I have been following the story involving a leaked video of U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of three Taliban fighters. And I have been listening to the outrage pour out from Pentagon that they will identify the men involved and “bring them to justice.”

This is all familiar to me.

I’m reminded of the leaked photos that emerged from Abu Ghraib in the Iraq war. The pyramid. The woman pointing at the man wearing only a black cloth sack on his head. The mockery of the dead man who seemed to have an erection.

Again, outrage emerged from our country and the Pentagon.

“How could these men and women in uniform so desecrate the image and reputation of the United States of America? How could they treat these men in this way?”

The woman in the picture was found guilty and sentenced to a term of up to five and a half years.

And yet, all of this seems sanctimonious and pious and detached.

The outrage comes from those of us who watch tv from the couch, read the paper at the kitchen table, or listen to the news in our car. It comes from those who, whether for or against the war, reside in the country that is at war in Afghanistan and now concluding the war in Iraq. It comes from those who are removed from the situation and know only of war through a medium.

And yet, we are outraged.

“How could these soldiers of the finest military in the world desecrate a fallen enemy?” 

“Don’t they have any respect?” 

And I wonder, How detached are we?

That we would send our neighbors, siblings, and children off to fight in combat with real ammunition, with real danger, where real live people shoot at each other and bomb each other and kill each other – that we would send off our troops into war and expect that after all that they have seen and heard and done, that they would retain the ability to offer the cordial and “normal” courtesy to the deceased enemies?

How detached are we?

That we would send a soul to kill another, and expect that this individual would be able to remember that amidst all of this combat and violence, the enemy is still a person.

We treat the enemies as if they are targets, war as if it is safe and “smart”, and soldiers as if they are impermeable to the horrors they experience and we have the audacity to suggest that these men and women are desecrating the image and reputation of our country?

What does it say of a country that expects war and “normalcy” to coexist?

What does it say of a country that expects killing and “decency” to go hand in hand?

I think that the true horror to be found in this story is that we could honestly be disturbed or disappointed or surprised that war could cause a soldier to try and cope with the fullness of life and death in this sort of way.

We seem to have little reservation or regard to sending our troops off in battle to kill the enemies, but God forbid that one of them be inappropriate about it all!

If anything, these images should be a disruptive reminder to us of the outcomes and byproducts of war and violence to our soldiers.

That we could insist they engage in a method that produces these sort of dehumanizing behaviors should be enough for us to insist that we not place them in these situations any longer.

That we would expect them to kill and respect the sanctity of life is enough to suggest that our culture has so interwoven violence that we are no longer shocked when it is done – only when it is done “incorrectly.” 

That is where we should direct our outrage.

Peace.

Well there have been two GOP primary debates thus far.

I must confess, that I have not brought myself to actually watch either of the televised debates. I am pacing myself…

Yet, in reading over news articles the days after, I have been somewhat amazed by the occurrences.

While the media has focused primarily on the issue of Governor Perry’s thoughts towards Social Security, there has been little attention on some of smaller issues that have generated applause or condemnation of the audiences (Peter Catapano has a good piece here on one).

What I have been astonished at, thus far, is that the audiences have seemed to cheer the death penalty (as a form of American “justice”), cheered the desperate fate of a hypothetical sick man without insurance, and booed a policy allowing children of illegal immigrants to attend higher education.

So much for caring for those in prison, the sick, and the (children of) foreigners. All we need now is for some crowd’s applause of the rising percentage of our population living in poverty and I think that takes care of Jesus’s particular message in Matthew 25.31-48.

Perhaps it is the view of the candidates and the audience that the religious commands/principles are to be carried out by the religious communities rather than the government. But this is difficult to comprehend when the same candidates are largely for restricting choice for women and limiting marriage to only the heterosexual. The defenses I have heard so far for these two issues have not been political, they were religious.

Instead, it seems to me that the views of the candidates and the audiences reflect a religious perception that has been compromised by political ideology, domesticated, and limited to the issues the political party will embrace.

