanded version of this proposal there, along with an opportunity to sign on with us.
======
For your consideration...
Charles De Gaulle once said that politics is far too serious to be left in the hands of politicians. I agree!
The politicians in Washington are painfully divided over what should be done about the war in Iraq. The Republicans talk about “staying the course,” which our nation can ill afford. The Democrats, on the other hand, propose a “cut and run” policy, and everyone knows that this would leave a vacuum to be filled with the chaos of all-out civil war. But some of us in the religious community propose a third option, which we believe could get America out of Iraq without leaving a total mess behind. Our plan has three parts.
First, we propose that American and British troops be replaced by an international police force composed of those who better understand the Iraqi culture. Leaders in Saudi Arabia proposed such a solution almost three years ago. Americans and Brits are not only devoid of any grasp of the language and the religion of the Iraqi people, but are defined by many Muslims as a Christian army that has invaded a sacred Islamic land. Our army’s presence is perceived by many in the Muslim world as a rebirth of the medieval crusades.
Second, we propose that the United States appropriate $50 billion to rebuild the towns and cities that the invasion of Iraq has left in shambles. This would be a small price to pay, considering the $2 billion we are presently spending every week in order to keep this war going.
Third, we propose that our president go before the United Nations and ask the world to forgive America for what we have done to Iraq, and how we have set back efforts for world peace. He should point out that he is asking forgiveness on behalf of almost all Americans – because we overwhelmingly lent support to the invasion of Iraq some four years ago. He should further point out that our original intentions were good! We Americans were told that we were invading in order to remove the threat of what we thought were Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Repentance of this kind is necessary because we need to re-establish our moral standing in the world, and confessing wrongdoing is a start for doing that. It is not weakness to admit that we did wrong, especially when the whole world knows that we did. Now is the time for us to live out that verse from 2 Chronicles 7:14, which reads:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
If you are willing to support this proposal, go to www.tikkun.org/iraqpeace. You will find an expanded version of this proposal there, along with an opportunity to sign on with us.
======
For your consideration...
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Hawk or Dove...?
Brent, over at Colossians 3:16 has opened a discussion on Just War Theory and I believe he would accept polite, reasoned readers and commenters to come by and read and/or enter conversation on the post.
BUT ONLY polite, reasoned commenters, please. I'd hate to send a bunch of naughty bloggers his way.
Left, Right, Hawk, Dove, whatever our position, I think it very important for us as a nation and as communities to have conversations like these where we can actually listen to and speak to those who may disagree with us.
BUT ONLY polite, reasoned commenters, please. I'd hate to send a bunch of naughty bloggers his way.
Left, Right, Hawk, Dove, whatever our position, I think it very important for us as a nation and as communities to have conversations like these where we can actually listen to and speak to those who may disagree with us.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Happy Belated Earth Day
Sorry, Earth, that I didn't get a card in the mail on time...
A few quotes...
Practical, personal paths can heal our lives and help our planet. As societies, we create the very inequalities and devastation of nature we as individuals abhor. The way out is individual responsibility and commitment in action. Often, the trail leads straight through the kitchen.
~K.C. Compton
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.
~Henry David Thoreau
There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.
~Aldo Leopold
When a man must be afraid to drink freely from his country's rivers and streams, that country is no longer fit to live in.
~Edward Abbey
Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then you will find that money cannot be eaten.
~Cree Indian prophecy
The best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them up.
~Dorothy Day
A few quotes...
Practical, personal paths can heal our lives and help our planet. As societies, we create the very inequalities and devastation of nature we as individuals abhor. The way out is individual responsibility and commitment in action. Often, the trail leads straight through the kitchen.
~K.C. Compton
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.
~Henry David Thoreau
There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.
~Aldo Leopold
When a man must be afraid to drink freely from his country's rivers and streams, that country is no longer fit to live in.
~Edward Abbey
Only after the last tree has been cut down. Only after the last river has been poisoned. Only after the last fish has been caught. Only then you will find that money cannot be eaten.
~Cree Indian prophecy
The best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them up.
~Dorothy Day
Friday, April 20, 2007
Sunset Wisps
[ANALOGY ALERT! The story you are about to read is an analogy. If it had been an actual diagnosis, I’d be much more excited and quite possibly distressed. I don’t actually smoke, by the way – part of the analogy.]
Bad news.
Maybe.
I went to ten doctors. Nine of them tell me that it looks like I might be developing lung cancer and I would be wise to quit smoking. They aren't even saying for sure that my smoking might cause or contribute to the possible lung cancer, but they are saying instead that it would just be prudent to quit smoking, just in case.
They’re telling me that a good bit of evidence suggests that there IS a link between smoking and cancer.
The good news is that the tenth doctor tells me that I may or may not be getting lung cancer, but regardless, there's no real reason to quit smoking.
Why would I listen to the one and not the nine?
======
What I’m wondering is for what reason would we ignore the majority of scientists or taking a prudent (conservative) approach when told that there may well be dangers in our lifestyle (global climate change, peak oil, for instance).
