It was wrong of Clinton to say something misleading enough I’d call it a lie - but what Bush said bothers me more because it refers to an ongoing procedure of the government which as best I understand violates international convention about the appropriate limits on interrogation techniques. It’s intentional and systematic. It’s not “I made some dumb choices then tried to cover them up”.
I am wondering–to what extent do the lies we tell reveal our story–our nature?
I’m reading “Eichman In Jerusalem, a study on the banality of evil”. I’ve just started it, but my understanding is that her thesis is that, for instance, the evil that the U.S. government is committing in torturing people is … only possible, or indeed only ever happens, because all the “normal” people, like you and me, mostly don’t take steps to stop it. Our tax dollars are used to pay people to torture people, and meanwhile, as long as no one bothers us too much, we continue to … blog, go to school, oversee our childrens’ growing up process, and so forth.
I am also wondering if which lies cause us distress say something about our stories. In the church I grew up in, for instance, back in late 98 early 99, my church took up a special offering to pull a full page ad on the back of the local weekly newspaper. The ad was a response to the entire Monica Lewinsky debacle. It said, in something like size 44 font in the middle of the back page:
Mr. President, Repent. And Resign
I’m just wondering where the public response to the U.S. torturing people is? Is it more or less … important to refrain from torturing people than it is to refrain from committing adultery? And however you answer, why, and what does that say about you? Or me?
Personally, I believe a lie is a lie. However, each lie has its own motivations and its own consequences.
Likewise, a sin is a sin (a lie being one kind of sin). Each sin has its own motivations and its own consequences.
It is odd how public reactions differ re: the Clinton lie and the Bush lie.
Reminds me of how the congressman who committed adultery with a woman was welcomed back to Congress by a standing ovation while the one who attempted to commit adultery with another man was immediately asked to resign.
The lie Clinton told said a lot about him. The lie Bush is telling says a lot about all of us.
The lie Clinton told made me disappointed in him. It probably hurt him and some people around him. One can debate how much harm it did and whether there was a lasting nature to it, but there was no direct physical injury as a result. The lie Bush is telling is quite different.
Interestingly, Fresh Air, on NPR, had a professional interrogator on yesterday. He talked about how useful torture might be and said that the concepts put forth by shows like ‘24′ of pain leading to immediate and accurate intelligence are absolutely false. He gave several examples of how non-torture interrogations in which he was involved while with the US Army got people what was needed in a useful time frame. Then he talked about the resistance he faces when he does training now because the people he is training say they simply don’t believe his warm & fuzzy techniques are useful.
The lie Bush is telling is a lie that is spreading and a lie that no amount of truth may be able to curtail. Part of the reason it may be a popular lie is because it also plays to the human desire for retribution. It doesn’t matter if you actually get useful info as long as you can hurt the purported evil-doer. However, as one German citizen was recently contending in US courts, that isn’t really fair when the person you are revenging yourself on wasn’t a bad guy to begin with.
What is most troubling to me, though, is that connection to Christianity in this ongoing lie. If national interests demand that we harm others, I can sort of understand even if I am radically opposed. When the person doing these despicable acts wraps himself in the church, the Bible and the name of Jesus (in addition to the flag) then I get pretty angry. If we change enough American laws torture can become legal (I trust the people of this country will recognize the short-sighted stupidity of doing that, but …). But there is not way to change the teachings of Jesus so that they allow such things.
It’s really interesting to me that you use the word “sin”. It’s a terminology I tend not to think in anymore. I tend to think in terms of “horizontal” relationship now, and “sin” has a big “vertical” relationship connotation for me.
In terms of “horizontal” relationship, It seemed to me that the act about which Clinton lied is about 3 orders of magnitude less devastating that the act about which Bush is lying.
The lie Bush is telling is a lie that is spreading and a lie that no amount of truth may be able to curtail.
and
What is most troubling to me, though, is that connection to Christianity in this ongoing lie.
