Christmas Never Ends

Christmas Never Ends

I have written of “Corporate Salvation for Humankind,” meaning many to join together as one in uplifting those of the least of us, to give hope and opportunity to the poor, deprived, destitute, hungry, starving, and in fact to save peoples of the world who are in perilous circumstances such as genocide and other self-helpless circumstances. "Corporate Salvation” of course is differentiated from the great mystery of God’s Salvation as one may define it to attain eternal life in God’s Kingdom.

As Christians, we know the scriptures our church founders used for our unmerited entry to God’s Salvation. We can’t earn it; only by grace, washed in the blood of Jesus, believe, confess, and be reborn, and that no works we ever do in the “Corporate Salvation for Humanity” can SAVE us. Conversely, the Bible verses in Matthew 25, harsh quotes attributable to Jesus, require the yoke of works for eternal life --- or as it may be our inaction to everlasting punishment. Could these have been the words that inspired James’s (2:17) “faith without works is dead?”

Christ summons us to a daily Christian life where “Christmas Never Ends.” The things that we do for “those of the least of us,” in the words of Jesus, are synonymous with God’s Kingdom. Giving and serving for many is usually centered around Christmas Season, for that’s when we see red kettles, hear the chime of bells that bring cheerful givers. It’s a time when our hearts and minds are more attuned to the spirit of giving.

The things we do for mankind are the things we do for Jesus: Charitable organizations such as The Salvation Army, Stop Hunger Now, a natural disaster relief organization such as UMCOR and others are exemplars that “Christmas Never Ends” (Coined by Howard Truman, Poet & Philosopher). We will do well in God’s Kingdom to serve and support those organizations throughout the year that everyday exemplify “Corporate Salvation.” Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Cornell

Christmas Never Ends

When the song of angles is stilled,
When the star in the sky is gone,
When the kings and princes are home,
When the shepherds are back with their flock,
The work of Christmas begins:
To find the lost,
To heal the broken,
To feed the hungry,
To release the prisoner,
To rebuild the nations,
To bring peace among brothers,
To make music in the heart.

Howard Truman
Poet & Philosopher

Want to Buy a Government?

Want to Buy a Government?
Time for public campaign financing!

You may have heard the quip, “We have the worst government money can buy.” That may be more perilously close to the truth than many people want to believe or will admit.

Regardless of various topics of discussion I strive not to be partisan, but also never to compromise the principles of debate, even if it has partisan aspects. Outright partisanship would defeat one of my objectives, which is to motivate critical thinking and encourage others to engage in introspective, honest, and respectful dialogue. I respect other’s views, and I’m always appreciative of a counter point. In any event, political-campaign financing should not be a partisan issue; it should be of great concern to all citizens of our nation. In the last days of this election period it’s a very timely topic, as we can see how enormous amounts of political dollars are being sought and saturated up to the end of poll closings. It’s not difficult, with just a little common sense and awareness, for anyone to realize the detrimental, corruptive impact this shameful political-financing system has become. If not the irresponsible use and handling of electronic voting machines, some sold and directed by Venezuelans, campaign financing is the greatest threat to our democracy, “a republic of the people and for the people.”

Now --- this is not a blanket indictment of all politician and government leaders. Over the years I have given financially to some campaigns. Many, if not most, candidates working the system with the money and lobbyist who have supported their candidacy, are, hopefully, of solid character, generally ethically clean, and not unduly influenced to betray the trust given them. But there always will be irrepressible temptations for those who are not of a fabric of exceedingly strong moral character, especially when campaigns renew every two years and pressures build to increase big-campaign coffers each reelection, such as in the U. S. House.

Whether it’s Black-gate in the N. C. House or Delay-gate in the U. S. House, every American should be sickened by a system that leads to corruption and undermining of our democratic system. What has happened in the U. S. House over the past several years is unprecedented. The fraudulence of lobbyist Jack Abramof and his cronies in the U. S. House, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, some others, and their associates, Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed and others have ascribed to a total collapse of ethical standards. And I haven’t even mentioned Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson. The honorable Republican Congressman Joe Hefley, a Reagan Republican and former chairman of the House Ethics Committee, led the eviction of Tom Delay. Hefley's ethical and honorable role was too much for Denny Hastert, House Speaker, who removed Hefley of the chairmanship for not being a Republican team player in the “anything goes for power-partisan politics.” But beyond these repugnant power plays and criminal acts are the disgraceful improprieties of congress as a whole, the pork barrel, more kindly known as “earmarks” used to payback a special-interest (in some cases) constituency, ensuring reelection. (60-Minutes had a segment last evening on earmarks.)

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, students of American Democracy for the past 40-years watching over our Congress, in their book, “The Broken Branch,” on page 177 states: “pork barrel took off in the Senate in the 1990s and have risen logarithmically, with senators of both parties eager to take advantage. Only Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has stood up strongly against the practice. In the house, though, there were many voices opposing earmarks, including, particularly strongly, Republicans. That is, until they took over the majority in the House.” This paragraph goes on to state that earmarks have risen from 892 counts, adding up to $2.6 billion in 1992, to 13,997 for $27.3 billion by 2005.
Consider the 30,000 lobbyists, some of whom are former representatives who know well how to work the system, in Washington, DC; that’s 69-lobbyists for every U. S. House member. How can any of our representatives maintain equitable, unbiased representation for their constituents in this atmosphere? That’s not to say all lobbying is bad; it’s the sheer numbers that is certain to boost possibilities of greed and corruption.

Herewith is an article from Oct. 28th N. Y. Times, Democrats Get Late Donations From Business, a revealing of the lobbyist. Excerpt: “Spending in the midterm election campaign is forecast to reach $2.6 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including $1 billion from political action committees. While many business groups have been eager to appear as if they have been handily contributing to Democratic efforts, it was not until this month that the trend became apparent enough to quantify beyond party leaders or prospective committee chairmen.”

On a personal note, in 2003 when I chaired the two-county Salvation Army Kettle Campaign, I wrote a letter to judges throughout the area to appeal for their help, with other elected public office officials, to man the kettle a standard two-hours shift in the Christmas Kettle Campaign kickoff. I got no response, except that one judge called me to inform there may be a conflict of interest. So, I contacted NC’s Judicial Code of Conduct in Raleigh to get a ruling, where upon I got this response, in part: “Some judges even refuse to pass the collection plate in their church to avoid a conflict of interest.” Well and good, but declining to man the kettle, when any individual can give $1,000 for their election (Prior to the Judicial Campaign Reform Act of 2002 $4,000 could be given.), is about as illogical as anything I’ve ever heard. It was encouraging last year when our former NC Governors, (R) Jim Holshouser, Jr. and (D) Jim Hunt, Jr. stood side-beside in TV commercials recommending the $3 designation for citizens to say "yes" on their state income tax forms to support public financing in judge elections.

There are better ways than PAC money/lobbyist and other private special interest groups holding sway over our elected government officials. Common Cause is leading the way for public financing and securing our democracy, for every vote to count. Also see Public Campaign Action Fund and Public Citizen.

Big money influence will never be eliminated but it can be contained according to Mann and Ornstein. They say there are some things short of all-out public financing to make campaign financing more equitable, such as free air time, incentives for small donors, subsidized voter brochures, other forms of public financing, and more permissive contribution limits for start-up funds. Mann and Ornstein say, “We need serious institutional reforms inside Congress to respond to the systemic corruption and to improve both process and climate.” But in all candidness “Reforms will not eliminate arrogance, greed, insensitivity, or impropriety.”

Real campaign reform is up to you and me. Complacency is our overwhelming enemy. Whether you’re a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian or Republican, to be sure, major campaign finance reform is something we can agree that is needed. But it will not happen unless “we” make it a priority issue. The best place to begin is with the First Branch of Government, the U. S. Congress. We must hold them responsible. In the least, you may just send them a simple statement: When will serious, real finance reform be enacted? United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate
And maybe when we have real reform the negative sound-bite advertising will be curbed so that citizens can make candidate selections from a more legitimately, informative and intelligent platform.

