A Military Strike against Syria? I'm Not Convinced

Shall we or shall we not?  Is it justifiable?

Few would disagree with the fact that the Assad regime’s chemical attack against its own people is morally reprehensible.  It is despicable.  I agree.  It cannot be condoned and should not be tolerated.

Nevertheless, my first question is this: does the responsibility to chastise Assad and his government solely fall on American, U.S. shoulders; and if so, why?  Is this not a truly global and international responsibility?

And, if the world governments, including the likes of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, e.g., are willing to tolerate Assad’s use of chemical weaponry, then we have to ask, what are the deeper issues going on here, such that these governments are willing to turn a blind eye to this deplorable act?

For example, apparently Russia doubts the reports that Assad’s regime used chemical weaponry against its own people, rejecting the evidence as inconclusive.  Okay, I therefore ask the same question, put in a different way: Why would a country like Russia choose to reject what seems to be the obvious and side with a government that they know has been both murderous and oppressive of their own people?  What does Russia gain by stubbornly supporting Assad against the majority of world opinion?  That is to say that there are deeper issues here that I want more fully explained.

What is this really about?  Is not the real story about the powers behind the renegade Assad regime?  Assad’s government is petty, compared to the outside powers aiding and supporting him (such as Russia or Iran or even China).  Thus, would it not be more efficient and effective for Obama to get to the heart of the matter with the likes of Russia and China, e.g., rather then running around trying to convince members of our own legislative houses to support a U.S. limited strike against Syria?

In support of this so-called limited strike, I hear such things as, the regime has crossed the line and our credibility is at stake.  Or that it is a moral issue and we must therefore send a clear message that the use of chemical weapons against one’s own people is not to be tolerated.  And that our national interest is at stake.  Still, I wonder, how is acting like a national moral police-force in the Middle East supposed to be in our best interest—while other nations passively look on, approvingly or disapprovingly?

It seems to me that there are larger and more serious undergirding issues at play here that we citizens are not readily speaking about or being informed about.  What in fact is the essential core of our national interest in the Middle East?  A military solution seems always to be the only answer in a Middle Eastern crisis; why is our role in the Middle East always reduced to a military one (remember Ronald Reagan’s presidency and his Marines sent to Beirut fiasco)?    There are many interests in the Middle East—Russia, China, Iran, Israel, oil—what are we not being informed about respecting these powerful interests in the Middle East?  And so, why, for example, do we continually fail to win over a country like Russia, which historically has been as much a “Western” country as it has been otherwise?

So for me, not to strike Syria is not a question of becoming isolationist, as if we’re in danger of becoming mere “spectators to a slaughter.”  Limited military strike or not, there is more to this whole Middle Eastern policy than meets the eye.  Besides, what does “limited” mean anyway?  A punch in the nose is a punch in the nose, an attack is an attack, and a fight is a fight, limited or otherwise; fights cannot be contained or limited, they must be stopped, resolved and brought to an end.

So, as an average Joe American Citizen, I am not convinced.  For me, none of the given reasons are sufficient in themselves, or even collectively, in defense of striking:

• It is argued that we shall suffer a loss of credibility or loss of face and that our allies will be disappointed in us, worrying that we will not really be there for them in the future….  This is a lame argument and very unconvincing to me.

• It is argued that not to strike may cause regional instability.  I doubt it very much.  It’s already unstable.  A limited strike such as is now being considered may even have the opposite effect and cause even more instability.  For example, our starting the war in Iraq did just that.

• It is argued that inaction will embolden enemy-nations, such as Korea or Iran.  I don’t think so.  On the other hand, a miss-applied or miscalculated limited strike on Syria may continue to give these countries more reason to denounce us and refuse future possibilities of serious negotiations for lessoning the overall posturing of hostility.

• It is argued that not to take action against Syria at this time poses a national security threat to us.  Really!  How so?  Please spell it out for me because I don’t see how?

• And it is argued that Assad’s regime needs to be chastised and put in its place.  True, but by whom?  Should it not be chastised by the whole international community and not just the United States?