David
I actually find the former a lot more troubling than the latter. It seems to me that the former has much larger possible consequences for the human race in the here and now. I’m thinking about the holocaust. It seems to me that the results of the holocaust are much more devastating, in general, than it’s connection with Christianity. Am I making sense?
It seems to me that the results of the holocaust are much more devastating, in general, than it’s connection with Christianity.
I guess why I find the connection more troubling is the way it infects the thing that should stand against the lie and changes that thing into something that perpetuates the lie.
The Holocaust was the devastating fulfillment to centuries of passive and aggressive antisemitism. The seeds for that were sown only 2-3 centuries after the death of Jesus when an early church figure essentially said Christians should blame the Jews. For centuries in Europe the dispersed Jews were denied citizenship, forbidden from owning property, and frequently scapegoated for all sorts of ills (economic, ecological and biological). A mythology grew up around them regarding human sacrifice, devil worship, lack of cleanliness, etc.
The church often took an active role in this and eventually became a sponsor for bloody pogroms where Jews were lynched, businesses and homes burned, and families driven from towns because of their religious affiliation. When Hitler came along that had provided a fertile ground for him to sow the seeds of destruction for the Jewish race. Many Europeans already saw the Jews as sub-human, so mass murder could be ignored even if it wasn’t condoned.
The church should have stood against it just as it should be standing against torture now. Instead, many “Christians” seem to believe since it is Muslims who are targeted it is acceptable. They are heathens and violent heathens to boot.
Societies often do such things. While not good, it has happened since civilization began. But followers of Jesus should be a counter-balance to this. They should with one voice echo the words of their leader in saying: Love those who hate you, do good to those that harm you. Instead, the stand at the front of the mob screaming: “Crucify them.”
Christians are not supposed to be susceptible to fear, they are expressly ordered not to harm or hate. They supposedly represent a man who said with his sacrifice: It is better for one to die for the good of the many.
I think I hear what you are saying. I think that used to be a lot more troubling to me when I considered myself to be more “on the inside” of “the church”.
Now I’m thinking I have reached a point where I just mentally automatically oust from the category “follower of Jesus” anyone who does what you describe– that is, who stands up *for* war, *for* torture, *for* hatred. I suppose this isn’t a totally … “senstive” or “compassionate” way for me to think. I’m more than happy to discuss this with anyone who finds it offensive. It seems reasonably clear that a largish chunk of “the church”, both historically and today, are simply *not* followers of Jesus. That just strikes me as … par for the course, I guess.
It isn’t about sensitive or compassionate for me. I can’t judge these people. I don’t know what is going on in their heads or their hearts. But what they are doing is wrong. And they are doing it in the name of someone I claim to follow too. I wish they would abandon the term Christ follower and leave it to those who think it means one should do what the name suggests: follow Jesus.
Bad things happen all the time. People are always killing people for one reason or another. I don’t condone it, but it happened before I came here and likely will continue after I’m gone. But for God’s sake could people stop doing it in the name of Jesus?
He talked about how useful torture might be and said that the concepts put forth by shows like ‘24? of pain leading to immediate and accurate intelligence are absolutely false.
David, I will be posting a new discussion thread this week on 24 and Torture. Stay tuned…
I guess why I find the connection more troubling is the way it infects the thing that should stand against the lie and changes that thing into something that perpetuates the lie.
Wow. Now that was a brilliant sentence, David!
The church should have stood against it just as it should be standing against torture now.
I was encouraged by the Evangelical Declaration Against Torture that was issued earlier this year. But much more needs to be done for the church in America to recover its courage and its prophetic voice.
