rain and the rhinoceros

One of the best journalists in the U.S. Amy Goodman recently interviewed the so-called “intellectual rock star” Slavoj Zizek on Iraq, Bush, and the War on Terror. You can watch, listen, or read the transcript of Part I and Part II.

If you are flabbergasted by the whole media debacle over Obama and his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I highly recommend perusing D.W. Horstkoetter’s posts on the issue.

Check out this disturbing article in today’s Guardian. The article references a new book by Philippe Sands entitled Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values which reveals startling information about the involvement of top Bush aides in supplying and endorsing torture techniques. According to the Sands book some of the torture techniques used at Guantanamo were actually inspired by fictional Jack Bauer and the hit tv show 24.

In his brilliant work The Two Churches: Catholicism and Capitalism in the World System Michael Budde argues that Catholic anticommunism in the twentieth century was instrumental in bringing about U.S. Catholic nationalism. Despite their differences both liberal and conservative Catholics in America shared core values and beliefs that were passionately in opposition to communism. Catholic anticommunism was reinforced by American anticommunism. In a very real sense, “the bulwark of both true Americanism and authentic Catholicism” was anticommunism. As Budde states, “Communism, to the Catholic leadership of the 1950s, represented both the oppression visited on Catholics behind the Iron Curtain and a threat to the prosperity and freedom the Church had come to enjoy in the United States” (79). As many scholars have pointed out, the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960 represented “the fully Americanized status of Catholics” (80).

In the 1980s two major pastoral letters issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response and Economic Justice For All: Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy , do offer a critique of the policies of the U.S. government and American society. As Budde points out, however, these letters should be read from the perspective of U.S. Catholic Nationalism which limited the impact of the letters and “guided the ‘prophetic’ movements of the Catholic hierarchy” (87). Interestingly, as Budde points out, although both letters include a theological evaluation of the issues at hand drawing heavily from scripture and the Christian theological tradition, when it comes to application and consideration of public policy there is a distinct epistemological shift that employs natural law language. In other words, the theological language of the first sections are “translated” into more “neutral” language so that the letters can appeal more to “all people of good will” as opposed to only Christians. Many conservatives criticized the two pastoral letters for being unpatriotic and naive on issues of economics, but Budde argues that in fact the pastorals “gave the bishops yet another opportunity to demonstrate their patriotism, their political acumen, and their belief in a capitalist world economy. U.S. Catholic Nationalism, rather than being undermined, stands affirmed and as definitive of the U.S. Catholic mainstream” (89).

Budde provides four reasons why this is the case: 1) the bishops assume from the outset that the U.S. is a force for good in the world. There is no effort to question U.S. economic or political imperialism. 2) there is no structural analysis of U.S. power and prosperity. “Rather than examine capitalism, the bishops seek to hide behind an economic agnosticism that is ‘pragmatic’ in nature” (89). 3) the bishops give a “nonconflictive, functionalist picture of U.S. society, focusing on questions of the “common good” without addressing questions of class-divisions and contradictory interests. 4) in the epistemological shift or translation of biblical/theological reflection into natural law discourse potential conflict with secular power is minimized. The sections are so poorly integrated that the biblical/theological reflections of the first section “look like religious gloss on an essentially nonreligious document” (92).

Budde concludes that the documents heavy reliance on natural law is the bishops’ attempt to speak to the problems of secular society. It is thought that theological discourse is too “sectarian” and cannot be used to appeal to a pluralistic society. Budde writes, “In weighing the tasks - dialogue with the faithful or dialogue with secular power - the bishops have chosen the latter as more important. Dialogue with the faithful on matters of economic justice, were it done seriously and without regard to secular opinion, would open the Church to renewed charges of ’separateness’ or ‘un-American-ness.’ Dialogue with secular power, particularly on terms amenable to that power, enhances the respectability and American-ness of U.S. Catholic spokesmen - another step ahead in the history of U.S. Catholic Nationalism” (93).

I hope the ambassador is wrong on this…

US, Vatican share goals in Iraq, American ambassador says

Rome, Mar. 26, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The new US ambassador to the Holy See says that Pope Benedict XVI and President George W. Bush will explore their common goals– including the pursuit of religious freedom, human rights, and a stable democracy in Iraq– when they meet during the Pontiff’s visit to Washington in April.

In an interview with Vatican Radio, Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon said that the Pope and the President had found ample common ground in previous discussions. “They hit it off, so to speak,” she reported.

Questioned about the war in Iraq, and the Vatican calls for further efforts to safeguard the Christian minority there, the US envoy observed that after the death of Archbishop Paul Faraj Raho, the US and the Vatican issued statements that were “very much in the same vein– condemning the violence, condemning terrorism, and especially condemning religion as a pretext for terrorism.” The situation in Iraq is difficult, however, she said, because “there are elements in society that are determined to defeat the common aim of the United States and the Holy See.”