So, I’m just not convinced.

Three Great Temptations When Occupying a Congressional Office

Many who run for congress and get elected do so with good intentions.  They want to make a difference, help their community and constituents, and have a positive impact in the health and welfare of this nation.

There are, however, great dangers along the way toward becoming a good, honest and conscientious congressional representative.  What might they be?

First there is the temptation to exaggerate one’s position, become puffed up, and take advantage of the office.  A congressional or senate seat is no small thing.  It comes with title, privileges, and connections, and promises to give access to much more.  It’s enough to turn anyone’s head.

A newly elected representative may enter the office with a healthy amount of humility and goodwill, but it can quickly fade into the background when the real nature of the political office-quirks, with it accompanying privileges and power, begin to settle in.  Once in office, it is easy to forget that a true representative is a servant of the government and its people, not a privileged lord and master.

We’ve all seen them, petty officials, from a small security officer to a business owner/CEO, who act as if their official position sets them apart and puts them above it all.  They become little dictators, lording-it-over, demeaning and demanding of those below them, thinking themselves quite the figure, expecting others to cow-tow to their whims and wishes.  How many congresspersons and senators have succumbed to this temptation without realizing it?

Congressional and Senate Representatives are in a key position of power and influence within a nation that is among the strongest and wealthiest of world nations.  It is a valid question to ask what and whose interests are they really and truly serving—the people’s or an oligarchical elite, the special interest of money and power, a chosen few, whom?

The second temptation is age old, the temptation to abuse one’s power.  Among people, power moves in either of two directions: (1) outward toward the many, or (2) inward toward the one and/or the few.  Real servant-leaders seek to share power and move power outwardly, in the direction of the people around them, empowering the many.  On the other hand, egotistic, self-important leaders tend to amass greater and greater power for themselves and their comrades, the chosen few.

Servant-leaders listen to, receive from, and consider the plight and place of the people at large (they see individual trees as well as the whole forest).  Then they seek to motivate, encourage, and direct their fellow representatives to adopt policies that serve the interest of community and nation, individual and the people at large, the collective whole—not always easy, but always the better way to go.

A third temptation is to attempt to personally profit from one’s official position.  With congressional or senate office come many perks and privileges, as well as powerful connections.  Who can resist?  How does one not personally gain from such a status and position of influence?

Here’s just one example: I am greatly concerned by former State Governors who become key spokespersons for powerful oil companies in defense of fracking, parroting shallow arguments that are dismissive of real consequences in real peoples’ lives.  Especially since many of the State fracking deals and privileges given to the very same oil companies came at the hands of the very same person who was governor at the time.  Such behavior gives more than just a mere appearance of collusion.

Abuse of power, exaggeration of status, position, and privileges, self-interest, seeking personal gain and profit during one’s tenure in office or after one leaves office; these and more, are the many temptations that people who occupy powerful and influential offices face.  Who keeps them real, holds them accountable, or checkmates them when they cross the line?

It’s interesting how we are always worried about the moral decadence of our nation when it comes to sex.  But when it comes to the sins of greed and wealth accumulation at the expense of the poor and needy, or the lust for power and its abuses, we hear very little, say even less, and have so little concern for where this nation is heading respecting wealth distribution (or the lack thereof).  What an irony it is, when one considers the total teachings of Jesus.

The Central Flaw in Capitalism, Democracy, and Freedom

Democracy!  Capitalism!!  Freedom!!!  God Bless America!!!!

These four proclamations are like sacred incantations in our American vocabulary.  They’re indelibly stuck in our American psyche and we faithfully repeat them (especially during political campaigns, which seem never ending), as holy American mantras.

But, assertive pronouncements, even with passionate devout fervor, give no guarantee to their faithful application.

As to “Democracy,” votes can still be bought and sold, or worse, ignorantly and blindly misled.  The masses are always vulnerable to being duped and naively misdirected, often shamelessly seeing nothing beyond their own self-interest, which is easily pandered to by shrewd and unscrupulous politicians.