What struck me about these 2 lies is the differences in the personal / public nature of them. In think many folk see Clinton’s lie falling in his personal life’s arena, while Bush’s lie falls in a more public one. My impression is that if you exist along the left-er side of the political / theological specttrum you tend to focus more on the public than the private. If you’re more to the right, then the private arena matters more to you. I find this bifurcation troubling within the church community. Paul’s “lists” regarding right living should be applied to our corporate as well as our private lives. Both sides of the political and theological spectrum should be upset by both men’s destructive behavior. It think this is why Jesus said we shouldn’t commit adultery and we should pray for and bless our enemies. What do you all think? Is it possible to hold a high standard for both our public and private lives?
Is it possible to hold a high standard for both our public and private lives?
Ryan–welcome to JaC!
It seems like we don’t do super well holding either.
Having said that–it seems *more* important for *me* to be kinda loud about holding up a high standard for what you call “our public lives” than for you you call “our private lives”, and I mean that in the sense that it’s pretty freaking arrogant for me to tell Bill Clinton directly, or to say to a third party “What you are doing in your “private life” is messed up–it’s hurting people”. Whereas with our so called “public life”, when I talk about what we’re doing wrong, I’m assuming part of the guilt.
Does that make sense? In the one case it’s “You’re doing it wrong” (condescension) and in the other case it’s “We’re doing it wrong”. (confession)
Is it possible to hold a high standard for both our public and private lives?
The bifurcation you mention would seem to be a false dichotomy. If you are Godly in your private life, that should bleed over into your public presence. And vice versa.
However, the operative concept when speaking about Jesus and standards is that I am to hold myself to best standard I can achieve and rely on honesty plus grace to cover my failings. The troubling aspect for me is when religious/political conservatives set standards for others that they don’t meet themselves. The problem with speaking from the moral high ground is that you have to a) go there first and b) never leave that place. If one can’t do that, one should probably avoid telling others that they should live on such rocky peaks.
Perhaps the issue isn’t living up to lofty standards of conduct outlined by folks like Paul. Perhaps the real thing is to try and avoid self-serving things in an attempt to love your neighbor as yourself. And then to admit (to God and yourself, if no others) when selfishness wins out.
Unfortunately, the nature of politics works against this in a variety of ways. Admitting failure is largely forbidden. There is not a huge benefit to honesty. And public perception far outweighs any personal reality. What’s more, the job of a politician (and certainly that of President) requires selfishness. Perhaps not on a personal level, but what are national interests if not a statement that the wants/needs of one nation outweigh those of another?
But back to the lies. Clearly the lie Clinton lived (as well as the one he told) was destructive. I’m sure it affected his marriage and couldn’t help but be detrimental to his family. Some of the resulting struggles for Ms. Lewinsky have been documented. And others clearly suffered from one man’s lack of integrity (there may have been many others since there is a question of whether this was a single incident or part of a larger pattern). Those things should not be minimized.
But the lies being told by President Bush would appear to be far more destructive. There are documented cases of people who have died from torture performed by US agents or proxies. Part of the ongoing discussion over what legally constitutes torture is to protect those who hurt or killed from being prosecuted. And the ripple affects go out into families who will raise terrorists, those who will die because terrorists were given impetus, lack of trust at home and abroad for a government willing to take extraordinary measures to hide its activities, and the growing number of US citizens who are coming to believe that it is not simply justifiable but also good to hurt others in order to further US interests. Moreover, this appears to be part of a larger pattern that resulted in, for one thing, a war in which tens of thousands innocent civilians (by highly conservative figures) have died.
Finally, it is one thing for politicians to argue about such things, parsing words to please some purpose. (Which sentence is more disturbing: “It all depends on what the definition of is is”; or “It all depends on what the definition of torture is.”) But it is quite another thing for followers of Jesus to be having such discussions. Maybe both adultery and torture are sins, but that shouldn’t condone either.
