Sunday, soccer, Christians, Bush, Kerry

Not that it is receiving much coverage in this country, but the Euro 2004 football (soccer) tournament is underway; this morning, we paid the absurd price of $19.95 to watch the BBC feed of the Croatia-Switzerland match live on pay-per-view television. My girlfriend is a passionate Croatia supporter, and was crushed by her team's poor play (though they did escape with a tie). I am sure I scored bonus points with the Lord this morning, as I chose to go to church rather than stay and watch the second match of the day, which featured England vs. France. (The French won). Given that neither Wales nor Austria (my two favorite sides) qualified for Euro 2004, I am happy to support the Croats this year.

The LA Times runs a rather predictable story about religious faith and the presidential campaign today: Sunday Division Has a New Equation. It runs on the front page, but for the most part, repeats the now customary fare about how church-goers lean Republican while non-church goers lean Democratic.. Still, it is interesting to read that some folks are willing to make some striking moral comparisons between this administration and the last:

Julie Murphy, 45, and Mary Teschendorf, 46, both mothers of three who attend church about twice a month, reflect a different sort of conflict. Murphy voted for Bush in 2000. Her friend did not. But they share the premise of many religious conservatives — and Bush — that many of America's problems today are rooted in the erosion of moral values.

"Traditional values are not practiced; people are not around for their children. It all comes down to making a dollar," Murphy said.

But both women express suspicion about Bush's use of religious themes and say that the president showed moral failings equivalent to Clinton's in the Lewinsky scandal when he led the nation into war on what they now think were false premises.

I know most of my conservative friends think that the Times is slanted heavily to the left. (I can't say that I see it myself). But I am heartened by the thought that many church-going believers are willing to make a direct connection between President Clinton's dissemblings in the Monical Lewinsky scandal and our current president's possible misrepresentation of the facts about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. It's a comparison I've heard from many of my fellow Mennonites who were appalled by Clinton (and who actually supported his impeachment), but until now, I haven't read of anyone who voted for Bush in 2000 making that same connection.

On Friday, I gave money to the John Kerry campaign. It wasn't a large sum, and it wasn't easy to do. (I gave far more happily to Dennis Kucinich earlier this year). So much about mainstream Democratic party politics bothers me so! On a personal level, I identify far more with President Bush's faith than with Senator Kerry's. I like the infusion of biblical language into our political discourse; heck, I want more of it, not less. But though I continue to trust that President Bush is a good Christian, I have become convinced that on issues of war, peace, and economic justice, his actions are out of sync with his professed values. Though many on the religious left have linked to this six-month old article before, let me finish this post with the words of Sojourner editor Jim Wallis, who makes the best case for a vote against Bush:

President Bush uses religious language more than any president in U.S. history, and some of his key speechwriters come right out of the evangelical community. Sometimes he draws on biblical language, other times old gospel hymns that cause deep resonance among the faithful in his own electoral base. The problem is that the quotes from the Bible and hymnals are too often either taken out of context or, worse yet, employed in ways quite different from their original meaning. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union, the president evoked an easily recognized and quite famous line from an old gospel hymn. Speaking of America's deepest problems, Bush said, "The need is great. Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." But that's not what the song is about. The hymn says there is "power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb" (emphasis added). The hymn is about the power of Christ in salvation, not the power of "the American people," or any people, or any country. Bush's citation was a complete misuse.

On the first anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush said at Ellis Island, "This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind…. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it." Those last two sentences are straight out of John's gospel. But in the gospel the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God, and the light is the light of Christ. It's not about America and its values. Even his favorite hymn, "A Charge to Keep," speaks of that charge as "a God to glorify"—not to "do everything we can to protect the American homeland," as Bush has named our charge to keep.

Bush seems to make this mistake over and over again—confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more American civil religion than Christian faith.

Comments

[Col Steve]

Hugo:
I'm glad you at least qualified your words by adding "possible." Let's really examine the two situations for equivalency. And for the record, I thought impeaching Clinton was both a stretch legally and plain stupid politically.

But both women express suspicion about Bush's use of religious themes and say that the president showed moral failings equivalent to Clinton's in the Lewinsky scandal when he led the nation into war on what they now think were false premises.

Clinton had direct knowledge of what took place between Ms. Lewinsky and him. He made a fully informed decision to lie (you can use a kinder verb if you want argue nuances of what "is" means I suppose) and to let others act in good faith on his behalf (and run up large legal bills, etc.) knowing they were doing so based on false information he choose not to correct.

Bush had indirect knowledge provided to him by multiple sources (and remember Tenet was a Clinton appointee) and acted upon that information based on the belief that information was true. He also acted based on upon multiple UN (outside our nation) resolutions that directed compliance by a member nation (bound by the resolutions). He acted with assistance from multiple nations and with the consent of a majority of the members of Congress (from both parties) who also had access to the same information..

To wit,
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

If there is proof that Bush had direct evidence that Iraq had no WMD capabilities and still pursued war (and ordered actions be taken to create the evidence to support a war), then I might agree in the moral equivalency (no I would say it would be far worse actually)..Do you know of such proof?

I agree people can debate whether the US and coalition partners had to actually invade Iraq versus giving the UN more time or other policy options. And if you think the war with Iraq was simply over WMD, then you're missing a broader strategic context (which again, people can disagree over)..But for someone who sees a lot of grey in complex situations, I'm a litte surprised you think there is as strong a moral equivalency connection between the two situations as one might infer from your post.

Finally, it is called the "good Book" for a reason..it has eloquence of diction and brilliance of metaphor..many politicians cherry pick quotes because a large majority of people make a connection when a politician starts with "the Bible states.." ..but none of them are running to make the US a theocracy so of course they are going to leave out the part that glorifies God and make the connection to the secular world..What's new about that? If the point is Bush does it more than others, okay..so I assume there is similar outrage for any politician doing the same?

[Joy Paul]

As a person who didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and won't vote for him this year, but did want him to win in 2000, and will probably be happy if he wins this time, I certainly don't see that he purposely misled the US in going to war with Iraq. I know that is contrary to remarks made by Edward Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. But I generally disagree with their remarks anyway.

I, too, am bothered by quoting passages and songs out of context, but then I am purist when it comes to separation of church and state. While I think that every Christian (and non-Christian) should be involved in its own goverment's democratic processes, I believe we must be careful not to invoke the name of religion to prove our point.

That does seem to be a very hard plan to follow in practical terms. Some, like the Jehovah's Witnesses opt of goverment altogether. On the other extreme, we have politicians attempting to establish "a city on a hill."

But what I am really thankful for today is that we can have these kind of arguments in our society. I'm glad I don't live under some dictatorship where the person chosen to lead (or rule) is made far away from the ordinary citizen.

[John]

I think you're stretching, here, Hugo. It sounds awfully like one of those "Bush lied, kids died" posters which sound good, but have no basis in fact. Bush did what seemed right at the time. For the life of me, I don't think he could have done anything different. By the time there was an "imminent threat", Chicago would have been gone. He acted to remove a danger I applaud him. "We can only do the light as we see the light, and reverently commend our cause to God, confident that with His help and by His grace, we shall prevail". His late Majesty George VI, King-Emperor. Address to the Empire, September 3, 1939.

[Hugo]

I don't think there is moral equivalency; I do think that the actions of this administration have called into question the president's credibility. The fact that others are willing to see that equivalency heartens me somewhat, if only for purely partisan reasons.

[Ivan Lenin]

Hugo,
It seems like ignoring people is your preferred way of being civil and cordial.
You don't love me at all, my Christian friend with a sense of humor, and that just breaks my heart.

[candace]

I'm about to stage an intervention here.