Benazir Bhutto, and Thoughts on Collectivism

I was reading TIME magazine on my way to Chicago last October. I was reading it cover to cover because, well, there was nothing else to do, and I came to this article on Pakistan. Normally I would have bypassed this article, but I started reading it because I thought either I would get into it and find it interesting, or I would read it, find it boring, but at least learn something. The article was about the former woman prime minister of Pakistan (which I found surprising, since Pakistan is a Muslim country) who had come back to Pakistan from a self-imposed exile to a groundswell of support and celebration. It was a good article and I kept track of the ongoing development in this story of this woman leader who was going to bring democracy to Pakistan. I found her compelling and courageous as she had survived numerous assassination attempts. In fact, an attempt on her life was made the day she came back to Pakistan when a suicide bomber blew himself up killing over a hundred people. After all, this was a wealthy Harvard and Oxford educated aristocrat who could be globe-trotting and living it up. If it were me I wouldn't have voluntarily gone into a country where so many wanted me dead.

So, with that said, I was stunned yesterday morning when I got up and flipped on MSNBC so see the headline: Benazir Bhutto assassinated. All I could do is gasp and then sit there in silence. Not only had I come to admire this woman, but I immediately began to empathize with her supporters. This woman represented hope to these people, and you could see the devastation they were experiencing. Not only was this a huge loss to Bhutto's numerous supporters, but this a big deal for U.S. foreign policy. Pakistan is teetering on Islamic extremism, and there was a deal in the works for Bhutto to become a co-president. This would have made Pakistan a more moderate, secular country; as well as making Pakistan a stronger partner in rooting out terrorists. But now that these hopes have been destroyed with an assassins bullet, there isn't anyone to act as successor to Bhutto. She was it.

Later I realized that virtually every American today was going to be confused by the fuss over this woman with the funny name who was killed in some foreign country. Honestly, this pisses me off, as it does much of the world. Americans would have been more upset if Brad and Angelina broke up. We tend to think we're the only people who matter. For much of us, our attitude is that we're the biggest, baddest and richest so who cares about all those other countries. I know this is true, not only because I see these sentiments expressed on TV and in people I talk to at work and elsewhere, but because, up until a couple years ago, I too acted this way. What changed my thinking was my church's growing concern for poverty abroad, a shift in the kinds of authors I read, and a quote by former president Bill Clinton.

A couple years ago I was reading a news magazine and it featured an interview with Bill Clinton. I couldn't tell you what the interview was about, but something he said struck me. It wasn't anything too profound and it's something I think most people would agree with, but it's always stuck with me. He was asked about our current foreign policy, and he said that right now we're the only superpower, but there will come a day when we're not the biggest dog on the block. And so it's important to work with other countries and form relationships. He then went on to talk about how India and China's economies are exploding, and the possibility of them forming an alliance of some sort. It's a statement that's true, yet I know it's a reality most Americans don't want to swallow; especially these assholes, who are why I think we're in Iraq, but that's another post. Most of us like our empire. We live sedated existences. We're sedated with Hollywood, pop-culture, the mainstream news organizations who trumpet American greatness, tabloids, some forms of Christianity, and having it "my way." We're happy in our own little worlds, and are oblivious to what's going on in the rest of the world.

I get irritated when I hear pundits always talking about doing what's best for America, or when they talk about how many Americans have died in Iraq. What about what's best for the world? What about the Iraqi's who have died? What about the soldiers from other countries? Maybe this is a macrocosm of what I mentioned above. The fact is, is we are an empire, and all empires have eventually fallen. We are part of a global community. The way we live, who we vote for and the way we interact with the rest of the world matters. At some point we won't be the biggest dog on the block.

I'm probably writing this because I've become something of a collectivist in the past couple years. I tend to focus on the common good rather than just what benefits me. Take health insurance for example. I have health insurance. I work in the pharmacy of the largest hospital on this side of the state. My job isn't going away. My health insurance isn't going away. What the hell do I care if our next president is a free-market, privatization-cures-everything Republican? I'm still going to have coverage. I care because there are people that won't, and our country has the capability to see that everyone is covered. The whole is more important than me.