But don’t bet your life on it. After all this is the U. S. Congress, the most “do nothing Congress” since Harry Truman’s 1947-48. Will it change?
-------------------------------------------
October 28, 2006 – NY Times
Democrats Get Late Donations From Business
By JEFF ZELENY and ARON PILHOFER
Editors’ Note Appended

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 — Corporate America is already thinking beyond Election Day, increasing its share of last-minute donations to Democratic candidates and quietly devising strategies for how to work with Democrats if they win control of Congress.
The shift in political giving, for the first 18 days of October, has not been this pronounced in the final stages of a campaign since 1994, when Republicans swept control of the House for the first time in four decades.
Though Democratic control of either chamber of Congress is far from certain, the prospect of a power shift is leading interest groups to begin rethinking well-established relationships, with business lobbyists going as far as finding potential Democratic allies in the freshman class — even if they are still trying to defeat them on the campaign trail — and preparing to extend an olive branch the morning after the election.
Lobbyists, some of whom had fallen out of the habit of attending Democratic events, are even talking about making their way to the Sonnenalp Resort in Vail, Colo., where Democrats are holding a ski getaway on Jan. 3.
“Attendance will be high,” said Steve Elmendorf, a former Democratic Congressional aide who has a long list of business lobbying clients. “All Democratic events will see a big increase next year, no question.”
While business groups contained their Democratic contributions to only a handful of candidates throughout the year, a shifting political climate and an expanding field of competitive Congressional races has drawn increased donations from corporate political action committees.
For the first nine months of the year, for example, Pfizer’s political action committee had given 67 percent of contributions to Republican candidates. But October ushered in a sudden change of fortune, according to disclosure reports, and Democrats received 59 percent of the Pfizer contributions.
Over all, the nation’s top corporations still placed larger bets on Republican candidates. But at the very time Republicans began to fret publicly about holding control of Congress, a subtle shift began occurring in contributions to candidates, particularly in open seats.
“We keep fighting up until the last minute of the last day,” said William C. Miller, vice president for political affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, carefully measuring his words to remain positive about the Republicans’ chances. “But when the smoke clears on Nov. 8, there are certainly going to be lots of opportunities for us to get to know the new freshman class.”
An analysis by The New York Times of contributions from Oct. 1 to 18, the latest data available, shows that donations to Republicans from corporate political action committees dropped by 11 percentage points in favor of Democratic candidates, compared with corporate giving from January through September.
Republicans still received 57 percent of contributions, compared with 43 percent for Democrats, but it was the first double-digit October switch since 1994. “A lot will hold their powder for now,” said Brian Wolff, deputy executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “But after the election, we will have a lot of new friends.”
Even before the election, many new contributions were funneled toward open races, like the Eighth Congressional District in Arizona. The Democratic candidate, Gabrielle Giffords, received checks of $5,000 each from the political action committees of United Parcel Service and Union Pacific. Lockheed Martin split the difference, donating $3,000 to Ms. Giffords and sending the same amount to her Republican rival, Randall Graf.
Until October, Lockheed Martin, the giant military contractor, had been following its pattern from recent elections of giving about 70 percent of contributions from its political action committee to Republicans. But Lockheed Martin’s generosity shifted in the first half of October, with Democrats receiving 60 percent of donations, or $127,000.
While Republicans and Democrats are feverishly soliciting contributions until Election Day, campaign finance reports filed this week provide a window into the final days of a raucous midterm election campaign. The analysis of 288 corporate political action committees, which have contributed more than $100,000 this election cycle, found that at least 65 committees had increased their ratio of contributions to Democrats by at least 15 percentage points, including Sprint, United Parcel Service and Hewlett-Packard.
A notable exception to the flurry of last-minute giving is Wal-Mart.
“We had a two-year strategy to build up relationships with Democrats,” said Lee Culpepper, the vice president for federal government relations at Wal-Mart. “This wasn’t something that we decided in August that we needed to do and we ran out helter-skelter to try to do it.”
One sign of fresh interest in the prospects of Democratic Congressional races came one morning this week when more than 100 lobbyists crowded into Democratic Party headquarters on Capitol Hill. Over Dunkin’ Donuts and coffee, the executive director of the party’s Congressional committee, Karin Johanson, delivered a private briefing on the race to a sea of unfamiliar faces, despite spending 30 years in politics.
“People are excited,” she said later in an interview. “It was, by far, the best attended one ever.”
As some young Republican lobbyists fled Washington to spend the final days working on too-close-to-call races in Ohio or Pennsylvania, their senior counterparts stayed behind to begin studying prospective members of the new freshman class. Even if Republicans hold control, the next Congress will almost certainly include at least a handful of moderate Democrats who defeated Republicans and will be looking for allies in the corporate world.
Peter Welch, the Democratic candidate for Vermont’s single House seat, has already been telephoning some members of the Washington business lobby, offering an opportunity to begin a good relationship if he wins election. Never mind that his Republican opponent, Martha Rainville, has received a host of endorsements from the business community.
“The real story of the 2006 contributions is what happens in the early phase of 2007, with a change in party control,” said Bernadette A. Budde, senior vice president of the Business-Industry Political Action Committee. “There will be proverbial meet-and-greets all over town so we will have a sense of who these people are.”
Many of these meet-and-greet sessions will have a dual purpose: political action committees will offer contributions to help candidates wipe away debt their campaigns accrued during the race.
Spending in the midterm election campaign is forecast to reach $2.6 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including $1 billion from political action committees. While many business groups have been eager to appear as if they have been handily contributing to Democratic efforts, it was not until this month that the trend became apparent enough to quantify beyond party leaders or prospective committee chairmen.
Democrats who are not in tight races — or even standing for re-election in some cases — have seen their contributions increase more than some of those facing the most competitive contests. That is an easy way, lobbyists say, for political action committees to increase the share of their Democratic contributions, a percentage that is carefully tracked by party leaders when they reach the majority.
Representative Adam Smith of Washington, who leads a coalition of centrist Democrats, said he has detected a friendlier relationship with the business community in recent months, a welcome change from years of Republican rule when “Democrats were basically frozen out in every way.”
“I hope that the new Democratic majority will take a more open and cooperative approach,” Mr. Smith said in an interview. “I hope there won’t be a sense of, ‘Oh, you gave too much money to Republicans, so we’re not going to talk to you.’ ”
Editors’ Note: Nov. 1, 2006
An article on Saturday about an increase in last-minute donations by corporations to Democratic Congressional candidates said that the Democrats would hold an annual fund-raiser in Vail, Colo., in January that Representative Nancy Pelosi of California would attend. It said that she would be the host and would be on hand to accept $15,000 checks (the amount required to attend). After the article appeared, Ms. Pelosi’s office called to say that while she had attended the event in the past, she had no plans to do so this time. The assertion that Ms. Pelosi would be there was not checked with her office before publication, but it should have been.

Unparalleled Quandary

Unparalleled Quandary
A response to “Stay The Course”

“Stay The Course” … NO. “Stay” … maybe, but under what circumstances and how long? Being willing and open to change is not a weakness. Being unwilling to change or averse to engage diverse opinion of smart minds, such as those who forewarned of the Iraq quagmire, is delusional and carte blanche is dangerous.

Repeating my words of Oct. 2005: “Our forces have gone beyond the call of duty in a mire of civil strife. If the “terrorist war” is lost it will not be on Iraqi soil – for the war extends far beyond. Iraqis will lose whatever is lost in Iraq, not American forces. Now, after two and a half years, it’s Iraqi’s responsibility to defend their country from a civil war.”

In my statement then and even now I standby, I do not call for an immediate pull out per se; although, it is a strong suggestion that for two years (now 3-years) we were dragged through a problematic conflict, dubious of the true “terrorist war,” but just the same where our American warriors serve proficiently as possible, honorably, and nobly. But more to the point, Iraqis must stand up sooner than later, if any semblance of success is in the cards. That’s the BIG question: can they secure their country from an extended civil war?

Call it what you will: it is a civil war in Iraq; 95% of the strife is Shia and Sunni, sectarian, killing each other. Only about 5% “terrorist against Americans.” Prime Minister al-Maliki is helpless or unwilling to deal with the sectarian militias. As Thomas Friedman said on Oct. 18th: “There are only two reasons now for the U.S. to remain in Iraq: because it thinks that staying will make things better or that leaving will make things drastically worse. Alas, it is increasingly hard to see how our presence is making things better. Iraq, under our nose, is breaking apart into so many little pieces that no political solution seems to be in the offing, because no Iraqi leader can deliver his faction anymore — and there does not seem to be an Iraqi center capable of coming together. While leaving would no doubt exacerbate the civil war, staying in Iraq indefinitely to prevent even more Shiites and Sunnis from killing one another is not going to fly with the U.S. public much longer.” All our options are stark, but my belief a turn of direction is imperative and imminent. If the turn-of-events lead us to an extended or all-out war will the administration ask Americans to make the necessary sacrifices, sacrifices and commitment more commensurate with our military and their families?

The administration keeps rebuffing even the hawkish conservatives who have since changed their minds, while the war becomes more horrific. Financial corruption has been rampant in false starts of an Iraqi government, and 40 to 50% of the oil money is going to the insurgents, as reported last evening on 60-Minutes. The Iraq dilemma is hardly analogous to any other war ever fought by U. S. It is a very complex situation, and one that demands a long past due critical civil discourse among the most brilliant thinking leaders and statesmen, possibly combined with like men of other nations.

America has been a world superpower, but that may be slowly diminishing in actuality as well in broader world perception. What are we, a nation of only 3-hundred million, a national debt of 9-trillion, and a trade deficit with China alone that has grown exponentially in 10-years from 35-billion dollars to now 200-billion $ a year and drastically increasing annually? China has over 1.334 billion population, one of the fastest growing economies, with a purchasing power in 2005 of 9-trillion compared to U. S. 12-trillion. China delivers quality goods in price defiance of American production. Just check the “Made in China” tags in the electronic and apparel stores for proof. Point in fact: China is fast becoming a superpower. Consequently, some kind of world-order, a transformed United Nations, and other multilateral organizations must be used to effectuate diplomacy for peace and a better world understanding to combat and defeat terrorism. The U. S. can no longer afford financially or politically unilaterally going alone on major world affairs. There must be, in the least, a unification of the major countries for world security. America, its leaders, must face reality.