Thanks for the welcome - I know what you mean. I grew up pretty well immersed in an environment where personal ethics were what you worried about more than any kind of collective / public ethical awareness. On the right it seems there’s a tendency to “rubber stamp” someone’s public life as “good” if we see evdence of their private life lining up with our expectations. I think the reverse is true as well - so many conservative Christians write Bill off entirely because of his “lie” and ignore the good that came under his leadership in the social arena. And as long as George gives off the aura of strong personal morality, many Christians turn a blind eye to his leadership on the more social level. I guess I’m talking in terms of being “morally conservative and socially progressive” - some kind of balance of personal and private where the language of right and wrong apply equally to both spheres. I appreciate your distinction of including yourself in the guilt of “standing by” while letting evil happen vs. judging what someone does on their own time outside the public sphere. I think I’m in a place where I’m exploring a bibilical morality for all parts of my life - no longer seeing Paul’s lists and Jesus’ “bewares” as either personal or public. I think there’s a strong case to be made for holding to both. I realize that my thinking around my earlier post was from within the faith community. I think as a brother in Christ to both Bill and George, I can hold them both accountable (with all humility of course) and they me. It’s interesting for me to try and keep things on that level (within the Christian family so-to-speak). I do think our approach changes when that aspect of our relationship to others change. Hope some of that made sense…
It’s really horrible and saddening to me that a president and a vice president who were in many ways seen as “weak” by conservative christians in this country went on to win the nobel peace prize (Carter, Gore), while the two candidates who defeated them (Reagan in 80 and Bush in 2000) went on to lead the American government into enormous chunks of responsibility for over 100,000 civilian deaths each (well, technically, by the most conservative estimate, bush isn’t there yet. But he will be). I’ll be posting something touching on this tomorrow.
It’s almost as if a purposeful “weakness” in the light of the amount of power in the office is really much rather a good thing than a bad thing. I mean Bill Clinton, for instance, has expressed some regret about what happened in Rwanda during his tenure. But in light of U.S. success in interventions in such cases, it seems astoundingly wise in retrospect that he held back.
Plus now he’s doing some monga kewl stuff in that and other regards. How is it that if you look at the post-presidency records of the last 5 presidents, the more loudly “Christian” ones have by far the weaker records, while the supposedly “weak” ones that the evangelical right in this country eschewed have such relative strong records? hmmmmm…..
I haven’t heard specifically about Clinton’s Rwanda regrets, but part of them may have to do with U.S. silence rather than our lack of intervention. As in the case of Darfour, the U.S. government largely ignored what was happening in Rwanda until hundreds of thousands were dead. That can be contrasted with some European nations (France, for instance) that tacitly approved of the upheaval that led to genocide. Likewise, simply speaking out may not have made much difference under the circumstances. But given what occurred, he may regret simply ignoring the situation for too long.
How is it that if you look at the post-presidency records of the last 5 presidents, the more loudly “Christian” ones have by far the weaker records, while the supposedly “weak” ones that the evangelical right in this country eschewed have such relative strong records?
More than one close relative told me, prior to the 2004 election, that they were unhappy with several things about Bush but he was the more “moral” candidate. I have asked (and gotten no response) if he seems like the more moral president now. I think that hearkens to Ryan’s question. Can you be a moral person if the “moral” things you do are based on things that would fail to meet your own standards of morality — like lies and misrepresentations? Can a course be moral if the path to it requires a degree of immorality?
One of the disturbing things for me from conservative Christians is the hard line they take on certain moral issues (abortion, homosexuality, adultery by Democrats) but how those suddenly become fungible in terms of the ends they want to achieve. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect. If you truly believe these things then you must hew to them without compromise. If you don’t apply them to everything all of the time, do you truly believe them?
Comment by: Helen
1 10/10/07 6:51 AM | Comment Link |It was wrong of Clinton to say something misleading enough I’d call it a lie - but what Bush said bothers me more because it refers to an ongoing procedure of the government which as best I understand violates international convention about the appropriate limits on interrogation techniques. It’s intentional and systematic. It’s not “I made some dumb choices then tried to cover them up”.
I think if Bush had been on the receiving end of any of the things he doesn’t call torture he might rename them. In what sense are ‘head slapping, frigid temperatures and simulated drowning’ not torture?