That's also why I mourn with the Pakistanis the loss of a great leader. Their country matters, not only because it's nuclear and bordering on unstable, but because they're fellow humans who are part of this world too. All men are created equal, right? God love's everyone. My hope for 2008 is that we'll get a president who focuses on diplomacy, whose very, very last resort would be war, and a president who doesn't mis-pronounce the names of foreign leaders. That's why I'm voting for change. Vote Obama '08 ;)....JK....Ok, not really.

BAM!

Cornel West from Democracy Matters:

"The journey for the Constantinian Christians from Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 to George W. Bush's selection in 2000 has been a roaring success based on the world's nihilistic standards.

Never before in the history of the American Republic has a group of organized Christians risen to such prominence in the American empire. And this worldly success-- a bit odd for a fundamentalist group with such otherworldly aspirations-- has sent huge ripples across American Christendom. Power might, size, status and material possessions-- all paraphernalia of the nihilism of the American empire-- became major themes of American Christianity. It now sometimes seems that all Christians speak in one voice when in fact it is only that the loudness of the Constaninian element of American Christianity has so totally drowned out the prophetic voices. Imperial Christianity, market spirituality, money-obsessed churches, gospels of prosperity, prayers of let's-make-a-deal with God or help me turn my wheel of fortune have become the prevailing voice of American Christianity. In this version of Christianity the precious blood at the foot of the cross becomes mere Kool-Aid to refresh eager upwardly mobile aspirants in the nihilistic American game of power and might. And there is hardly a mumbling word heard about social justice, resistance to institutional evil, or courage to confront the powers that be-- with the glaring exception of abortion... I speak as a Christian-- one whose commitment to democracy is very deep but whose Christian convictions are even deeper. Democracy is not my faith. And American democracy is not my idol. To see the Gospel of Jesus Christ bastardized by imperial Christians and pulverized by Constantinian believers and then exploited by nihilistic elites of the American empire makes my blood boil."

A Republican I'd Vote For

I just listened to the NPR Republican presidential debate . Take much of what John McCain has said and done with working to end ridiculous spending and his position on the environment, take Huckabee's compassion for the poor and what he says about education, take Romney's call for Universal healthcare, Ron Paul's view on the war and Iran, and what you'd get is a Republican nominee I'd vote for. The fair tax thing I'm not so sure about though.

By the way, this was worth listening to just for Alan Keyes... :)

I <3 Huckabee?

I've already decided I'm not going to vote for any of the Republican candidates next year, but I admit that I loved how Mike Huckabee responded to a question posed to him on the YouTube debate the other night. The question was, "What do you think about the Bible?" I typically hate ALL politician's responses to these type of questions because, quite frankly, none of them have any idea what the hell they're talking about, and they always try to give an answer that makes everybody happy. But Huckabee not only nailed this question in a way that demonstrated his theological prowess, he also gave an answer that, I think, would make most people happy. He first said that either you believe the Bible is God's word or you don't, and where the debate begins is what is literal or allegorical. He then went on to say that what is clear is to love your neighbor as yourself and what you do to the least of these you've done to me, and since we still don't get the easy things right, it's pointless to fight over the complicated parts. I paraphrased , but that's essentially what he said.

Chris Matthews made a good point on Hardball last night. Why did Huckabee answer the question at all? What does taking the Bible literally have to do with being a good president? Why is this being used as a litmus test for governing a secular nation? Why should Huckabee being a Christian be a selling point? Here's what I think: it shouldn't, but if Christ is going to be dragged into this, he should look good. Indeed, the correct answer would have been, "I'm not going to acknowledge this question because what I think about the Bible is completely irrelevant to a presidential debate." Instead Huckabee gave an honest answer that highlighted the heart of the Gospel, was thoroughly Christian, yet is something that people of all religions and the non-religious can embrace. And that might be one of the best thing I can say about any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat.

Rudy and the (Hopefully) Unraveling of the Religious Right

After reading this post there's just not much else to say. I hope that the coming election will be a huge blow to the religious right. From the looks of things, a large portion of the Republican party's base is not going to vote for their nominee. There really isn't a nominee they will vote for that can beat Hillary. One of the leaders of the Relgious Right has backed an adulterous, pro-gay, pro-choice candidate. And it looks like I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's going to be an interesting 2008.