What do we want out of Iraq, at what cost? The Iraqi war debt is approaching .5-trillion, and our best military personnel deaths are escalating daily, to 2,800 and 86 kill to date in October. Will increasing these numbers ever bring a democracy to this conflicted area? Not in our life! The best we can hope for in Iraq is a fighting theocracy or worse another autocratic-tyrant, back where we started from.

Two excellent brief essays, which succinctly sum up the Iraqi quandary, just off the press, are from The Economist, “Between staying and going” and from The New Republic, “War Torn.” To get a better grasp of the situation, I highly recommend these, attached herewith. Let me know what you think.

-------------------------------
Iraq Between staying and going
Oct 19th 2006 From The Economist print edition

A search for new ideas should not blind Americans to the stark choice they face in Iraq

LIKE a hanging, the approaching mid-term elections are concentrating minds in Washington. Republicans and Democrats are racing to find some new idea to rescue America from the quagmire of Iraq. Until now, the policy of George Bush has been to stay the course, come what may. But what if the only alternative to cutting and running is staying and failing?

So far, relatively few influential voices are calling for an immediate withdrawal. But the numbers are growing, and this is a worry. For the likely result of an American flight would be to make the present horrors worse.

From insurgency to civil war

There was a time when most violence in Iraq was the result of a Sunni insurgency against the foreign occupiers. If the occupiers left, or so the argument went, so would the reason for fighting. However, most of the killing is now part of a sectarian war between Sunnis and the Shias. The unpopular Americans are almost the only force keeping this killing under some control, and their going could spark a fight to the finish.

Some people argue that a short and decisive battle for supremacy would in the end cause less suffering than the protracted one now raging under America's nose. But there is no reason to expect such a battle to be short. If America with more than 140,000 soldiers cannot subdue the Sunni minority, why expect the largely Shia government forces to do better? The likelier prospect would be a long war that sucked in neighbours (Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are all candidates). That is what happened in Lebanon's civil war, but there the stakes were lower.

Given the unappetising prospect either of staying the course or leaving at once, Americans long for a middle way. Why not split the country into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish statelets? Instead of going right now, why not set a timetable, to galvanise the warring parties to settle their differences before a free-for-all? One far-fetched idea from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan team looking at alternatives on behalf of Congress, is said to be to withdraw “over the horizon” and control Iraq from a neighbouring country. Another is for America to be less fastidious about establishing democracy, and concentrate on the smaller aim of establishing a government that works.

It is no bad thing to explore new ideas. The trouble is that none of these examples stands up to scrutiny.
Take partition. This is not a mad idea. A case can be made that Britain's creation in the 1920s of a single political entity called Iraq was a failure from the start, and that the only thing that can hold it together is an iron fist like Saddam Hussein's. So if the choice is between another dictatorship or endless civil war, partition begins to look attractive. If not a mad idea, however, partition is a bad idea. It would be neither neat nor bloodless: Kurds, Shias and Sunnis are intermingled in many areas, including Baghdad. And the precedents are awful. In Palestine, India and Yugoslavia partition led not just to war and forced migration but to a series of wars. And there is, again, the complication of neighbours. Independence for the Kurds is anathema to Turkey and Iran. A Shia state on its border, adjacent to where its own restive Shias live, would horrify Saudi Arabia. And what would the Sunnis in Iraq's centre gain once partition cut them off from Iraq's oil riches?

As for America being less fastidious about democracy, this sounds commendably realistic. Iraqis living in daily fear of murder certainly have bigger things to worry about than a low score from Freedom House. The snag is that even if it seemed briefly possible after the fall of Mr Hussein to impose a friendly strongman in his place, that looks out of the question now. Having tasted democracy and voted in their millions, Iraqis will not be so easily cowed again by one man from one group. The present policy—hammering out a power-sharing agreement between elected groups—may be challenging but is more realistic than a belated quest for dictatorship lite.

On closer inspection, in fact, many of the competing ideas masquerading in Washington as big new ideas turn out to be small refinements of the existing policy. One such is the idea for partition lite—a federal arrangement with a weak centre and strong regions. That is pretty much what the existing constitution allows and is already the subject of fierce negotiation between the parties. A more genuinely new idea is for America to seek a reconciliation with its foes in Syria and Iran, in the hope that the active involvement of these powers will somehow stabilise the country. But this smacks of desperation: Iran is already deeply engaged in Iraq, on the side of the Shias. That is exactly what enrages and frightens the Sunnis.

Not wrong, just very, very hard

At the end of the day, the three-pronged policy America is already pursuing in Iraq may very well be the best of a bad lot. Stated briefly, this consists of trying to keep the lid on the violence, build up Iraq's own security forces and prod Iraqi politicians into making a power-sharing deal. Each prong has faced harder resistance than expected. Violence is widespread, Iraq's new police force is riddled with sectarianism (the army is a bit better), and in the political negotiations the Sunni minority and Shia majority have not yet found a way to adjust peacefully to the reversal of their respective political fortunes. If America is willing to stay the course for a few more years, success is still possible—though the policy will continue to be costly in American lives and money.

The only honest alternative is indeed probably just to go, and let one side win. America did that in Vietnam and Britain did it in Palestine. After much suffering, Vietnam turned out well enough, regional dominoes did not all fall, and America went on to win the cold war anyway, not least because communism was a nonsensical and unloved system and the peoples on whom it had been foisted were eager to ditch it. Maybe something similar will happen in Iraq, not least because the rival versions of theocracy on offer from Iran and al-Qaeda are nonsensical too. But just going would be a fantastic gamble, not only with America's global power and prestige but also with other people's lives. Better, still, to stay.
---------------------
War Torn
TNR 10-30-06

In Washington today, there are two debates about Iraq. The first is loud and fake. It consists of flag-draped speeches in which President Bush says things like “The party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.” It looks like a debate about foreign policy, but it’s not. It’s a debate about national identity—about the kind of country we want to be: a country that retreats and loses or a country that fights and wins. The Democrats stand accused of defeatism; the Republicans demand victory. The question, as a recent Weekly Standard cover story put it, is “will we choose to win in Iraq?”

The second debate is quiet and clinical and awful. It starts with these realities: The violence in Iraq is getting worse; the militias are growing stronger; the Americans are growing more hated; and the good guys—the Iraqis who told us their country could be a decent, functioning place—are either dead or back in Dearborn. This other Iraq debate is a choice between last-ditch efforts that will probably fail and simply accepting defeat and mitigating its effects. It’s the choice you face when someone teeters on the edge of death—between aggressive measures that might produce a miracle but could also increase the agony, and letting the patient go, in the hopes that, by bowing to the inevitable, you can at least ease the pain.

The day after the midterm elections, the first Iraq debate will probably end and the second one will truly begin. Republican Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner has already said that, unless Iraq’s government imposes order in the next two or three months, the United States must consider a “change of course.” James Baker, whose Iraq commission will report at about that time, is saying much the same thing. Bush may still try to stay the course, but, if Iraq causes Republicans to lose the House or Senate, Republicans will suddenly become a lot more willing to lose Iraq. When the real Iraq debate begins, it will feature three basic alternatives. The first—call it “do it right”—is the brainchild of military wonks like Kenneth Pollack and Andrew Krepinevich Jr. It starts with a counterintuitive assumption: that, in Iraq, security drives politics rather than the other way around. While most commentators envision political settlements that would allow Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki to disarm his country’s militias, the “do it right” folks say such settlements are a pipedream. Instead, the U.S. military should create facts on the ground that undercut the militia’s appeal. In particular, the United States and its Iraqi allies should pursue a classic counterinsurgency campaign: Rather than chasing terrorists, they should simply park themselves in civilian areas and provide the security for which Iraqis yearn. Once the U.S. and Iraqi armies finally protect Iraqis, sectarian militias will lose their raison d’être. Many people agree that, once upon a time, this would have been a good strategy. But that time may now have passed. For starters, to effectively protect Iraqis the United States would need many more troops. And adding any more would put a brutal strain on an already wheezing U.S. military. Pollack and company believe you can make headway without more U.S. troops, but that requires Iraqi forces to make up some of the gap, and there is no guarantee they can. After all, the more Iraq’s communities turn on each other, the less Sunnis will rely on Shia soldiers for protection. And, even as Iraqis grow more hostile to one another, they are also growing more hostile to us. A recent University of Maryland poll shows that more than 60 percent of Iraqis (and an even higher percentage of Arab Iraqis) now support attacks on U.S. troops, which makes counterinsurgency— a strategy dependent on winning hearts and minds—much harder. All of which may explain why Army Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, commander of multinational forces in Iraq, has put in place elements of exactly the strategy the wonks are pushing, and yet violence in Baghdad keeps escalating. If “do it right” banks on a new military strategy, “hail Mary” puts its faith in a new diplomatic one. The model is Dayton, where Richard Holbrooke sequestered the leaders of Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia at an Air Force base and didn’t let them out until they struck the bargain that ended the Bosnian war. In Iraq, such a bargain would center on oil: guaranteeing the Sunnis some share of it so they stop fighting the Shia-dominated government. Once that happened, the theory goes, the Shia wouldn’t need militias to protect them, and Iraq’s government could gain control.
(Senator Joseph Biden’s “partition” plan—which actually calls for a weak central government that shares oil—is a variant of the “hail Mary.”) The problem with the Bosnia analogy is that Dayton came after nearly four years of civil war, when the parties were exhausted and a rough balance of power had emerged on the ground. In Iraq, by contrast, the killing is just gathering steam. And, while it seems obvious in Washington that Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds can all do better at the negotiating table than they can on the battlefield, it’s not at all clear that most Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders see it that way. Striking Dayton-like deals—never mind enforcing them—requires either a high degree of political trust, which Iraqis clearly lack, or an outside power strong enough to impose a solution, which the United States, tragically, is not. The “hail Mary” plan may still be worth trying, but, to give it any chance of success, the United States would have to threaten to withdraw our troops if the parties didn’t agree. Which brings us to option number three: “Withdraw our troops.” After all, if you believe a Dayton-type deal is impossible— that, even if negotiated, it would quickly unravel—why put U.S. troops in the bloody middle? The optimistic case for withdrawal—that once Americans leave Iraq the Sunni insurgency will lose its rationale, thus making a reconciliation possible—has weakened over the last year, as Sunnis have grown more afraid of Shia death squads than American G.I.s. But the pessimistic case has grown stronger: If Iraq is doomed to hell no matter what we do, why send brave young Americans down with it? It is impossible to know whether that hell is inevitable or whether some change in American strategy might still stave it off. But one thing is clear: For every day that goes by without an honest debate about Iraq, defeat becomes more certain. The good news is that, in a few weeks, that debate will finally begin. And, if we are very, very lucky, it will still matter.
PETER BEINART