I doubt that we would ignore the majority in the case of a personal diagnosis…UNLESS we were committed to a certain lifestyle and we don’t want to change (as in the dedicated and/or addicted smoker), and even then, probably most of us would heed the majority of doctors.
Why, then, ignore the majority and prudent action in the cases of climate change and peak oil? This is not to say that the majority couldn’t be wrong or that prudent action un-needed, but rather to ask WHY anyone would choose to ignore the majority or prudent action?
Bad news.
Maybe.
I went to ten doctors. Nine of them tell me that it looks like I might be developing lung cancer and I would be wise to quit smoking. They aren't even saying for sure that my smoking might cause or contribute to the possible lung cancer, but they are saying instead that it would just be prudent to quit smoking, just in case.
They’re telling me that a good bit of evidence suggests that there IS a link between smoking and cancer.
The good news is that the tenth doctor tells me that I may or may not be getting lung cancer, but regardless, there's no real reason to quit smoking.
Why would I listen to the one and not the nine?
======
What I’m wondering is for what reason would we ignore the majority of scientists or taking a prudent (conservative) approach when told that there may well be dangers in our lifestyle (global climate change, peak oil, for instance).
I doubt that we would ignore the majority in the case of a personal diagnosis…UNLESS we were committed to a certain lifestyle and we don’t want to change (as in the dedicated and/or addicted smoker), and even then, probably most of us would heed the majority of doctors.
Why, then, ignore the majority and prudent action in the cases of climate change and peak oil? This is not to say that the majority couldn’t be wrong or that prudent action un-needed, but rather to ask WHY anyone would choose to ignore the majority or prudent action?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Unlimited Growth
The policy of unlimited growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. ~Edward Abbey
Returning to Bill McKibben's book, Deep Economy, we find McKibben questioning a fundamental given amongst many - if not most - if not all - economists today: Growth as Unquestionable God.
As the new millennium began, growth had become the organizing ideology for corporations and individuals, for American capitalists and Chinese communists, for Democrats and Republicans. For everyone. “Harnessing the ‘base’ motive of material self-interest to promote the common good is perhaps the most important social invention mankind has achieved,” said Charles Schultze, a former chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.
George Gilder, the fervent apostle of tech-driven high-growth economics, went further: entrepreneurs, he said, “embody and fulfill the sweet and mysterious consolations of the Sermon on the Mount.” [shudder! -Dan] The so-called Washington consensus dominated far more of the world than the Union Jack ever had; it was an empire of the mind.
And it is easy to understand why. For one thing, under present arrangements any faltering of growth leads quickly to misery: to recession and all its hardships. For another, endless growth allows
us to avoid hard choices, to reconcile, in Collins’s words, the American “love of liberty with its egalitarian pretensions.”
The administration of George W. Bush assures us that we can have tax cuts and still protect Social Security because the tax cuts will stimulate economic growth so much that we’ll have more than enough cash on hand to take care of our old. No need to choose. Having found what has been truly a magic wand, the strong temptation is to keep waving it.
But, as readers of fairy tales know, magic can run out…
======
Is there any reason to think that the magic might NOT run out? Or - heaven forbid! - that there's no such thing as magic or a free lunch in the first place?
Returning to Bill McKibben's book, Deep Economy, we find McKibben questioning a fundamental given amongst many - if not most - if not all - economists today: Growth as Unquestionable God.
As the new millennium began, growth had become the organizing ideology for corporations and individuals, for American capitalists and Chinese communists, for Democrats and Republicans. For everyone. “Harnessing the ‘base’ motive of material self-interest to promote the common good is perhaps the most important social invention mankind has achieved,” said Charles Schultze, a former chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers.
George Gilder, the fervent apostle of tech-driven high-growth economics, went further: entrepreneurs, he said, “embody and fulfill the sweet and mysterious consolations of the Sermon on the Mount.” [shudder! -Dan] The so-called Washington consensus dominated far more of the world than the Union Jack ever had; it was an empire of the mind.
And it is easy to understand why. For one thing, under present arrangements any faltering of growth leads quickly to misery: to recession and all its hardships. For another, endless growth allows
us to avoid hard choices, to reconcile, in Collins’s words, the American “love of liberty with its egalitarian pretensions.”
The administration of George W. Bush assures us that we can have tax cuts and still protect Social Security because the tax cuts will stimulate economic growth so much that we’ll have more than enough cash on hand to take care of our old. No need to choose. Having found what has been truly a magic wand, the strong temptation is to keep waving it.
But, as readers of fairy tales know, magic can run out…
======
Is there any reason to think that the magic might NOT run out? Or - heaven forbid! - that there's no such thing as magic or a free lunch in the first place?
Monday, April 16, 2007
The War on the Climate?
An AP news story found on CNN this morning:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.
The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts.
"Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. "Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are."
Gen. Anthony "Tony" Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy, says in the report: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."
======
So, our military acknowledges Climate Change as not only a reality, but a threat to be reckoned with? My only concern here is that our leaders will finally acknowledge Climate Change as a reality but then use it as an excuse for more war-making and an even larger military budget.