So now, not only can we have a political divide, we can also have a religious divide.

The GOP can be supported by the religious communities in the red states that focus on the issues of life and marriage. The DNC can be supported by the religious communities in the blue states that focus on the issues of poverty and social justice. And the two can come together for a few short hours on World Communion Sunday; the GOP churches can offer whole wheat communion wafers and organic grape juice while the DNC churches can offer deep-fried dough and grape faygo (see, we can get along!). We will have communed together by embracing one another’s practice, and then we can go our separate ways again.

Something tells me, however, that this – blue churches and red churches – is not what the world needs nor what God has in mind.

Let us work for and hope that the Church is able to push back against the politicization and reclaim the gospel – all of it.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted on this site.

We’ve made the move up to Hiram, and although we are missing our beloved community in Athens, we are greatly enjoying being in Ohio. Since my last post, I switched up the format and bought a new domain: FaithHopeANDPolitics.com

Hope you enjoy.

Peace.

 

Apparently, there are several things that you cannot say or talk about in church:

1. Swear-words.

Apparently, God is not down with the emotionally-loaded verbage. However, fortunately for many of us, it appears that God doesn’t have that great of hearing as God does not hear the cussing and all the other poor words we use outside of the church building.

2. Sex.

Although God may have created two people naked and hooked them up to begin with, you can’t talk about any of that stuff in church. God’s cool with it and actually wants you to do it, but just don’t talk about it in God’s presence. Again, if you want to talk about this, go outside of the church where God can’t hear you.

3. Politics.

Here, I’m confused.

First off, we have the “Faith and Values” voters, the Faith and Freedom Conference, and enough “God-talk” in presidential campaigns to make a Pentecostal Preacher tired of it.

Second, much of the bible and the tradition that we receive talk about politics; they talk about power and people, and what else is politics other than the distribution of power between people? Think of the prophets’ call to justice between all people; of Christ’s welcome of everyone – specifically those on the margins; and recall the, at times, harsh words to those who have everything (something about the first being last, those who have something will lose it, yada yada yada). There is a clear precedent to see that God has some concern for the matters between people and the matters between nations.

Yet, there is the idea that faith and politics do not mix.

At the thanksgiving dinner table, this may be good advice depending on the political diversity of your family. However, are we in the church abdicating some level of responsibility to do justice  by insisting that politics (the assessment and critique of people and power) not be spoken?

Sure, there is the precedent of a separation between Church and State.

I find this to be a good thing.  The State should not be supporting a particular religion or denomination. Unlike the habits of a particular preacher several miles down the road, the church should not be endorsing a party or candidate – not only does that remove each person’s ability to think and discern, but it replaces the ideal of Shalom with the “practicality of the possible.” Further, it goes on to create a congregational adhesive that is a political party or a single issue rather than Love and Grace.

However, I’m not sure that we have to believe that it’s either silence in church or theocracy.

 

 

Certainly, we must move beyond partisanship if we are to discuss and evaluate politics.

But now, I have a problem.

What do you do when a particular party seems to align itself with a view that is more offensive to God’s calling of justice than another?

I know, I know, I know. The question is too subjective.

How do you define “Justice”? Parties aren’t always monolithic in their priorities. No party is going to be in line with everything that God desires from and for us.

All subjectivities included, I’m still curious.

After discerning a vision of Justice; after understanding that we speak of the actions and words of some, not all; after confessing that we are not placing our hope in politics, but do understand our location within and our responsibility to care for all people and to seek a power structure that is not oppressive, but liberating…

Then, can we speak up in church and call out people and parties when they seem to encourage policies and actions that would go on to create more injustice than justice? Is it possible to do this and remain apart from partisanship? Is it possible to do this as a product of our faithfulness?

The last thing this country needs is another partisan jerk. But I’m pretty sure that we could use more people of faith talking about policies (not personalities) and politics (not partisanship) and how they either help or hurt people with the power that is exercised.

So, how do we engage our faithfulness in the world of politics?