Stay The Course

Stay The Course

October 19, 2006
By guest columnist, James Watson
In response to “We Need The Statesmen”

Thanks for the article Cornell,

However, I think getting out of Iraq would be as big of a mistake as it would have been for the US to have left Germany soon after the 2nd WW and given Europe over to the communist. It is a huge burden to be a world superpower but one we cannot abdicate. Yes I would like to withdraw to fortress America and let the rest of the world fend for it's self. In the short term it would cost much less in lives and money. However to leave now when this part of the world needs us the most. This would embolden Iran, already a huge threat and tell the rest of our allies that we cannot be trusted. I think we need to stay the course no matter how difficult until the Iraq government can defend it's self and it's inhabitants.

The only thing necessary for "evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". In my opinion, radical Islamism, coupled with terrorism is one of the major threats we face today. The terrorist hated us intensely before Iraq and will continue to do even if we were gone from Iraq and Afghanistan. I think a lack of adequate troops and perhaps an unwillingness to use the existing ones to the fullest extent have hindered us in Iraq. It seems to me the right course is to demonstrate strength in the face of this threat and to defend our selves, our allies, and our interest with overwhelming, unexpected and devastating force. The same tactic is probable all that will help us with Iran and N. Korea as well. As we saw in the Madrid terrorist bombing, the effect of an overwhelming and unexpected blow is to seriously undermine the Spanish population, convincing them the conflict is not worth the struggle. As long as the enemy, the terrorist feel they have some chance of winning on the battlefield they will fight on with the support of many. When their situation becomes hopeless, surrender is imminent. This is the way all warsare fought and won and was demonstrated in the worldwide collapse of communism and the former USSR.

As difficult as it may seem, we must put our enemies in the position such that the population around them will realize that they are supporting a hopeless cause. Their implacable hatred of the West and the US has been on-going since before 9-11. Leaving from Iraq, Afghanistan and any other military outpost in the world will not change this hatred. I think our only recourse for the foreseeable future is to defend our self and our Allies with the greatest of caution and vigor and that means staying in Iraq andAfghanistan until a stable government is in place.

James

Stop Hunger!

Stop Hunger!

My beloved brother: Zeke’s life could not be extended beyond 71 years, after overcoming lung cancer a year ago. After 5-bypass heart surgery 2 ½ years ago and recent implants of a pacemaker, defibrillator, and stints, all these technological medical services could not save his life. Even though the best medical advances known to man cannot save many lives, one simple act can save the lives of many throughout the developing nations. I hope you will join me to take that action.

On October 21st, the Smithfield Rotary Clubs and Centenary United Methodist Church will join hands to help feed the hungry, the starving of the world. Will you also give a hand for 2 ½ hours and/or give a few dollars to save a life?

50,000 Rice-soy dehydrated meals – 500 Man-hours -- $10,000
30,000 people died every day from starvation!

While my brother did not live this nation’s full-life expectancy, our commitment to stopping hunger can significantly increase life’s expectancy in developing nations. And who knows it just might be the life that can help save our world. If you are outside Johnston County, NC in other communities and states, I hope you will join up with an organization or initiate a drive to help stop the hunger.

Learn more about Stop Hunger Now: http://www.stophungernow.org/

Herewith, I share with you my message and plea for life’s help, adapted from Centenary’s Newsletter:

Will You Help Stop Hunger Now?

You awoke this morning to a good meal, I trust, or whatever your taste desired. I had my usual Oaks & More with skim milk. But there are people who arose today with nothing to eat, or very little; they neither will tomorrow nor in the days to come -- not in morning, not at noon, and not in the evening. We don’t see people dying from starvation on the streets of our community or anywhere in America. Yet, thirty thousand (30,000) people will die today and every day from malnourishment, starvation. Hold that thought for a moment – if you can bear.

Occasionally, Jane, my wife, will ask me: Cornell why do you do what you do or why do you want to do that? Oft time, I ask myself that, because I feel at times the things I do may come across to some as an imposition, especially as I keep passing around the Stop Hunger Now signup sheets. Some may even think I’m a little radical at times. For that inner-conscience force that drives me, my answer to Jane is: because I can, I’m able bodied, and it’s the right thing to do.

Is it not the right thing to feed the starving of this world? Surely, it is the radical and loving Jesus who calls us to feed the starving. He said, “I was hunger and you gave me food.” On Saturday Oct. 21st, with your help, we’ll package 50,000 dehydrated rice-soy, vitamin fortified meals. This is for the perishing in developing nations, tsunami or earthquake victims. These meals have a shelf life of 2 to 3 years. We need your help not only to package the food but also to help pay for it.

Beyond our normal giving, we Centenarians can do more for the creation family of God; we can do more for the 1-billion people who live on $1 or less a day, the suffering, the starving, and the dying. Otherwise, we have missed Jesus’ explicit instruction: John 13: 34: "So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. 35 Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.”

This modern world of instant, seamless communication and a Google Earth, whereby on your computer, you can instantly go to, pinpoint, literally eye the remotest place on this earth, bring distant places close to home. The love for our neighbor, one another, is genuine for all of God’s people – when we take actions for it. Will anyone know that we are Jesus’ disciples by our love for those of the least of us, however distant, who are perishing daily?

Fifty thousand meals; 500 person-hours; $10,000 to help Stop Hunger Now! Who among you would not work for 2 ½ hours and/or give a dollar for five meals to save a life; $10 for 50 meals, $50 for 250 meals, or $100 for 500 meals.

We cannot offer “salvation” to a deceased person, but we can join together in the “corporate salvation of humankind.” The world will know us as Jesus’ disciples, that’s not radical, it is the right thing to do.

Cornell

We Need The Statesmen!

The Iraq Study Group

I find it hard at times to find anything or anyone in either of the political parties to be proud. But now comes a breath of fresh air, a group of stalwart statesmen to find a solution to the Iraq quagmire, lead by cochairs James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton.

It may have been a blessing in disguise for the Democrats when President George Bush was reelected a second term. I told some friends at the time, admittedly somewhat snidest, that the president’s reelection was deserving, he had earned the right to get us out of Iraq quandary.

On Nov. 15, 2005 I wrote: “Our forces have gone beyond the call of duty in a mire of civil strife. If the “terrorist war” is lost it will not be on Iraqi soil – for the war extends far beyond. Iraqis will lose whatever is lost in Iraq, not American forces. Now, after two and a half years, it’s Iraqi’s responsibility to defend their country from a civil war.”

Now three and a half years, my opinion still holds, acknowledging there may be some adverse consequences to pay, beyond those already incurred, regardless of any strategy wisemen might bring to fruition. However, the wise statesmen of the Iraq Study Group will, hopefully, come up with a reasonable bipartisan solution to best serve our country and renew a common cause to do what’s right henceforth.

______________________________
G.O.P.’s Baker Hints Iraq Plan Needs Change (Read complete text attached or in today’s N. Y. Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/world/middleeast/09baker.html?th&emc=th)
Excerpt: The Iraq Study Group, created with the reluctant blessing of the White House, includes notable Republicans and Democrats, among them William J. Perry, a former defense secretary under President Clinton; former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York; the former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor; and Vernon E. Jordan Jr., a longtime civil rights leader. Mr. Baker’s Democratic co-chairman is Lee H. Hamilton, the former Congressman who once served as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was co-chairman of the 9/11 commission.