As to “Capitalism,” it is a far from perfect economic system; indeed, many, many people suffer from its unchecked and unregulated excess, to say the least.

As to “Freedom,” we now act as if freedom is a kind of absolute personal right, giving us license to do whatever, whenever, however, we feel like—with the one qualifier: “so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else”—as if we are all islands unto ourselves with no interconnectedness in consequence and effect (notwithstanding the well-known chaos theory principle called the “Butterfly Effect”).

And, as to “God Bless America!” we evoke this as if we have the right of God’s favor upon us, as if God must be on our side.  What presumption!

God demands humility, mercy, justice, and truth from His people.  God demands personal integrity, as well as economic and social justice for His people.  He does not bless greed, or the abuse of wealth, power and status, or injustice, or a rebellious, wayward, and self-indulgent people.  As a nation, we conveniently seem to forget this while we cry out “God Bless America!”

In short, along with the privileges of freedom, democracy, and capitalism come the responsibilities of self-control and the ability for self-restraint, the limiting of self-indulgence for example, with respect to our freedom.  Or along with our enjoyment of a capitalistic economic system comes the responsibility for the systemic care of the poor, the sick, the weak and the needy.

Truth be told, the quality of a system—democratic, capitalistic, economic, political, social, or otherwise—is no better than the people applying it.  If the people within the system are greedy, selfish, and self-indulgent, having no larger vision than that of their own self-interest, the system will fail, even if it happens to be the best system around.

Systems are not corrupt, people are.  The weakness of any and all systems is in the humans who function within it.  A system’s greatest weakness is Human Nature and human character, not the system itself.

Hence, in actuality, certain values and principles that undergird other economic systems, such as socialism and communism, for example, might actually be worth applying to our own capitalistic system (modified of course)—so as to make our own particular form of capitalism more equitable, more functionally fair and just.  But those words “Socialism” and “Communism” are taboo, as if the evil of those systems were inherent in the system rather than in the corruptness of the people that function within them.

We tend to treat our Capitalistic and Democratic systems as if they were a religion—something to be believed in, by faith, without question or doubt.  Likewise so we treat their opposing systems, Socialism and Communism, as if they are of the devil, heretical, evil, and anathema.  What we probably really need, in terms of a good economic policy, is an economic system that applies the best working values and principles from all sources, be it capitalist, socialist, or communist, so as to ensure that the most people have the best opportunity to make a fair and just living off our limited lands, shrinking resources, and modest means.

Living in an Unjust World

We live in a cruel and unjust world.

For example, what are the consequences, or what should be the consequences, of grievous and horrible acts of violence and hatred?

From the purely human point of view, people DO get away with murder.  Scoundrels cheat, lie, and steal, and live quite well at the expense of others.  Some use brute force and naked power to oppress their victims and keep them in virtual slavery to their wants and wishes.  And, whether by official and legitimate means (as in the use of business and/or government office) or by unofficial and illegitimate means (as in the use of gangs or the mafia, for example) the end is the same.  People suffer dearly under their tyranny.

How will this be made right?  How is justice had, for those who suffer and die by the hands of unjust and unscrupulous individuals?

If there were no God, the question doesn’t matter.  Death equals nothingness.  And, here on earth, it becomes a simple matter of the survival of the fittest.  And so, the cruel, unjust, power hungry, oppressor types, live as such, embracing the old adage: “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”; which is to say, “Grab what you can, while you can.  Kill if you have to.  Do whatever you need to, in order to get what you want, for we’re here today and gone tomorrow.  Live it up!”

Will one eventually pay for one’s sins?

Funny, even the word, “sin,” is dismissed as outdated and immaterial these days.  People laugh at the word, a silly topic, too unsophisticated for polite conversation, even distasteful.  The word has become irrelevant for all too many.

But then, from whence is real justice?  Certainly not from us humans; we want it, even long for it.  We try with all our might to properly exercise it.  Still, we fall short of it, often missing the mark quite badly even phenomenally so!  But it doesn’t stop us from aiming for it.  Yet, when push comes to shove, we want it for others, but seldom for ourselves—when we are the ones in the wrong, that is.