Acknowledging that there was “some initial disagreement” between the Vatican and the US regarding the war in Iraq, Glendon said that today the two parties share a common goal there: “to promote the building of a free and democratic and stable society where persons of all religious faiths will be protected.”

Article from Catholic World News

H/T Natasha Meyers

In his provocative article, “Communion and Otherness,”1 Zizioulas states not without a tone of lament, “The world at this moment is dominated by Western culture.”2 In a time when Western political and economic systems dominate and exert themselves on the world, Orthodoxy cannot afford to become merely another “‘exotic’ religion offering refuge to those seeking mystical and other extraordinary experiences.”3 Instead, following the ancient church as a model, Orthodoxy, especially those members living in the West, must engage and strive to transform culture. Zizioulas urges the Orthodox church “to relate tradition to the problems of modern Western man, which are rapidly becoming the problems of humanity in its global dimension.”4 The individualism that is rooted in the “very foundations of this culture” regrettably views the happiness and rights of the individual so highly that it makes “protection from the other. . . a fundamental necessity.”5 As a result, “we are forced and even encouraged to consider the other as our enemy before we can treat him or her as our friend.”6 Acceptance of the other is always conditional on the basis that this other does not “threaten our privacy or insofar as he is useful for our individual happiness.”7In Zizioulas’ assessment the values and ideals of Western culture, heralded by the United States in particular, actually perpetuate fear of the other.

This essay is broken up into two parts. In the first section, we will make the case that the Bush administration with the help of the media8 has constructed a depersonalized and stereotyped Arab/Muslim other9 to justify a seemingly unending “war on terrorism.” In the second section, we will undertake a study of Zizioulas’ theology of the Eucharist to support our thesis that the Eucharist enacts a vision that resists all methods of depersonalization and stereotyping by opening up a set of human relations in which the other is affirmed as particular and unique. Our hope in this paper is to offer a small contribution to the recent retrieval of the social meaning of Christian worship.10

———————————————

1. The article first appeared in John Zizioulas, “Communion and Otherness,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38.04, pp. 347-361. A revised form of the essay appears as the introduction of Zizioulas’ recent publication Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 1-12.
2. Zizioulas, “Communion and Otherness,” 348.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid
5..Ibid., 349.
6. Ibid., 349.
7. Ibid., 349.
8. I am fully aware that the term, “the media,” carries some ambiguity. By media, I mean to refer specifically to mainstream corporate news outlets, such as CNN or The New York Times. Analysis of other forms of media, such as the portrayal of Arab/Muslims in film, literature, theatre, photography, and art is beyond the scope of this paper and has been discussed elsewhere. See, for instance, Matthew Bernstein and Gaylyn Studlar eds., Visions of the East: Orientalism in film (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997).
9. Of course, the Western construction of an Arab/Muslim other is hardly a recent phenomenon. Here, I take Edward Said’s basic thesis for granted. See Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon books, 1978. See also, Douglas Little, American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East Since 1945 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2001). Said’s basic thesis is that knowledge of the East in Western imagination has been generated primarily by constructs that juxtapose the East as the antithesis of the West.
10. See especially William T. Cavanaugh, Theopolitical Imagination (New York: T&T Clark, 2003) and Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998); Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells eds., The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004); Bernd Wannenwetsch, Political Worship: Ethics for Christian Citizens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Over the next couple of weeks I will be posting an essay that I recently wrote in the form of a series. The full title of the paper is “The Eucharist and the ‘War on Terrorism’: John Zizioulas’ theology of the Eucharist and the refusal to reject the Other.” This is my first blogging attempt at posting a “series,” so bare with me. The following is the first post of the series and the beginning of the essay.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, coupled with the President’s rhetoric about the shadowy nature of the enemy, played into people’s fear of the other. The Bush administration, with the help of the media, constructed a larger-than-life “terrorist enemy” and promised to rid the entire world of evil forever through the deployment of massive military force. By exploiting this fear of the other, the Bush administration gained wide support from the nation’s citizens, including many Christians, to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and later, under a related pretext, the invasion of Iraq for the second time in just over a decade.

Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas directly identifies the fear of the other with the fall of humanity. He writes, “There is a pathology built into the very roots of our existence, inherited through our birth, and that is the fear of the other.”1 Adam’s sin was the “rejection of the Other par excellence, our Creator.”2 Any hope for reconciliation with the other, therefore, relies on our first being reconciled to God. Our fear of the other is, however, reflective of a much deeper and universal fear of all otherness.3 The fear of all otherness is the fear that difference poses a threat to our individual security. Even when fear of the other is apparently overcome, when we begin to accept a particular other, for instance, Zizioulas argues that we do so only on the condition that this other is similar to ourselves. In other words, we are resistant, and indeed cannot even bare to accept, much less affirm radical difference or absolute otherness.