________________________________
October 9, 2006: NYTimes
G.O.P.’s Baker Hints Iraq Plan Needs Change
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — James A. Baker III, the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan panel reassessing Iraq strategy for President Bush, said Sunday that he expected the panel would depart from Mr. Bush’s repeated calls to “stay the course,” and he strongly suggested that the White House enter direct talks with countries it had so far kept at arm’s length, including Iran and Syria.
“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.
“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”
Mr. Bush refused to deal with Iran until this spring, when he said the United States would join negotiations with Tehran if it suspended enriching nuclear fuel. Iran has so far refused. Contacts with both Syria and North Korea have also been sharply limited.
But the “Iraq Study Group,” created by Mr. Baker last March with the encouragement of some members of Congress to come up with new ideas on Iraq strategy, has already talked to some representatives of Iran and Syria about Iraq’s future, he said.
His comments Sunday offered the first glimmer of what other members of his study group, in interviews over the past two weeks, have described as an effort to find a politically face-saving way for Mr. Bush slowly to extract the United States from the war. “I think it’s fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run,’ ” Mr. Baker said.
He explicitly rejected a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, saying that would invite Iran, Syria and “even our friends in the gulf” to fill the power vacuum. He also dismissed, as largely unworkable, a proposal by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to decentralize Iraq and give the country’s three major sectarian groups, the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, their own regions, distributing oil revenue to all. Mr. Baker said he had concluded “there’s no way to draw lines” in Iraq’s major cities, where ethnic groups are intermingled.
According to White House officials and commission members, Mr. Baker has been talking to President Bush and his national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on a regular basis. Those colleagues say he is unlikely to issue suggestions that the president has not tacitly approved in advance.
“He’s a very loyal Republican, and you won’t see him go against Bush,” said a colleague of Mr. Baker, who asked not to be identified because the study group is keeping a low profile before it formally issues recommendations. “But he feels that the yearning for some responsible way out which would not damage American interests is palpable, and the frustration level is exceedingly high.”
At 76, Mr. Baker still enjoys a reputation as one of Washington’s craftiest bureaucratic operators and as a trusted adviser of the Bush family, which has enlisted his help for some of its deepest crises, including the second President Bush’s effort to win the vote recount in Florida after the 2000 presidential election. Mr. Baker served as White House chief of staff, as well as secretary of state under the first President Bush.
Andrew H. Card Jr., President Bush’s former chief of staff, acknowledged recently that he had twice suggested that Mr. Baker would be a good replacement for Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Bush rejected that advice, and some associates of Mr. Baker say they do not believe he is interested, at his age, in taking the job, which could put him in the position of having to carry out his group’s advice.
Those proposals — which he has said must be both bipartisan and unanimous — could very well give Mr. Bush some political latitude, should he decide to adopt strategies that he had once rejected, like setting deadlines for a phased withdrawal of American forces.
Given his extraordinary loyalty to the Bush family — Mr. Baker was present on Saturday at the formal christening of a new aircraft carrier named for the first President Bush — it was notable on Sunday that Mr. Baker also joined the growing number of Republicans who are trying to create some space between themselves and the White House.
On Sunday, on “This Week,” Mr. Baker was shown a video of the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, who said last week that Iraq was “drifting sideways” and urged consideration of a “change of course” if the Iraqi government could not restore order in two or three months. The American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has offered a similar warning to the Iraqi government.
Asked if he agreed with that timetable, Mr. Baker said, “Yes, absolutely. And we’re taking a look at other alternatives.”
The Iraq Study Group, created with the reluctant blessing of the White House, includes notable Republicans and Democrats, among them William J. Perry, a former defense secretary under President Clinton; former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York; the former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor; and Vernon E. Jordan Jr., a longtime civil rights leader. Mr. Baker’s Democratic co-chairman is Lee H. Hamilton, the former Congressman who once served as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was co-chairman of the 9/11 commission.
In interviews, members of the study group have privately expressed concern that within months, whatever course the group recommended could be overtaken by the chaos in Iraq. “I think the big question is whether we can come up with something before it’s too late,” one member said late last month, after the group had met in Washington to assess its conclusions after a trip to Baghdad. “There’s a real sense that the clock is ticking, that Bush is desperate for a change, but no one in the White House can bring themselves to say so with this election coming.”
Like other members, he declined to speak on the record, saying public comments should come only from Mr. Baker or Mr. Hamilton.
Several members said they were struck during their visit to Baghdad by how many Americans based there — political and intelligence officers as well as members of the military — said they feared that the United States was stuck between two bad alternatives: pulling back and watching sectarian violence soar, or remaining a crucial part of the new effort to secure Baghdad, at the cost of much higher American casualties.
It was a measure of how much the situation had deteriorated that only one member of the group, former Senator Charles S. Robb of Virginia, ventured beyond the protected walls of the Green Zone, the American and government center of Baghdad. The study group is just now finishing its interviews, and Mr. Baker has not yet begun to draft the report, members said.
Some who have already met with the group, like Mr. Biden, who may seek the Democratic nomination for president, have emerged saying they think their ideas are being heard. On Friday, Mr. Biden said he thought he saw “heads nodding up and down” about his ideas on creating autonomous regions of the country, but Mr. Baker made clear on Sunday that he was not among them.
“Experts on Iraq have suggested that, if we do that, that in itself will trigger a huge civil war because the major cities in Iraq are mixed,” Mr. Baker said.
Mr. Baker has been critical of how the Bush administration conducted post-invasion operations, and he has not backed away from statements he made in his 1995 memoir, in which he described opposing the ouster of Saddam Hussein after the Persian Gulf war in 1991. In the book, he said he feared that such action might lead to a civil war, “even if Saddam were captured and his regime toppled, American forces would still be confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government.”
On Sunday, the interviewer, George Stephanopoulos, said, “It’s exactly what’s happened now, isn’t it?” Mr. Baker replied, “A lot of it.”

Fueling Our Demise; It’s Not CITGO

Fueling Our Demise; It’s Not CITGO

CITGO is an image firmly implanted in my mind from many years past. It is a logo decal I personally applied on many oil and propane trucks and gasoline pumps. In 1965 Cities Service Oil Company rolled out the new name. It was a big deal: forty million dollars to convert and closed circuit TV around the country for the formal announcement hosted by Johnny Carson. I attended the eastern NC formal rollout event at the Ambassador Theatre in Raleigh, NC. Later, 1973, Esso changed its logo to Exxon, putting a tiger in the tank, for a cost of over one hundred million dollars. (In 1965 a million dollars was a million, when we sold gasoline for 25 cents per gal.) Citgo became state wholly owned by Venezuela in 1990. It’s very sad now to see ill will cast on this sentimental brand by the despicable Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela.

Venezuela is a Federal republic https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2128, and probably the lesser of the so-called fiends from which the U. S. imports most of its oil. Venezuela’s population is just less than twenty-six million, with a religious population of 98% Christian. Chavez should long be gone, hopefully, – even as we’ll continue competing for oil in other places and dealing with the petro-authoritarians as Thomas Friedman calls them in Sept. 27th N Y Times.

· According to the Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/: In 2005, United States refineries produced over 90 percent of the gasoline used in the United States. Less than 40 percent of the crude oil used by U.S. refineries was produced in the United States. About 45 percent of gasoline produced in the United States comes from refineries in the U.S. Gulf Coast (including Texas and Louisiana). Jan through June 2006 21% of our oil came from Persian Gulf, which includes Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.

Friedman’s Fill ’Er Up With Dictators Op-Ed excerpt (full text attached or read at: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/opinion/27friedman.html?th&emc=th ):
“For a lot of reasons — some cyclical, some technical and some having to do with the emergence of alternative fuels and conservation — the price of crude oil has fallen lately to around $60 a barrel. Yes, in the long run, we want the global price of oil to go down. But we don’t want the price of gasoline to go down in America just when $3 a gallon has started to stimulate large investments in alternative energies. That is exactly what OPEC wants — let the price fall for a while, kill the alternatives, and then bring it up again.”

In my opinion Thomas Friedman (author of The World is Flat) is one of the most brilliant, well-informed writers, a world savvy citizen, and he is usually right on key in important issues. But is anyone listening, when will our leaders come to their senses and do the right thing, putting politics aside? I, however, would differ with him on where the energy investment tax should be put. Put it on the gas guzzling vehicles, based on rated mileage – the lower the mileage the more the tax, at point of vehicle sale. That would give incentive to the manufacture and purchaser alike. It would let the affluent and those who take pride in luxurious large automobiles, those who burn the gas and wear out the roads, pay for the future energy discoveries and road repairs that we do not now have nor the money to pay for them. Oh that our congress would have done something of this nature a few years ago: would it not have been saving grace for the American automobile manufactures that now find themselves struggling to survive?

When will America wakeup to the fact that millions of our petro-dollars, maybe billions, are finding its way into the hands of terrorist and Wahhabi schools in Islamic countries, where much of the brainwashing of Muslim youth occurs? When will our leaders understand and have the courage to do what it takes to make America energy independent? Energy independence is the one thing that most of all will eliminate the aim of petro bullets and bombs killing our servicemen and make our nation more secure.