Comment by: benjamin ady
2 10/10/07 9:04 AM | Comment Link |Helen. Indeed.
I am wondering–to what extent do the lies we tell reveal our story–our nature?
I’m reading “Eichman In Jerusalem, a study on the banality of evil”. I’ve just started it, but my understanding is that her thesis is that, for instance, the evil that the U.S. government is committing in torturing people is … only possible, or indeed only ever happens, because all the “normal” people, like you and me, mostly don’t take steps to stop it. Our tax dollars are used to pay people to torture people, and meanwhile, as long as no one bothers us too much, we continue to … blog, go to school, oversee our childrens’ growing up process, and so forth.
I am also wondering if which lies cause us distress say something about our stories. In the church I grew up in, for instance, back in late 98 early 99, my church took up a special offering to pull a full page ad on the back of the local weekly newspaper. The ad was a response to the entire Monica Lewinsky debacle. It said, in something like size 44 font in the middle of the back page:
I’m just wondering where the public response to the U.S. torturing people is? Is it more or less … important to refrain from torturing people than it is to refrain from committing adultery? And however you answer, why, and what does that say about you? Or me?
Comment by: Doreen Mannion
3 10/11/07 1:07 PM | Comment Link |Personally, I believe a lie is a lie. However, each lie has its own motivations and its own consequences.
Likewise, a sin is a sin (a lie being one kind of sin). Each sin has its own motivations and its own consequences.
It is odd how public reactions differ re: the Clinton lie and the Bush lie.
Reminds me of how the congressman who committed adultery with a woman was welcomed back to Congress by a standing ovation while the one who attempted to commit adultery with another man was immediately asked to resign.
http://www.myspace.com/poetcomic
poetcomic.blogspot.com
Comment by: David H
4 10/11/07 7:44 PM | Comment Link |The lie Clinton told said a lot about him. The lie Bush is telling says a lot about all of us.
The lie Clinton told made me disappointed in him. It probably hurt him and some people around him. One can debate how much harm it did and whether there was a lasting nature to it, but there was no direct physical injury as a result. The lie Bush is telling is quite different.
Interestingly, Fresh Air, on NPR, had a professional interrogator on yesterday. He talked about how useful torture might be and said that the concepts put forth by shows like ‘24′ of pain leading to immediate and accurate intelligence are absolutely false. He gave several examples of how non-torture interrogations in which he was involved while with the US Army got people what was needed in a useful time frame. Then he talked about the resistance he faces when he does training now because the people he is training say they simply don’t believe his warm & fuzzy techniques are useful.
The lie Bush is telling is a lie that is spreading and a lie that no amount of truth may be able to curtail. Part of the reason it may be a popular lie is because it also plays to the human desire for retribution. It doesn’t matter if you actually get useful info as long as you can hurt the purported evil-doer. However, as one German citizen was recently contending in US courts, that isn’t really fair when the person you are revenging yourself on wasn’t a bad guy to begin with.
What is most troubling to me, though, is that connection to Christianity in this ongoing lie. If national interests demand that we harm others, I can sort of understand even if I am radically opposed. When the person doing these despicable acts wraps himself in the church, the Bible and the name of Jesus (in addition to the flag) then I get pretty angry. If we change enough American laws torture can become legal (I trust the people of this country will recognize the short-sighted stupidity of doing that, but …). But there is not way to change the teachings of Jesus so that they allow such things.
Comment by: benjamin ady
5 10/13/07 10:04 AM | Comment Link |Doreen,
It’s really interesting to me that you use the word “sin”. It’s a terminology I tend not to think in anymore. I tend to think in terms of “horizontal” relationship now, and “sin” has a big “vertical” relationship connotation for me.
In terms of “horizontal” relationship, It seemed to me that the act about which Clinton lied is about 3 orders of magnitude less devastating that the act about which Bush is lying.