And so, accepting that God IS, we also would hope that God is Just—a Just and Righteous God, Holy and True.  But if that is the case, how will we measure up to this just, righteous and holy God?

Ah, therein is our dilemma.  What will God do, what shall God say about our own unrighteous acts, our own unjust deeds, our own little wrongs that we’ve committed against others?

Perhaps we need take more seriously the wise observation made in Ecclesiastes (12:12-14): “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.  For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”

There is good reason why the message of the Gospel of salvation offered to humanity in the person of Jesus the Messiah is called “Good News”!  For, in terms of God’s standard of righteousness, justice, and holiness, do any of us stand a chance, if we are to trust in our own self-righteousness?  To even consider the possibility that we have the self-sufficient potential to pass God’s moral scrutiny, with approval, reveals our blindness to the real truth of our moral failings.

Problem Solving Strategies

Problems, problems, problems, life is full of problems.  And they never seem to go away.  It is a fact of life.  So, instead of avoiding problems or hiding and running from them, or wishing they’d go away, the best strategy is to learn how to deal with them when they come.  Here are some helpful strategic ways to deal with problems.

(A) Put them in perspective.  That is, view your problems in light of your life’s big picture respecting your life goals, priorities, values, and life’s end.

Problems are easier to deal with when you clearly understand how they affect your greater goals and purposes, allowing you to determine the level of impact and thus their immediacy (from the severe, demanding immediate attention, to the insignificant, which can be ignored).

This presumes that you have the big picture of your life in mind:  Where are you heading, what are you doing to get there, what are the obstacles that may prevent you from reaching your life’s goal?  How do you want to be remembered when you die and what accomplishments do you hope to have by the end of your life?  In short, view all of your “problems” from the vantage point of one heading in a certain direction toward a certain end and deal with them accordingly.

(B) Accurately and clearly define your problem.  This sounds simple enough; however, sometimes the “problem” you believe you are facing is not the real problem.  The issues that lie behind or underneath the surface may be the real problem.

This requires bold honesty within one’s self, to one’s self.  Ask yourself, why is this a problem for me?  Why would I prefer to run or escape from dealing with it rather than to confront it head on?  What am I not admitting, acknowledging, or accepting about this problem?  Try to get to the root or heart of the problem in the process of defining it.

(C) Clarify whose problem it is.  That is, is this a problem that you caused and that you are able to resolve or correct or is it a problem that is beyond your ability to control, manage, or solve?

First of all, keep in mind that not all problems are yours.  There are a lot of people who are happy to make their problems YOUR problem.  Don’t take on other people’s problems—unless it is your job, or you personally feel called to do so, or unless you know that you have to share the problem as part of a group or community that has collective ownership of the problem.

Secondly, know your limitations and the extent of your ability to adequately and satisfactorily deal with the problem.  Understand what the problem requires and determine your ability to solve it.  You may need help or it may be a problem that cannot be solved.  For example, when the Titanic hit the iceberg and started to sink, there was no way to solve the problem of its sinking.  The only solution was to abandon ship and man the lifeboats.  That is to say, deal with problems that you can actually solve.

(D) Examine: look, listen, and think before you take action.   Problems are best dealt with when you fully understand their details and how best to tackle it.  This requires some reflection, contemplation, information gathering, and assessment taking.  Then, “make it so” and do what you have to do.

You have options. You always do.  Determine what those options are.  Put them in perspective as to timing and urgency.  Compare long term solutions with short term solutions and their consequences.  Take the time to consider the advantages and disadvantages between various options.  Yes, take the time to do so, if you have the time; however, do not procrastinate.  In the end, you must make a decision and take action.  Once a decision is made, neither vacillate nor hesitate, rather, be swift and to the point about it.

(E) Follow through.  You now have a plan or strategy.  You know what needs to be done.  Some problems require ongoing attention, miner steps and major steps, process, and time.  Follow through to the end.  Do not stop halfway, midway, or somewhere in between.  Or there is a good chance that the problem will never truly be dealt with and thus will never really go away.