We’ll successfully have gotten rid of the Commies as a boogeyman, and Terrorists are losing their fear-factor, so now we’ll have to wage war on Climate Change as our newest boogeyman.
If that’s the case, I’m wondering who we’ll have to bomb and keep bombing until we’re successful in the war against the climate and if those who object will be called obstructionists and Climate Sympathizers?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.
The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts.
"Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. "Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are."
Gen. Anthony "Tony" Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy, says in the report: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."
======
So, our military acknowledges Climate Change as not only a reality, but a threat to be reckoned with? My only concern here is that our leaders will finally acknowledge Climate Change as a reality but then use it as an excuse for more war-making and an even larger military budget.
We’ll successfully have gotten rid of the Commies as a boogeyman, and Terrorists are losing their fear-factor, so now we’ll have to wage war on Climate Change as our newest boogeyman.
If that’s the case, I’m wondering who we’ll have to bomb and keep bombing until we’re successful in the war against the climate and if those who object will be called obstructionists and Climate Sympathizers?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Conversations on War and Peace, Part I
Here’s another attempt at reasoning with my brothers and sisters in Churches and in faith traditions and who think the Bible an important source of Truth (or, THE Source of Truth, if you prefer). This is especially directed towards those who insist they take the Bible literally (no one does, of course, but many insist they do).
The topic is peacemaking and violence-as-solution. I’m borrowing on some comments I have made in conversations with Larry Who.
Some thoughts on engaging in violence in order to stop violence:
I'm okay with police trying to stop prostitution.
I'm not okay with police engaging in prostitution in order to stop it.
I'm sure we agree on that point. Clearly, engaging in the behavior we want to stop to try to stop it is a horrible notion.
But just because we don't want police engaging in prostitution in order to stop it, doesn't mean that we want to ignore the problem.
Similarly, just because peacemakers say they refuse to engage in killing innocent people doesn't mean that we want to ignore the problem. Heaven forbid!
But I think that's what a lot of people think. They hear "pacifist" and think "passivists - do nothings! Just ignore the problem - why, that's obscene!"
My contention is that we, at least we Christians, ought to try to overcome evil with good. Find ways to stand up to oppression and those who'd kill innocents without engaging in killing of innocents ourselves.
For Christians, this seems like a no-brainer to me.
I think the problem lies in that we have bought into the notion of violence-as-solution. Many people honestly think that if we're not willing to kill some of the Enemy's innocent bystanders, then we can do nothing. Either/or.
It seems that they don't believe in God's ability to do a transforming work. They don't believe in the option of overcoming evil with good.
Or at least that's how it appears from where I stand.
I think that we can indeed overcome evil with good, that we don’t need to resort to killing innocents in order to overcome evil AND even if not – if killing babies is the only way to overcome evil, then I still would be opposed to killing babies.
I use the “killing babies” as a reference and a starting point. The reason being, generally, we can all acknowledge that “killing babies” is a wrong thing to do (and it feels ridiculous to even have to make that sort of statement). So, if we can come to a consensus on the righteousness or not of killing babies, then it’s a starting point to understanding what we’re implying when we endorse wars.
The topic is peacemaking and violence-as-solution. I’m borrowing on some comments I have made in conversations with Larry Who.
Some thoughts on engaging in violence in order to stop violence:
I'm okay with police trying to stop prostitution.
I'm not okay with police engaging in prostitution in order to stop it.
I'm sure we agree on that point. Clearly, engaging in the behavior we want to stop to try to stop it is a horrible notion.
But just because we don't want police engaging in prostitution in order to stop it, doesn't mean that we want to ignore the problem.
Similarly, just because peacemakers say they refuse to engage in killing innocent people doesn't mean that we want to ignore the problem. Heaven forbid!
But I think that's what a lot of people think. They hear "pacifist" and think "passivists - do nothings! Just ignore the problem - why, that's obscene!"
My contention is that we, at least we Christians, ought to try to overcome evil with good. Find ways to stand up to oppression and those who'd kill innocents without engaging in killing of innocents ourselves.
For Christians, this seems like a no-brainer to me.
I think the problem lies in that we have bought into the notion of violence-as-solution. Many people honestly think that if we're not willing to kill some of the Enemy's innocent bystanders, then we can do nothing. Either/or.
It seems that they don't believe in God's ability to do a transforming work. They don't believe in the option of overcoming evil with good.
Or at least that's how it appears from where I stand.
I think that we can indeed overcome evil with good, that we don’t need to resort to killing innocents in order to overcome evil AND even if not – if killing babies is the only way to overcome evil, then I still would be opposed to killing babies.
I use the “killing babies” as a reference and a starting point. The reason being, generally, we can all acknowledge that “killing babies” is a wrong thing to do (and it feels ridiculous to even have to make that sort of statement). So, if we can come to a consensus on the righteousness or not of killing babies, then it’s a starting point to understanding what we’re implying when we endorse wars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)