Comment by: benjamin ady
6 10/13/07 10:07 AM | Comment Link |and
David
I actually find the former a lot more troubling than the latter. It seems to me that the former has much larger possible consequences for the human race in the here and now. I’m thinking about the holocaust. It seems to me that the results of the holocaust are much more devastating, in general, than it’s connection with Christianity. Am I making sense?
Comment by: David H
7 10/13/07 1:29 PM | Comment Link |I guess why I find the connection more troubling is the way it infects the thing that should stand against the lie and changes that thing into something that perpetuates the lie.
The Holocaust was the devastating fulfillment to centuries of passive and aggressive antisemitism. The seeds for that were sown only 2-3 centuries after the death of Jesus when an early church figure essentially said Christians should blame the Jews. For centuries in Europe the dispersed Jews were denied citizenship, forbidden from owning property, and frequently scapegoated for all sorts of ills (economic, ecological and biological). A mythology grew up around them regarding human sacrifice, devil worship, lack of cleanliness, etc.
The church often took an active role in this and eventually became a sponsor for bloody pogroms where Jews were lynched, businesses and homes burned, and families driven from towns because of their religious affiliation. When Hitler came along that had provided a fertile ground for him to sow the seeds of destruction for the Jewish race. Many Europeans already saw the Jews as sub-human, so mass murder could be ignored even if it wasn’t condoned.
The church should have stood against it just as it should be standing against torture now. Instead, many “Christians” seem to believe since it is Muslims who are targeted it is acceptable. They are heathens and violent heathens to boot.
Societies often do such things. While not good, it has happened since civilization began. But followers of Jesus should be a counter-balance to this. They should with one voice echo the words of their leader in saying: Love those who hate you, do good to those that harm you. Instead, the stand at the front of the mob screaming: “Crucify them.”
Christians are not supposed to be susceptible to fear, they are expressly ordered not to harm or hate. They supposedly represent a man who said with his sacrifice: It is better for one to die for the good of the many.
That’s why it seems more troubling to me.
Comment by: benjamin ady
8 10/13/07 4:42 PM | Comment Link |David
I think I hear what you are saying. I think that used to be a lot more troubling to me when I considered myself to be more “on the inside” of “the church”.
Now I’m thinking I have reached a point where I just mentally automatically oust from the category “follower of Jesus” anyone who does what you describe– that is, who stands up *for* war, *for* torture, *for* hatred. I suppose this isn’t a totally … “senstive” or “compassionate” way for me to think. I’m more than happy to discuss this with anyone who finds it offensive. It seems reasonably clear that a largish chunk of “the church”, both historically and today, are simply *not* followers of Jesus. That just strikes me as … par for the course, I guess.
Comment by: David H
9 10/13/07 8:36 PM | Comment Link |It isn’t about sensitive or compassionate for me. I can’t judge these people. I don’t know what is going on in their heads or their hearts. But what they are doing is wrong. And they are doing it in the name of someone I claim to follow too. I wish they would abandon the term Christ follower and leave it to those who think it means one should do what the name suggests: follow Jesus.
Bad things happen all the time. People are always killing people for one reason or another. I don’t condone it, but it happened before I came here and likely will continue after I’m gone. But for God’s sake could people stop doing it in the name of Jesus?
Comment by: Rachel
10 10/14/07 12:38 PM | Comment Link |David, I will be posting a new discussion thread this week on 24 and Torture. Stay tuned…
Comment by: Rachel
11 10/14/07 12:49 PM | Comment Link |Wow. Now that was a brilliant sentence, David!
I was encouraged by the Evangelical Declaration Against Torture that was issued earlier this year. But much more needs to be done for the church in America to recover its courage and its prophetic voice.