Be ready to adapt, modify, and change strategies along the way if necessary.  Sometimes you may have to step-back and re-evaluate, even take a “wait-and-see” approach, but you are still in the mode of addressing the problem.  And monitor your progress.  Only when you know that the problem has fully and completely been dealt with, do you put it behind you and move on.

Atheist Wins Debate in Delivery but NOT in Content

A congregant asked me to view a debate between an Atheist and a Christian Apologist (Sam Harris//William Craig).  If you Google Notre Dame’s God Debate II: “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” you’ll find it on You Tube.  It’s interesting.  Here’s my take on it.

At first glance, it would seem that Harris (the Atheist) “won” the debate.  What I am conceding by saying this is that Harris seems to have won by his manner and his delivery, hitting the right emotive buttons for emotional suasion.  His rhetoric was excellent. 

Nevertheless, with regard to the actual question at hand, I believe that Craig (the Christian) made the better argument in terms of reason and pure logic.  However, truth be told, reason and pure logic rarely inspires people or convinces people.

I have to agree with Craig and say that Harris does not adequately address the question about the foundation for moral values.  Yes, I know that Harris claims that he tried to do exactly that, but he did not do so convincingly.  I was not at all persuaded by his rationale.

What Harris does is what everyone does when building an ontological case at its source.  He begins with a given, a two-part a priori assumption: (1) We are conscious beings and (2) we want wellbeing.  Now, as to the second part of this a priori assumption, wellbeing, Harris says that the axiom (self-evident truth) that goes with it is this: the worst possible misery for everyone is bad!

Craig claims that the foundation for that kind of statement is God.  On the other hand, Harris essentially says that there is no need of a foundation for that statement, for it is self-evident.  In that sense it becomes a mere truism.  His argument therefore is basically a tautology: “The worst possible misery for everyone is bad and it is obviously bad for everyone to experience the worst possible misery, so we must seek humanity’s wellbeing given that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad.”

But that is an assumption that presumes a foundational moral premise, which is precisely the key question of the debate.  That is, on what basis can we “authoritatively” say this?  In other words, Harris does not actually debate the question at hand; rather, he simply pronounces it as an axiomatic given.  In that sense, Craig is correct.  Harris never directly addresses the fundamental question, which is: what is the foundation for accepting the moral premise that “the worst possible misery for everyone is bad” (other than the fact that we humans do not like being miserable)?

What Harris does do very effectively is raise all the questions that religious wars and divisive religious doctrines have raised over the centuries: if there is a God, who is this God, what kind of God is God, and how do we rightly and properly come know this God?  These are questions touching upon theodicy, epistemology, hermeneutics, historical witness, and divine revelation respecting the intersection between phenomenology and the numinous.  He brushes aside these religious questions, as if they have no value worth considering, by summarily asserting that there is no evidence for religious beliefs in the first place.  History begs to differ with him on that assertion.  Here Harris makes the classic 18th century enlightenment assumption that goes something like this: Today we are smarter than that!  The ancients were more gullible and ignorant in their day and therefore believed in things that cannot be substantiated in today’s modern more enlightened world.

Suffice it to say that all these subjects (and more) have been discussed and debated by secular and religious philosophical scholars for centuries.  Harris is simply the new kid on the block repeating ancient arguments against any belief in God in the face of the existence of evil.  But Harris never addresses the question of the real nature of goodness verses evil, or why there is evil, or why we humans have a moral nature at all (other than to give a nod to evolutionary dynamics—which results in another tautology = “we are moral creatures because evolution produced us that way, and we know that evolution made us that way because that’s the way we are”).

So, no, I am not convinced by Sam Harris’ cool, smart, and well-presented arguments.  In short, my conclusion stands with William Craig’s.  I’d put it this way: it is true that one need not be a religious believer in God, in order to live as a moral person; nevertheless, as I understand the nature of the universe without God as its creator, I see no valid reason why anyone must or should or have-to choose morality over immorality, for there would be no real moral foundation (an authoritative “Says Who?!”) for choosing to live a moral life as such—other than to feel obligated to choose morality because Sam Harris says that I must.

