rain and the rhinoceros

After hearing word that Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guiliani this morning, I can’t help but think of Robertson’s infamous interview of Jerry Falwell two days after September 11, 2001. In case you don’t remember, in reference to the 9/11 attacks Jerry Falwell claimed that abortionists, gays and lesbians, and feminists “helped this happen.”

In his words,

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way–all of them who have tried to secularize America–I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

In response Pat Robertson said,

“Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.”

Of course, Falwell and Robertson are best known by terms like the Moral Majority and the Christian Right. With Falwell dead, Robertson has become the symbol of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, militant rhetoric of the Christian Right.

The Christian Left has always thought of the Right as approaching moral issues too narrowly. You will often hear the Left say, “Yes, abortion is wrong, but be consistent with your focus on the right to life. What about war, the death penalty?” We all know the debate. Although the Christian Right has also been known to support US military operations around the world, I think the Left thought that it was really the social conservatism that held the Christian Right together (i.e. pro-life, anti-gay marriage).

Okay, do you see the irony…the man who once agreed with Jerry Falwell that the gays and abortionists helped 9/11 to happen, has just endorsed a candidate for president that is both pro-gay and pro-choice. Why? I assume it is what Guiliani said, “He supports me because we agree on what we think are the primary issues facing Americans: dealing with Islamic terrorism, dealing with the war on terror, dealing with the out-of-control spending in Washington.” But, wait, wouldn’t endorsing Guiliani actually have the reverse effect. I mean if the gays and the abortionists are given more room to spread their agenda, doesn’t this help the terrorists - like on 9/11?

I just don’t get Robertson’s shift in foreign policy. It seems like he supports terrorism.

WWJD? …What Would Jerry (Falwell) Do?

ZNet | U.S.

Patriotism & The Fourth of July

by Howard Zinn; July 03, 2006
In celebration of the 4th of July there will be many speeches about the young people who “died for their country.” Let’s be honest about war. Those who gave their lives did not die for their country, as they were led to believe but for their government. The distinction between country and government is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence, which will be referred to again and again on July 4, but without attention to its meaning.

According to the Declaration of Independence—the fundamental document of democracy—governments are artificial creations, established by the people, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and charged by the people to ensure the equal right of all to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Furthermore, as the Declaration says, “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.”

It is the country that is primary—the people, the ideals of the sanctity of human life and the promotion of liberty. When a government recklessly expends the lives of its young for crass motives of profit and power, always claiming that its motives are pure and moral (“Operation Just Cause” was the invasion of Panama and “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in the present instance), it is violating its promise to the country. War is almost always a breaking of that promise. It does not enable the pursuit of happiness but brings despair and grief.

Mark Twain, having been called a “traitor” for criticizing the U.S. invasion of the Philippines, derided what he called “monarchical patriotism.” He said: “The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: ‘The King can do no wrong.’ We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had—the individual’s right to oppose both flag and country when he believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it, all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.”

If patriotism in the best sense (not in the monarchical sense) is loyalty to the principles of democracy, then who was the true patriot, Theodore Roosevelt, who applauded a massacre by American soldiers of 600 Filipino men, women, and children on a remote Philippine island, or Mark Twain, who denounced it?

Today, U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are not dying for their country, they are dying for their government. They are dying for Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. And yes, they are dying for the greed of the oil cartels, for the expansion of the American empire, for the political ambitions of the President. They are dying to cover up the theft of the nation’s wealth to pay for the machines of death. As of July 4, 2006, more than 2,500 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, more than 8,500 maimed or injured.

With the war in Iraq long delcared a “Mission Accomplished,” shall we revel in American military power and—against the history of modern empires—insist that the American empire will be beneficent?

Our own history shows something different. It begins with what was called, in our high school history classes, “westward expansion”—a euphemism for the annihilation or expulsion of the Indian tribes inhabiting the continent, all in the name of “progress” and “civilization.” It continues with the expansion of American power into the Caribbean at the turn of the century, then into the Philippines, and then repeated Marine invasions of Central America and long military occupations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
After World War II, Henry Luce, owner of Time, LIFE, and Fortune, spoke of “the American Century,” in which this country would organize the world “as we see fit.” Indeed, the expansion of American power continued, too often supporting military dictatorships in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, because they were friendly to American corporations and the American government.

The record does not justify confidence in Bush’s boast that the United States will bring democracy to Iraq. Should Americans welcome the expansion of the nation’s power, with the anger this has generated among so many people in the world? Should we welcome the huge growth of the military budget at the expense of health, education, the needs of children, one fifth of whom grow up in poverty?

Instead of being feared for our military prowess, we should want to be respected for our dedication to human rights. I suggest that a patriotic American who cares for her or his country might act on behalf of a different vision.

Should we not begin to redefine patriotism? We need to expand it beyond that narrow nationalism that has caused so much death and suffering. If national boundaries should not be obstacles to trade—some call it “globalization”—should they also not be obstacles to compassion and generosity?

Should we not begin to consider all children, everywhere, as our own? In that case, war, which in our time is always an assault on children, would be unacceptable as a solution to the problems of the world. Human ingenuity would have to search for other ways.