Comment by: RyanBD
12 10/16/07 3:48 PM | Comment Link |What struck me about these 2 lies is the differences in the personal / public nature of them. In think many folk see Clinton’s lie falling in his personal life’s arena, while Bush’s lie falls in a more public one. My impression is that if you exist along the left-er side of the political / theological specttrum you tend to focus more on the public than the private. If you’re more to the right, then the private arena matters more to you. I find this bifurcation troubling within the church community. Paul’s “lists” regarding right living should be applied to our corporate as well as our private lives. Both sides of the political and theological spectrum should be upset by both men’s destructive behavior. It think this is why Jesus said we shouldn’t commit adultery and we should pray for and bless our enemies. What do you all think? Is it possible to hold a high standard for both our public and private lives?
Comment by: benjamin ady
13 10/16/07 5:03 PM | Comment Link |Ryan–welcome to JaC!
It seems like we don’t do super well holding either.
Having said that–it seems *more* important for *me* to be kinda loud about holding up a high standard for what you call “our public lives” than for you you call “our private lives”, and I mean that in the sense that it’s pretty freaking arrogant for me to tell Bill Clinton directly, or to say to a third party “What you are doing in your “private life” is messed up–it’s hurting people”. Whereas with our so called “public life”, when I talk about what we’re doing wrong, I’m assuming part of the guilt.
Does that make sense? In the one case it’s “You’re doing it wrong” (condescension) and in the other case it’s “We’re doing it wrong”. (confession)
Comment by: David H
14 10/16/07 5:37 PM | Comment Link |The bifurcation you mention would seem to be a false dichotomy. If you are Godly in your private life, that should bleed over into your public presence. And vice versa.
However, the operative concept when speaking about Jesus and standards is that I am to hold myself to best standard I can achieve and rely on honesty plus grace to cover my failings. The troubling aspect for me is when religious/political conservatives set standards for others that they don’t meet themselves. The problem with speaking from the moral high ground is that you have to a) go there first and b) never leave that place. If one can’t do that, one should probably avoid telling others that they should live on such rocky peaks.
Perhaps the issue isn’t living up to lofty standards of conduct outlined by folks like Paul. Perhaps the real thing is to try and avoid self-serving things in an attempt to love your neighbor as yourself. And then to admit (to God and yourself, if no others) when selfishness wins out.
Unfortunately, the nature of politics works against this in a variety of ways. Admitting failure is largely forbidden. There is not a huge benefit to honesty. And public perception far outweighs any personal reality. What’s more, the job of a politician (and certainly that of President) requires selfishness. Perhaps not on a personal level, but what are national interests if not a statement that the wants/needs of one nation outweigh those of another?
But back to the lies. Clearly the lie Clinton lived (as well as the one he told) was destructive. I’m sure it affected his marriage and couldn’t help but be detrimental to his family. Some of the resulting struggles for Ms. Lewinsky have been documented. And others clearly suffered from one man’s lack of integrity (there may have been many others since there is a question of whether this was a single incident or part of a larger pattern). Those things should not be minimized.
But the lies being told by President Bush would appear to be far more destructive. There are documented cases of people who have died from torture performed by US agents or proxies. Part of the ongoing discussion over what legally constitutes torture is to protect those who hurt or killed from being prosecuted. And the ripple affects go out into families who will raise terrorists, those who will die because terrorists were given impetus, lack of trust at home and abroad for a government willing to take extraordinary measures to hide its activities, and the growing number of US citizens who are coming to believe that it is not simply justifiable but also good to hurt others in order to further US interests. Moreover, this appears to be part of a larger pattern that resulted in, for one thing, a war in which tens of thousands innocent civilians (by highly conservative figures) have died.
Finally, it is one thing for politicians to argue about such things, parsing words to please some purpose. (Which sentence is more disturbing: “It all depends on what the definition of is is”; or “It all depends on what the definition of torture is.”) But it is quite another thing for followers of Jesus to be having such discussions. Maybe both adultery and torture are sins, but that shouldn’t condone either.