When we gather together in the mystery of the Holy Eucharist we enter into communion with the triune God, with one another, and with the whole of creation. At the same time, in the Eucharistic celebration otherness is radically affirmed and difference no longer leads to division. In Zizioulas’ words, in the Eucharist “difference ceases to be divisive and becomes good. . . unity or communion does not destroy but rather affirms diversity and otherness.”4 The Eucharist is thus the act in which “communion and otherness is realized par excellence.”5 This series of posts will explore John Zizioulas’ notion that communion and otherness is fully realized in the Eucharistic celebration. Building on the work of Zizioulas we will argue that the Eucharist enacts a vision or an “ethos” that resists all methods of depersonalization and stereotyping of the other by positively affirming the absolute uniqueness and particularity of each and every human person. We will show that Zizioulas’ theology of the Eucharist has a cosmic and profoundly social dimension which has implications for how the church should respond to the distorted construction of an “Arab/Muslim” other in the United States led “war on terrorism.”

____________________________
1John Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 1.
2 Communion & Otherness, 1.
3 Ibid., 2.
4 Ibid., 7.
5 Ibid., 7.

According to a recent article a senior United States official said that cluster bombs are not bad when used responsibly. Of course, cluster bombs are bad precisely because they cannot be used responsibly.

For those of you who don’t know:

“Cluster bombs are small explosive bomblets carried in a large cannister that opens in mid-air, scattering them over a wide area. The bomblets may be delivered by aircraft, rocket, or by artillery projectiles.The CBU (cluster bomb unit) 26, which was widely used in Laos, is an anti-personnel fragmentation bomb that consists of a large bombshell holding 670 tennis ball-sized bomblets, each of which contain 300 metal fragments. If all the bomblets detonate, some 200,000 steel fragments will be propelled over an area the size of several football fields, creating a deadly killing zone. Because the fragments travel at high velocity, when they strike people they set up pressure waves within the body that do horrific damage to soft tissue and organs: even a single fragment hitting somewhere else in the body can rupture the spleen, or cause the intestines to explode. This is not an unfortunate, unintended side-effect; these bombs were designed to do this.

Because cluster bombs disperse widely and are difficult to target precisely, they are especially dangerous when used near civilian areas. In addition, they are prone to failure: if the container opens at the wrong height, or the bomblets don’t fuse properly, or their descent is broken by trees, or they land on soft ground - they may not detonate. With a high dud rate estimated to be 10 to 30 percent, unexploded cluster bombs lay on the ground becoming, in effect, super landmines, and can explode at the slightest touch. They have proven to be a serious, long-lasting threat, especially to civilians, but also to soldiers, peacekeepers and bomb clearance experts. Children, who are sometimes attracted to the bomblets’ bright colors and interesting shapes, represent a high percentage of victims.” Bombies

Cluster bombs have been a favorite of the United States dropping them on Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is estimated that 400 million people live near unexploded cluster bombs. In Israel’s offensive against Lebanon in 2006 they were extensively used as well. In recent years, Norway has led an international effort called the “Oslo Process” to ban the weapons and nearly 100 countries have signed on, but the United States has again refused to sign.

Well, I finally finished my semester at St. Thomas and I’m thankful to have come out of the mess mostly alive. I have about a month off now to relax and hang out with Marcia and Owen. Although I find it deeply disturbing, I’m thoroughly enjoying Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag by Carolyn Marvin and David W. Ingle. Lately, the notion of American ”civil religion” has been on my mind and I think Marvin and Ingle do a superb job of bringing to light the deeply religious character of nationalism.    Here are a few interesting quotes from the first couple chapters:

 ”Though [religious] denominations are permitted to exist in the United States, they are not permitted to kill, for their beliefs are not officially true. What is really true in any society is what is worth killing for, and what citizens may be compelled to sacrifice their lives for. . . despite a sturdy American tradition of separating sectarian faith from the state, national faith is inextricably wedded to governance, which is ultimately the question of who shall live and die. Only nationalism motivates the sacrificial devotion of citizens, without which there can be no effective governance. In relation that faith, sectarian religion is best understood as a jealous competitor” (9-10).  

The purpose of Marvin and Ingle’s work is to “show that the totem system of American patriotism is a symbolically coherent, deeply primitive, powerfully religious enterprise organized around a violent identity-crystallizing mechanism. We propose that the totem is the violently sacrificed body symbolized by the flag. The flag ritually transformed is the god of society renewed” (11).