• 
  

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Wahabi: “In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of US dollars to create religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.”

The problem is congressmen’s refusal to put our country above politics:

• Neither Republicans nor Democrats can forgo the big campaign money from big oil (It’s reported that Republicans get 75-80%, Democrats 20-25%).


• Neither Republicans nor Democrats can forgo the big campaign money from auto manufactures.


• Big business and their lobbyist will not give up power plays to control greedy-selfish interest that has no redeeming value for American citizens.


• Any effort to enact any tax is sufficient stigmatization as villainous and confirmed by the opponent for a death sentence at the polls.

So, brilliant Mr. Thomas Friedman, we will not have an energy investment tax. Will we? Like on so many other important issues, we’ll just keep on fueling our demise.

Should we now ask ourselves:

• Is it time for public campaign financing?


• Is it time to take a hard look at our foreign policy?
  

What’s your opinion?
----------------------------------------
Reprinted in The News and Observer on Sept. 28th:
September 27, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Fill ’Er Up With Dictators
By

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Are you having fun yet?
What’s a matter? No sense of humor? You didn’t enjoy watching Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez addressing the U.N. General Assembly and saying of President Bush: “The devil came here yesterday, right here. It smells of sulfur still today.” Many U.N. delegates roared with laughter.
Oh well then, you must have enjoyed watching Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad breezing through New York City, lecturing everyone from the U.N. to the Council on Foreign Relations on the evils of American power and how the Holocaust was just a myth.
C’mon then, you had to at least have gotten a chuckle out of China’s U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, trying to block a U.N. resolution calling for the deployment of peacekeeping troops to Sudan to halt the genocide in Darfur. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the China National Petroleum Corporation owns 40 percent of the Sudan consortium that pumps over 300,000 barrels of oil a day from Sudanese wells.
No? You’re not having fun? Well, you’d better start seeing the humor in all this, because what all these stories have in common is today’s most infectious geopolitical disease: petro-authoritarianism.
Yes, we thought that the fall of the Berlin Wall was going to unleash an unstoppable wave of free markets and free people, and it did for about a decade, when oil prices were low. But as oil has moved to $60 to $70 a barrel, it has fostered a counterwave — a wave of authoritarian leaders who are not only able to ensconce themselves in power because of huge oil profits but also to use their oil wealth to poison the global system — to get it to look the other way at genocide, or ignore an Iranian leader who says from one side of his mouth that the Holocaust is a myth and from the other that Iran would never dream of developing nuclear weapons, or to indulge a buffoon like Chávez, who uses Venezuela’s oil riches to try to sway democratic elections in Latin America and promote an economic populism that will eventually lead his country into a ditch.
For a lot of reasons — some cyclical, some technical and some having to do with the emergence of alternative fuels and conservation — the price of crude oil has fallen lately to around $60 a barrel. Yes, in the long run, we want the global price of oil to go down. But we don’t want the price of gasoline to go down in America just when $3 a gallon has started to stimulate large investments in alternative energies. That is exactly what OPEC wants — let the price fall for a while, kill the alternatives, and then bring it up again.
For now, we still need to make sure, either with a gasoline tax or a tariff on imported oil, that we keep the price at the pump at $3 or more — to stimulate various alternative energy programs, more conservation and a structural shift by car buyers and makers to more fuel-efficient vehicles.
“If Bush were the leader he claims to be, he would impose an import fee right now to keep gasoline prices high, and reduce the tax rate on Social Security for low-income workers, so they would get an offsetting increase in income,” argued Philip Verleger Jr., the veteran energy economist.
That is how we can permanently break our oil addiction, and OPEC, and free ourselves from having to listen to these petro-authoritarians, who are all so smug — not because they are educating their people or building competitive modern economies, but because they happen to sit on oil.
According to Bloomberg.com, in 2005 Iran earned $44.6 billion from crude oil exports, its main source of income. In the same year, the mullahs spent $25 billion on subsidies to buy off the population. Bring the price of oil down to $30 and guess what happens: All of Iran’s income goes to subsidies. That would put a terrible strain on Ahmadinejad, who would have to reach out to the world for investment. Trust me, at $30 a barrel, the Holocaust isn’t a myth anymore.
But right now, Chávez, Ahmadinejad and all their petrolist pals think we are weak and will never bite the bullet. They have our number. They know that Mr. Bush is a phony — that he always presents himself as this guy ready to make the “tough” calls, but in reality he has not asked his party, the Congress, the people, or U.S. industry to do one single hard thing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. Bush prattles on about spreading democracy and freedom, but history will actually remember the Bush years as the moment when petro-authoritarianism — not freedom and democracy — spread like a wildfire and he did nothing serious to stop it.

From Orthodoxy to Orthopraxis

From Orthodoxy to Orthopraxis

Thank you James, (James’ response to my Founders, Religion and State is printed below this writing.)

You so eloquently express your views with substantial knowledge of judicial works and history.

Perhaps you took it as a rhetorical question, but would you like to answer the question of what’s more important in God’s Kingdom? It seems to me that until we put “tending the sheep”, “caring for those of the least of us”, “saving the Darfurians,” etc. on, at least, the same moral equivalency as abortion, we are missing the larger point of Jesus’ Greatest Commandments:

Matthew 22: 37 Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” John 13: 34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

I contend you can’t do the first without first doing the second and third, which includes doing unto the sheep, the lowest, and the vulnerable as Jesus would have us do. Therefore, in His words, when we fail the standard He set, we fail “His salvation test.” Of course we know the Church Founders, St. Paul and the Bishops, let us off the hook. And I must confess, it’s a relief because I fail the “Jesus Test” so miserably, as I believe most people do. Granted we cannot “save” ourselves, but we (you and I) can do something, however small, for what I call the “corporate salvation of humankind.” Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or the people now operating the Robin Hood Foundation ( http://www.robinhood.org/home/home.cfm ) may come closer to Salvation in God’s Kingdom, if based on Jesus’ words. (See today’s Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201384.html?referrer=email .)

On your question of my view on Faith: I made a profession of faith in the Jesus that calls me to service, including, forgiveness of my sins, a faith held for 56 years. But in addition, my faith may be more encompassing, more universal, reaching out to all peoples, not necessarily to proselyte, but in recognition that the God of Abraham (that the overwhelmingly number of religious people profess as Creator), created all 6.5225 billion people on this earth; it’s a faith that acknowledges that over 4 billion people may never be introduced to Christianity and, further, that my Christian belief may be merely integral to additional plans God may have for the salvation of others in this world. I believe that when the Church nudges from orthodoxy (true doctrine), more to orthopraxis (true practice), it will be more in tune to Jesus’ call and become not a faith without works.

Thomas Friedman in the N Y Times on Sept. 8th related: Early in the Iraq war a prominent Sunni Arab leader said to me privately, “Thomas, these Shiites, they are not real Muslims.” Perhaps too often as self-righteous Christians, we also have the propensity to believe that “we” are the only real Christians. But in United Methodist, as the ad says, “We all believe in God, even though we have different beliefs.”

I think each person who has a strong desire to bring religion closer to state, should first answer the question: What am I willing to give up, yield to other Christians (World Christian Encyclopedia: there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world today http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi.htm.) who believe differently and to other faiths (over 9,900 religions in the world), who would propagate their religious brand by doctrine or etched on state porticoes?

Are we closer to making a case for “separation of religion and state”?

I leave you with a poem, “God To Save His People,” I composed subsequent to 911, which expands on my religious worldview.

God To Save His People

In this world there are many creeds,
Faithfully sowing devout seeds.
But let the world not be torn apart
By divisions of faith we all impart.

Religions are many, some I recall.
Nearly ninety-nine hundred in all,
Too little time to measure each’s worth,
God will be judge of all religions of earth.

The Islam Nation from Abraham and Hagar –
Ismail to Muhammad great numbers in the world,
Will not get to all mankind of earth.
God, Allah, to save all people, He gave birth!

The Jews by Abraham and Sarah gave -
Isaac by God’s covenant a nation be saved,
Will not reach all people on earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

Christians through Isaac, a Savior, believe-
Jesus Christ from grave saves all who receive,
Will not reach all inhabitants of earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

Zoroastrian may be the oldest of all,
Having great influence on many to call,
Will not ring forth for all people on earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!


The Buddhist from Gautama Buddha convey
Four noble truths of suffering to obey,
Will not reach all populace of earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

The Hindu of India, most ancient may cry,
Some yoga to obtain the spiritual high,
Will not reach all masses on earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

Confucian, Jain, Shinto, Taoist, and Sikh,
All have their solemn way of life,
Will not reach all societies of earth.
God to save all people, He gave birth!

While for me in my faith, I will abound,
And with God, Son, and Holy Spirit I resound,
It is this creed for all that now I cite:
Let no one persecute or differ to fight!

God willing, His people to freely sow,
Except fanaticism be the extremist foe.
Let not prejudices and intolorances grow,
And we not judge by what we do not know.

We are all from the one Divine Creator.
God, by great miracles of birth, our Grantor,
Endowed life to all His children on earth.
Pray, God will save all people, He gave birth.