Comment by: RyanBD
15 10/16/07 5:47 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for the welcome - I know what you mean. I grew up pretty well immersed in an environment where personal ethics were what you worried about more than any kind of collective / public ethical awareness. On the right it seems there’s a tendency to “rubber stamp” someone’s public life as “good” if we see evdence of their private life lining up with our expectations. I think the reverse is true as well - so many conservative Christians write Bill off entirely because of his “lie” and ignore the good that came under his leadership in the social arena. And as long as George gives off the aura of strong personal morality, many Christians turn a blind eye to his leadership on the more social level. I guess I’m talking in terms of being “morally conservative and socially progressive” - some kind of balance of personal and private where the language of right and wrong apply equally to both spheres. I appreciate your distinction of including yourself in the guilt of “standing by” while letting evil happen vs. judging what someone does on their own time outside the public sphere. I think I’m in a place where I’m exploring a bibilical morality for all parts of my life - no longer seeing Paul’s lists and Jesus’ “bewares” as either personal or public. I think there’s a strong case to be made for holding to both. I realize that my thinking around my earlier post was from within the faith community. I think as a brother in Christ to both Bill and George, I can hold them both accountable (with all humility of course) and they me. It’s interesting for me to try and keep things on that level (within the Christian family so-to-speak). I do think our approach changes when that aspect of our relationship to others change. Hope some of that made sense…
Comment by: Rachel
16 10/16/07 8:23 PM | Comment Link |Great comment, Ryan! Welcome to Justice and Compassion!
Comment by: RyanBD
17 10/16/07 8:50 PM | Comment Link |DavidH - very well said.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
18 10/16/07 10:52 PM | Comment Link |It’s really horrible and saddening to me that a president and a vice president who were in many ways seen as “weak” by conservative christians in this country went on to win the nobel peace prize (Carter, Gore), while the two candidates who defeated them (Reagan in 80 and Bush in 2000) went on to lead the American government into enormous chunks of responsibility for over 100,000 civilian deaths each (well, technically, by the most conservative estimate, bush isn’t there yet. But he will be). I’ll be posting something touching on this tomorrow.
It’s almost as if a purposeful “weakness” in the light of the amount of power in the office is really much rather a good thing than a bad thing. I mean Bill Clinton, for instance, has expressed some regret about what happened in Rwanda during his tenure. But in light of U.S. success in interventions in such cases, it seems astoundingly wise in retrospect that he held back.
Plus now he’s doing some monga kewl stuff in that and other regards. How is it that if you look at the post-presidency records of the last 5 presidents, the more loudly “Christian” ones have by far the weaker records, while the supposedly “weak” ones that the evangelical right in this country eschewed have such relative strong records? hmmmmm…..
Comment by: David H
19 10/17/07 11:09 AM | Comment Link |I haven’t heard specifically about Clinton’s Rwanda regrets, but part of them may have to do with U.S. silence rather than our lack of intervention. As in the case of Darfour, the U.S. government largely ignored what was happening in Rwanda until hundreds of thousands were dead. That can be contrasted with some European nations (France, for instance) that tacitly approved of the upheaval that led to genocide. Likewise, simply speaking out may not have made much difference under the circumstances. But given what occurred, he may regret simply ignoring the situation for too long.
Comment by: David H
20 10/17/07 11:20 AM | Comment Link |More than one close relative told me, prior to the 2004 election, that they were unhappy with several things about Bush but he was the more “moral” candidate. I have asked (and gotten no response) if he seems like the more moral president now. I think that hearkens to Ryan’s question. Can you be a moral person if the “moral” things you do are based on things that would fail to meet your own standards of morality — like lies and misrepresentations? Can a course be moral if the path to it requires a degree of immorality?
One of the disturbing things for me from conservative Christians is the hard line they take on certain moral issues (abortion, homosexuality, adultery by Democrats) but how those suddenly become fungible in terms of the ends they want to achieve. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect. If you truly believe these things then you must hew to them without compromise. If you don’t apply them to everything all of the time, do you truly believe them?