The Suffering of Mother Teresa

"[Jesus]: Wilt thou refuse to do this for me? You have become my Spouse for my love... Are you afraid to take one more step for Your Spouse- for me- for souls?... Am I a second to you?
[Teresa]: Jesus, my own Jesus- I am only thine- I am so stupid- I do not know what to say but do with me whatever You wish-...
[Jesus]: You are I know the most incapable person- weak and sinful but just because you are that- I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?"

"God- please forgive me- When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven- there is such a convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul. -I am told God loves me -and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?"

On my way home from Chicago I read an article in TIME about the new Mother Teresa book that chronicles her 50 year faith crisis. Honestly, I expected it to be boring, but to my surprise the article was captivating, thought-provoking, inspiring and convicting. It called to my attention the issue of suffering and how little of value American Protestants place on it.

When I was little I remember my mother explaining to me that Catholics had all these crucifixes in their churches, but what they need to realize is that Jesus rose from the dead. Her point was that Jesus' death is only part of the story, and that the most important part is the resurrection. Along with that I was taught that Catholics believe salvation comes through works. These sentiments, while they have some validity, have been deeply ingrained in me, and those that grew up with similar faith backgrounds. What this article forced me to do was assess suffering as it relates to the gospel, question what the emphasis on the resurrection and de-emphasis on Christ's suffering- as well as, the emphasis of salvation by faith- has done to American evangelicalism, and think about how much suffering should be a part of Christian orthopraxy.

Part of the TIME article is devoted to shedding light on why Mother Teresa (MT) sunk into spiritual darkness throughout her entire ministry. The atheist response, of course, is that MT simply realized that religion is a human creation, and much of her life was spent in a state of perpetual denial. The psychologist's response is that she inflicted it upon herself. I imagine that much of the anti-Catholic stream of Protestantism would probably say, "See, I told you she wasn't really a Christian, and that she didn't have a relationship with God." I found the Catholic response, however, to be the most beautiful, compelling and hopeful.

Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, the editor and compiler of Come Be My Light explains MT's desire to drink ONLY from, "Christ's chalice of pain." The article goes on to say that MT's desire was fulfilled, and later suggests that God allowed MT to suffer the deepest anguish Christ experienced on the cross- God's absence. From my own reading, I understand that Catholics believe that suffering purifies. Now, while I believe that a Christian is a new creature, I would agree with the Catholic sentiment that rejoicing in our suffering for others brings us closer to imaging Christ. Part of the gospel is that Christ served and suffered for a world he loved, and that being his follower means learning to do the same. And that when we suffer joyfully for others, Christ's image is reflected, and the gospel is extended.

No doubt, Christ's victory over death is central to the gospel, but in order for Christ to be resurrected he first had to suffer and die. In de-emphasizing the role of suffering and sacrifice, and putting all the emphasis on "the good stuff," I would argue we have neutered the gospel and stripped the Kingdom of it's power. In many circles the gospel has been reduced to, "Christ did all the hard stuff; just believe and you're on your way to heaven." This gospel goes right a long with the American lifestyle, which also seems to avoid the suffering that a lot of the rest of the world goes through. Indeed, I and most everyone I know live a pretty kooshy life. I don't necessarily think this is an evil in and of itself, but I think that maybe this means we need to go out of our way in order to serve, sacrifice and suffer because the gospel is best shared by someone who looks like Jesus suffering and dying for those he loves.

Practically, those of us who don't find many opportunities to suffer, I think, should seek them out. Whether that means going out of our comfort zone, giving up a seat for others on the bus, volunteering in a poor neighborhood, living in a poor neighborhood, or simply thanking God for the rare occasions we do get to suffer. I don't condone everything I read in the article. I only mean to point out something I think that Protestant Christians could learn from Catholics. And whether or not any of the previously mentioned explanations for MT's faith crisis are true, I think we should all, in whatever way, partake in Christ's passion.