Cornell Cox
Monday, March 04, 2002

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
James’ response to Founders, Religion and State:

Thanks Cornell,

I agree that most of the early founders were Deist, not Christians per se. However, I don't know that original intent as it relates to the constitution is really that much in vogue for determination of issues today. Yes, there are strict constructionist such as Robert Bork that believe in this approach to law but even the most conservative of jurist seem to apply the law in light of recent precedent. However, it is interesting to study what the founders meant. Overall I don't think could have envisioned a secular nation. The constitutional prohibition against congress establishing a state church in general was not applied to the states. Of course neither was the rest of the bill or rights, until later years when the courts ruled that most if not all of these rights bound the states as well as the federal government. However, I think it is a big, big stretch to take this prohibition against a the US congress establishment of a state church to the level of "separation" in which simple displays of historical articles like the Ten Commandments and Nativity Sets are somehow now seen as illegal. Surely this view would not have been shared by any of the founders, given the intertwined nature of religion, both Deism and Christianity in the day they lived.

However, to the more important moral question of abortion, I don't think the issue will be decided by the courts, but by the people. Which means to win the hearts and minds of the American public on this moral issue is as important in winning the issue as it was for the abolitionist to win the minds of the public in bringing an end to slavery. As you recall from history, there was a group of strong anti-slavery people for many years but through the impassioned preaching of those like Henry Ward Beecher they opened the minds of the nation to the great evil and prodded the conscience. Martin Luther King Jr. did the same thing in the 60's and through taking the moral high ground and framing the debate, not in the context of politics alone, but by appealing to the soul he brought change in the political arena. I am convinced that Abortion will one day be ranked as one of the great moral issue in our country, on par with Slavery and Civil Rights. Increasing we have seen the public move from the position of "Abortion on Demand" as a "Woman's right" with many saying this is a simple surgical procedure having no moral consequences to the position held by many Americans that, though it may be a necessary evil, it is never the less very evil. For Evangelical Christians the concept of necessary evil is hard to reconcile with there world view and therefore they put very few things in this category (I.e. war, capital punishment, abortion in cases of endangerment of the mother's life)

However, having said all that the courts have decided the issue for now with no vote or input of the people, all state laws were struck down by Roe v Wade. Since that time they have allowed the states to decided some of the issues such as parental consent. However from a legal stand point most scholars think that Roe v Wade is on shaky footings. To couch the debate in terms of privacy only is held by many even on the extreme left (Al Gore, for instance) to be wrong place to put this decision, even though they desire for abortion to be legal. In the end, I think most of the Abortion law will get pushed back to be handled by the states.

On the other two items you mention Money, Money, Money in politics and Salvation by Faith. Well, a person could right a book about either and not even get close to covering the territory. However, I strongly agree with your opinion on the first one and will have to know more about your views on Faith to understand if I agree or disagree on the second one. Anyway I am coming back from Philly today and getting close to landing so I will have to say so long for now good friend.
Thank you, James

PS. There is a beautiful sky outside my window. What a blessed sight.

Founders, Religion and State

Founders, Religion and State

Generally the term “Church and State” is used when discussing separation thereof. However, referring to “separation,” “Religion and State” is more to the point, because that’s more at what our founders were thinking. It’s my belief of what they intended and that should remain. The distinction is between “Deity” and “Religion.” While it’s impossible for religious people to reconcile religion-belief differences, the vast majority of our nation’s population believes in a Deity (or at least will go along with its inclusiveness), whether or not their God is defined as being one-and-same. I believe it is historically accurate to say: “Our founders, at large, wanted to hold onto “the recognition of God,” but “keep religion out of state.” In bringing these thoughts to mind again, I remembered an article from this past spring by Jon Meacham (Now Editor of Newsweek Magazine), “God and the Founders.” It’s an excerpt from his new book “American Gospel,” which gives a historical basis for the founders concerns. He relates their struggles from the beginning with separation, and in practice, he says, the wall of separation is not a very tall one. At a time when many false rumors and half-truths are circulating the Internet, wrongly lending credence that the founders fully approved of Christianity in political and government processes, I believe you’ll find this historically researched essay very interesting, informative, and a refreshing insight. It’s attached herewith. You may also read it from Newsweek’s website at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12115700/site/newsweek/

As a prime example of religious embroilment and separation’s frustrations and dilemma, I include below my reply to my friend, James’ response, who calls secularism a “religion,” in reply to my last column, Responsible & Irresponsible Evangelicals.
------------------------------------


Thanks James.

Your points are well made, and I can empathize with the feelings that come from both sides of many of the important issues of these times. I don’t know about secularism being a religion. I think of religion as more from the spiritual realm. Of course secularism could, for me at least, be a religion, since I tend to go more with conscientiousness of what I believe to be right or wrong, guided by my interpretation of Christian principles. Does this conscience bearing come more from secular or my religious views, and are they of God’s will? Maybe I can’t separate the two.

However, I don’t feel that anyone is threatening my freedom to live and demonstrate my Christian Faith -------- yet. Neither do I believe I’m intimidating any other’s right to express their secular or religious views through the political process. It’s when the claim so blatantly comes as from God that repulses many people, because their own beliefs, even though different, are felt equally valid as could just as well come from God. The unabashed sounds go in the both directions. How can anyone know that what any of us believe as truth is what God wants? Example:

We know that the tenet of our Christian Faith, as established by the Church’s founding fathers/bishops, is Salvation by Grace. Yet, the Gospels reveal the word “grace” only 4 times: 1 in Luke; 3 in John, neither declaring one is saved by grace or used as a “word” spoken by Jesus. Although, other words possibly could be deduced to “saved by grace.” On the other hand, Matthew 25 reveals, in many words; it's something very explicitly coming from the mouth of Jesus that is required for salvation. Are these (as literal interpretations) Church dogmas kind of an oxymoron, if both are to be taken as a truth? I tend to take them as integral to each other, which brings me to the next point.

Abortion: I’m not for abortion per se. Although, I believe there are circumstances where such may be justified. I do believe in the sanctity of life. (One can get into all kinds of questions as to when life begins.) But what does God expect of us?
· You shall not kill.
· Matthew. 25: 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

What’s more important: protecting the stem cell, saving the unborn from destitute and horrendous worldly conditions ---- or “tending the sheep,” feeding and caring for the starving (30,000 die every day; 1-billion live on $1 or less per day.), here and now? What’s more important in God’s Kingdom? Would God want one over the other, profess Him or do what He says to do? If so or not, are we as Christians living up to either, and especially Mathew 25? (I think not, and maybe that’s where grace comes in. Grace could be more abundant than many believe if Phillip Gulley and James Mulholland are correct in their, “If Grace Is True” book.) For Christians, it should be straightforward for all to assert a pro-life stance, whether a claimed to Pro-Choicer or Pro-Lifer, if we put our money, time, and efforts (discipleship) to sincerely take Mathew 25 literally.

Sad to say it’s the extremist elements, left to right, that gets in the way of serious pro-life and other important issues being resolved.

Perhaps if more politicians and elected officials took the attitude of a Chuck Hagel ( http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Chuck+Hagel ), as quoted on the Iraq conflict, common ground could possibly be found on a host of issues. Hagel: “I refuse to demote it to the lowest common denominator for the use of politics.”

The biggest problem our country has is “a broken system:” politically, and principally the legislative branch. Money! Money! Money! The pendulum has swung in past years; however, even as some now foretell, I would not predict if it’s time again. It just might drop straight down, where the hands-of-time implode on it. Pray not! As brothers and sisters we can do better.

Cornell
-------------------------------------------


Hello Cornell, Thanks for you thoughts and good column. However, I think the desire toseparate religion from government is about the same as a desire to separatepartnership from politics. While laudable it is simply impossible to do.Secularism is certainly a religion and is the dominate religion of a largeportion of those in political leadership. It has been said with greatinsight that "America is a nation that is as religious as India with aleadership in Government, Education and business that is a secular asSweden." I think this is generally true with the vast majority of the educationalestablishment being not just secular but vehemently hostile to people offaith in general and treating evangelicals with a tremendous hatred andvengeance. The same hold true to a lesser extent in many circles ofgovernment with many politicians, while paying very nominal homage to faith,they hold most evangelicals in great contempt. Since millions of churchgoing evangelicals sense this disdain by the there elected leaders, theynaturally seek to find other people to represent them. This deepening shift in the country to the right caused many entrenchedsecular politicians to suddenly find themselves powerless. The ensuingstruggle to hold on this entrenched power has set off the bitter climate ofthe country today. However, I think if more attention and respect had beenpaid to the people and voters earlier they would not have reacted with the"throw the rascals out" mentality that disposed so many left leaningpoliticians about 5 to 10 years ago. However, the arrogance of the currentparty in power is also leading to a counter backlash and I think we may soonsee the pendulum swing back. The current party in power is making the samemistake of believing that power is their right, not a sacred gift from Godto be used for the good of all the people with a strict accounting given ofthat use. I think the current political climate of controversy is aroused by thedichotomy of the leadership being out of touch with the general population.These hard working, God fearing voters are generally wishing for morerespect and consideration for Faith in general and evangelical values inparticular. This leads to this realization on the part of many Evangelicalsthat they can no longer elect people who give nominal assent to their faithbut refuse to state a definite stand on many of the issues that evangelicalsare passionate about. Their given no choice but to impose the so called"litmus test" because those on the other side are imposing the same test inreverse on all politicians who seek election with the support of secularpoliticians. I. E. no matter how qualified, honest or dedicated apolitician who is member of an evangelical church and openly acknowledgesthis will never get the endorsement of those committed to a religioussecularism.I would love to see the country loose political labels and parties as wellas to see Christians lose denominational differences. However, I think weare a long way from that and in the mean time Evangelicals have littleoption but to continue to insist on those who seek there support in vote andmoney to hold the same ideals and to vote with them on the issues ofAbortion, Homosexuality, Etc.Hey, I don't agree with all the conclusions but keep me on your list becauseI love to read your blog!James