The Zimmerman Trial and the Question of Justice

If a fourth grader asked you to explain the concept of justice, how would you answer—given the attention span of a ten-year-old?

What is justice?

Is it tit-for-tat, an eye-for-an-eye?  Is it vengeance and revenge?  Does it involve remorsefulness and penance (from which we get the word penitentiary)?  Does it require personal change and correction (from which we get the term correctional institution)?  Or is it a simple matter of retribution, the idea of punishment plain and simple: You got to pay for what you did!

Notice: when we are the innocent victims of a crime, we want swift, sharp, and unmitigated justice with harsh and exact punishment?  But, when we are the guilty offender, we ask for understanding, personal consideration, and a review of mitigating circumstances, even leniency and compassion, if not mercy.

Perhaps this is why Lady Justice is often depicted as blindfolded, supposedly to represent unbiased, impartial, and non-prejudicial consideration, as she weighs the facts upon her scales?  There is to be no preferential treatment, neither to the powerful, nor to class or race or ethnicity, or any other possible prejudicial distinction between her citizens, when it comes to the pursuit of justice.

However, even children learn early on that real justice can be quite illusory and can often escape us.  A sibling bullies his sister without provocation of any kind.  The sister smashes her brother’s favorite toy in retaliation, just as mom or dad walks in the room.  The sister is held responsible and is severely punished for her deed while the brother’s instigating action is ignored.  The sister soon realizes that this is an unjust world within which we live.

Hence, justice is not simply about laws, legalities, and technicalities.  It is about people: about the need of interpersonal respect for the other, to take personal responsibility for one’s self, and to recognize our relational connectedness with each other.  Thus, a crime committed is first and foremost about personal harm that one has caused another, not just a matter of breaking a law and offending the State.  It requires a personal owning-up to the harm done to the other, and a recognition that, as a result of that harm done, one now has a personal obligation to make things right.  This is the language of Restorative Justice (See: The Little Book of Restorative Justice by Howard Zehr.)

Thus, with regard to the Zimmerman/Martin case, the State has been satisfied with its procedures and processes.  But the individuals and families involved—on both sides—are left unsatisfied and remain ill-at-ease.  Why?  Real and true justice has escaped them.  George Zimmerman continues to fear for his life, apparently receiving death threats from angry citizens who believe that he is truly guilty and that his guilt requires vengeance.  Meanwhile, the Martin family has been irrevocably damaged and hurt.  They will never see Trayvon again, this side of the grave—a direct result of George Zimmerman’s unwise choices and actions the night he fatally shot Trayvon Martin in what we are to understand was an act of self-defense.

In short, great personal harm has been done against the Martin family and no one seems to be in a position to make things right for this harm that has been committed against them, least of all George Zimmerman himself.  This is why so many believe that the system has failed to produce real justice.

Remove the State’s interests in this whole case.  Forget about certain Florida State laws, legalities, and technicalities for a minute.  And what do you have left: Two families that need to come to terms with each other.  Let’s grant that George Zimmerman truly reacted in self-defense at the moment he pulled the trigger.  Still, it is not as if he was purely innocent in the incident.  It seems apparent to most people that he minimally exercised poor judgment, took wrong action, and virtually instigated the whole initial conflict.  Thus, the least that Zimmerman could do on his part is to be receptive and open to directly hearing from the Martins, to directly embrace and give witness to their pain and agony, to personally and directly own, experience, and empathetically understand the impact that his fatal shooting of Trayvon has had and continues to have on the Martin family.  This is not asking for forgiveness or reconciliation; it is asking for ownership of one’s misguided behavior, ownership of some responsibility, and accepting some obligation and respect given to the Martin family.  However, that will never happen and can never happen, given the way our judicial system now works.

This is why few are pleased with the verdict and many are dissatisfied with its outcome.  There is no sense of real personal justice having happened.  There has been no real personal, relational accountability, no ability for either party to accept a kind of mutual and measured responsibility for a death that should not have happened.