Irreparable Cruelty

I think that Michael Vick is a total douche. I've got very little love for people who mistreat animals. Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated," and I think that's very true. Stephon Marbury defended Vick saying that dogfighting is just another sport and compared it to deer hunting. At first I dismissed his statements as more idiotic bullshit coming from another person that ought not to have such a lofty platform. But then I started to really think about it. Do we accept hunting as a legitimate sport and not dogfighting because that's how, culturally, we've been conditioned to think? After all somebody is profiting from deer hunting, and hunters are certainly being entertained and enjoy it. So what is the difference between a deer being stalked and shot with a bow, and two dogs fighting to the death all for the purpose of entertainment, sport and profit? Aren't the end results the same? Animals die and people are rich and happy. This is the position that PETA would take, which, right there, should be a red flag. But maybe not.

Today, my dad called to let Anne and I know that their dog died. My mom adopted this dog, last year, from an organization that rescues puppy-mill dogs. These dogs live their lives in tiny cages just large enough for them to lay down. The only attention they get is from the brutal people who take them out when they are in heat to breed with a stud. Their only purpose is to make babies. As you can imagine, this cruel, inhumane treatment irreparably damages them psychologically and socially. Suzie, the dog my parents adopted, was virtually catatonic, and my mom was the only person whom she responded to and gave any sort of evidence that she wasn't a dog that my parents owned ten years ago that they had freeze-dried. I think that she even might have actually liked my mom, but that might be pushing it. Thursday my mom, aunt and their friend took a short vacation to New York, leaving Suzie alone with my dad. Apparently, she immediately stopped eating, drinking and going to the bathroom. Today my dad took her to the vet and she dropped dead on the vet's table.

Both of my parents feel responsible. My dad was pretty upset, and I imagine my mother is devastated. My hope is that they stop blaming themselves and start blaming those who are responsible- the puppy-mill owners. The only reason Suzie shut down is because of the irreparable psycho-social damage done to her the first five years of her life. She was traumatized in such a way that the absence of my mom caused her to go into a depression that killed her. Human cruelty is so destructive and powerful, that it can kill animals not only with physical abuse but psychological abuse as well.

So, what does this have to do with Vick and Marbury besides cruelty to dogs? Well, as I pondered Marbury's statements I found that he is essentially saying that killing an animal is killing an animal. It's all the same, one way is called a sport and the other is called cruelty. This got me thinking about my stance on hunting. I started thinking about what is considered noble hunting over what isn't. I don't consider trophy hunting noble, and the hunting that is done in the shark fin soup industry is the epitome of waste, greed, and barbarism. On the other hand I'm reminded of how Native American buffalo hunting is romanticized because of their deep respect for the creature, and their use of the whole animal. I agree that this is good and noble hunting.

We (humans) are relational beings. And not only are we in relationship with God and each other, but we also have a relationship with creation. We depend on creation to live and creation depends on our good stewardship for it's survival. Of course, not only is our relationship one of dependency, but also of companionship such as with our pets. It's interesting how, in our relationship-making, we humanize pets. We are appalled that the Chinese eat dogs, because, to us, dogs are like little people. Likewise Hindus might be appalled that we eat cattle, but I digress.

Like most moral quandaries, this too boils down to a theological truth. Humans are in relationship with creation, and our role in that relationship is good stewardship. The puppy-mill owners relationship with Suzie was one of abuse, neglect, malapropism, greed, torture and exploitation. My mom's good relationship with her, ultimately, could not restore her. Michael Vick's relationship with his dogs is also one of barbarism, abuse, exploitation etc... I would add that many people who own pit bulls do so for status and macho ism, but that's another post. Many hunters eat their kill and are conservationists. They hunt partly for sport, but also because they have a deep reverence for creation, and feel closer too it by sitting in a tree for hours on end covered in deer urine. Therefore, I would argue, hunting- excluding the aforementioned bad forms of it- represents good stewardship and a good relationship with creation.

Hopefully, this bad press about dogfighting will raise awareness about animal cruelty. I'm no PETA advocate, but sometimes I think they're right, and I affirm their overall dream of people living in right relationship with creation. Even though Vick allegedly converted, I still think people who fight dogs are douches, and it would be nice if he'd publicly come out against it, get his peeps in the hip-hop community to do the same and help the police bust up dogfighting rings. For some reason I'm not too optimistic about that. Words usually speak loud enough in these cases where action isn't necessary. But one can hope.