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

God and the Founders
Battles over faith and freedom may seem never-ending, but a new book, 'American Gospel,' argues that history illuminates how religion can shape the nation without dividing it.
By Jon Meacham http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Jon+Meacham
Newsweek
April 10, 2006 issue - America's first fight was over faith. As the Founding Fathers gathered for the inaugural session of the Continental Congress on Tuesday, September 6, 1774, at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Thomas Cushing, a lawyer from Boston, moved that the delegates begin with a prayer. Both John Jay of New York and John Rutledge, a rich lawyer-planter from South Carolina, objected. Their reasoning, John Adams wrote his wife, Abigail, was that "because we were so divided in religious sentiments"—the Congress included Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and others—"we could not join in the same act of worship." The objection had the power to set a secular tone in public life at the outset of the American political experience.
Things could have gone either way. Samuel Adams of Boston spoke up. "Mr. S. Adams arose and said he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue who was at the same time a friend to his country," wrote John Adams. "He was a stranger in Philadelphia, but had heard that Mr. Duche (Dushay they pronounce it) deserved that character, and therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopal clergyman, might be desired to read prayers to the Congress tomorrow morning." Then, in a declarative nine-word sentence, John Adams recorded the birth of what Benjamin Franklin called America's public religion: "The motion was seconded and passed in the affirmative."
The next morning the Reverend Duche appeared, dressed in clerical garb. As it happened, the psalm assigned to be read that day by Episcopalians was the 35th. The delegates had heard rumors—later proved to be unfounded—that the British were storming Boston; everything seemed to be hanging in the balance. In the hall, with the Continental Army under attack from the world's mightiest empire, the priest read from the psalm: " 'Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.'"
Fight against them that fight against me: John Adams was at once stunned and moved. "I never saw a greater effect upon an audience," he told Abigail. "It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that morning." Adams long tingled from the moment—the close quarters of the room, the mental vision in every delegate's head of the patriots supposedly facing fire to the north, and, with Duche's words, the summoning of divine blessing and guidance on what they believed to be the cause of freedom.
As it was in the beginning, so it has been since: an American acknowledgment of God in the public sphere, with men of good will struggling to be reverent yet tolerant and ecumenical. That the Founding Fathers debated whether to open the American saga with prayer is wonderfully fitting, for their conflicts are our conflicts, their dilemmas our dilemmas. Largely faithful, they knew religious wars had long been a destructive force in the lives of nations, and they had no wish to repeat the mistakes of the world they were rebelling against. And yet they bowed their heads.
More than two centuries on, as millions of Americans observe Passover and commemorate Easter next week, the role of faith in public life is a subject of particularly pitched debate. From stem cells and science to the Supreme Court, from foreign policy and the 2008 presidential campaign to evangelical "Justice Sundays," the question of God and politics generates much heat but little light. Some Americans think the country has strayed too far from God; others fear that religious zealots (from the White House to the school board) are waging holy war on American liberty; and many, if not most, seem to believe that we are a nation hopelessly divided between believers and secularists.
History suggests, though, that there is hope, for we have been fighting these battles from our earliest days and yet the American experiment endures.
However dominant in terms of numbers, Christianity is only a thread in the American tapestry—it is not the whole tapestry. The God who is spoken of and called on and prayed to in the public sphere is an essential character in the American drama, but He is not specifically God the Father or the God of Abraham. The right's contention that we are a "Christian nation" that has fallen from pure origins and can achieve redemption by some kind of return to Christian values is based on wishful thinking, not convincing historical argument. Writing to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1790, George Washington assured his Jewish countrymen that the American government "gives to bigotry no sanction." In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the Senate in 1797, we declared "the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. ... " The Founders also knew the nation would grow ever more diverse; in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson's bill for religious freedom was "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." And thank God—or, if you choose, thank the Founders—that it did indeed.
Understanding the past may help us move forward. When the subject is faith in the public square, secularists reflexively point to the Jeffersonian "wall of separation between church and state" as though the conversation should end there; many conservative Christians defend their forays into the political arena by citing the Founders, as though Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin were cheerful Christian soldiers. Yet to claim that religion has only recently become a political force in the United States is uninformed and unhistorical; in practice, the "wall" of separation is not a very tall one. Equally wrongheaded is the tendency of conservative believers to portray the Founding Fathers as apostles in knee britches.
The great good news about America—the American gospel, if you will—is that religion shapes the life of the nation without strangling it. Driven by a sense of providence and an acute appreciation of the fallibility of humankind, the Founders made a nation in which faith should not be singled out for special help or particular harm. The balance between the promise of the Declaration of Independence, with its evocation of divine origins and destiny, and the practicalities of the Constitution, with its checks on extremism, remains the most brilliant of American successes.
The Founding Fathers and presidents down the ages have believed in a God who brought forth the heavens and the earth, and who gave humankind the liberty to believe in Him or not, to love Him or not, to obey Him or not. God had created man with free will, for love coerced is no love at all, only submission. That is why the religious should be on the front lines of defending freedom of religion.
Our finest hours—the Revolutionary War, abolition, the expansion of the rights of women, hot and cold wars against terror and tyranny, Martin Luther King Jr.'s battle against Jim Crow—can partly be traced to religious ideas about liberty, justice, and charity. Yet theology and scripture have also been used to justify our worst hours—from enslaving people based on the color of their skin to treating women as second-class citizens.
Still, Jefferson's declaration of independence grounded America's most fundamental human rights in the divine, as the gift of "Nature's God." The most unconventional of believers, Jefferson was no conservative Christian; he once went through the Gospels with a razor to excise the parts he found implausible. ("I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know," he remarked.) And yet he believed that "the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time," and to Jefferson, the "Creator" invested the individual with rights no human power could ever take away. The Founders, however, resolutely refused to evoke sectarian—specifically Christian—imagery: the God of the Declaration is largely the God of Deism, an Enlightenment-era vision of the divine in which the Lord is a Creator figure who works in the world through providence. The Founding Fathers rejected an attempt to rewrite the Preamble of the Constitution to say the nation was dependent on God, and from the Lincoln administration forward presidents and Congresses refused to support a "Christian Amendment" that would have acknowledged Jesus to be the "Ruler among the nations."
At the same time, the early American leaders were not absolute secularists. They wanted God in American public life, but in a way that was unifying, not divisive. They were politicians and philosophers, sages and warriors, churchmen and doubters. While Jefferson edited the Gospels, Franklin rendered the Lord's Prayer into the 18th-century vernacular, but his piety had its limits: he recalled falling asleep in a Quaker meeting house on his first day in Philadelphia. All were devoted to liberty, but most kept slaves. All were devoted to virtue, but many led complex—the religious would say sinful—private lives.
The Founders understood that theocracy was tyranny, but they did not feel they could—or should—try to banish religion from public life altogether. Washington improvised "So help me, God" at the conclusion of the first presidential oath and kissed the Bible on which he had sworn it. Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he privately told his cabinet, because he had struck a deal with "my Maker" that he would free the slaves if the Union forces triumphed at Antietam. The only public statement Franklin D. Roosevelt made on D-Day 1944 was to read a prayer he had written drawing on the 1928 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. John Kennedy said that "on earth, God's work must truly be our own," and Ronald Reagan was not afraid to say that he saw the world as a struggle between light and dark, calling the Soviet empire "the focus of evil in the modern world." George W. Bush credits Billy Graham with saving him from a life of drift and drink, and once said that Christ was his favorite philosopher.
Sectarian language, however, can be risky. In a sermon preached on the day George Washington left Philadelphia to take command of the Continental Army, an Episcopal priest said: "Religion and liberty must flourish or fall together in America. We pray that both may be perpetual." The battle to preserve faith and freedom has been a long one, and rages still: keeping religion and politics in proper balance requires eternal vigilance.
Our best chance of summoning what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature" may lie in recovering the true sense and spirit of the Founding era and its leaders, for they emerged from a time of trial with a moral creed which, while imperfect, averted the worst experiences of other nations. In that history lies our hope.
From AMERICAN GOSPEL by Jon Meacham, to be published by Random House on Tuesday, April 4. © 2006 by Jon Meacham.
For more on "American Gospel," go to JonMeacham.com