Q&A: Would you be comfortable?

It's time once again for my opportunity to answer the questions that no one has asked me.   As I watch the news, I often wonder what I would have said under similar circumstances.  I'm lucky because I have weeks to think about my answer. 

Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, is currently making a stir in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.  Personally, I find Cain a compelling figure.  I like his biography and his experience.  I've never been a CEO, but I've run a pizza restaurant.  I have no problem with a president who once asked, "thin or deep dish?"

The question that Cain received was, "Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim to your cabinet or as a federal judge?"  What we receive here is only an excerpt.  Both the questioner and Cain suggest a prior conversation about the role of Islam in American society.  I can't help to think that something is missing something from the conversation.  Cain certainly looks annoyed with the questioner.  Giving Cain the benefit of the doubt, I was still perplexed with his answer.

Herman Cain emphatically states that he would not appoint a Muslim.  He then states that he is concerned about the imposition of Sharia law on American society.  I certainly wouldn't want that either.  As a Christian, I am very quick to point out that I reject the main tenets of the Islamic faith.  Nonetheless, religious bodies in the United States use their own law to regulate the life of the community.  However, there are limits to the freedom of religion.  For example, recently an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state judge who accepted Sharia law as an excuse for marital rape.  I would suspect that the judge probably knew as little as I do about Sharia.

A president should only appoint those who he or she believes will be faithful to the U.S. Constitution and the law.  Also, I would hope that a president would inquire into how the Constitution should be interpreted.  The question is really about living and working within a pluralistic society. 



Here's my response to the question:

Q:  Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim to your cabinet or as a federal judge?

A:  A president never appoints generic categories to positions of authority.  Each person has a name, a character, a background, particular beliefs, and talents.  These individuals will be thoroughly vetted, and I will only make the appointment if I am comfortable that they will uphold the constitution of the United States.

Q&A: "What is your take on jihad?"

When I watch debates, interviews and press conferences, I often think how I would have answered the question differently.  That doesn't mean I would do a better job.  I have the benefit of sitting at home away from the television cameras and the pressure.  I don't have to worry about an election or world opinion.  Still, it's fun to play the game. 

Today, President Obama is getting flack about an answer he gave to a Catholic schoolgirl in Indonesia.  The question was, "What is your take on jihad?"  The president is speaking before a Christian audience in an Islamic country while fighting a war in another Islamic country.  He is walking a tightrope.  I certainly don't envy the guy.  Still, I find it bizarre that the president would want to get into a debate about the finer points of Islamic doctrine.  I suggest keeping things simple.



Here's my response to the question:

Q: What is your take on jihad?

A:  I am not a Muslim, nor am I a religious scholar.  As a result, it would be presumptuous of me to explain the tenets of another faith.  Nonetheless, I know peace-loving people of many faiths, and I am willing to work with them to make this world a better place.

Likewise, I am familiar with people who hate and use violence against innocents.  It doesn't matter if they justify their actions by a religion or a particular ideology.  We should stand against them on the side of justice.

Peace through Irony

I applaud Jon Stewart and his “Rally to Restore Sanity” that took place in Washington D.C. last weekend.  I frankly didn’t watch much.  Instead, I saw bits and pieces afterwards on the internet.  As always, I’m impressed when thousands of people can peacefully gather together without incident. 

I enjoy smart humor, and over the years, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have delivered.  However, I am just not that interested any more.  In the past, I thought Colbert had the better wit, but he is becoming more and more self-parody.  Stewart still has his moments, but the smugness is wearing thin. 

The shtick seems to be that we take ourselves way too seriously.  Don’t hold opinions or beliefs too tightly.  Otherwise, you’re divisive.  In fact, you might be mentally unstable.  The best example of this argument that occurred at the fake rally hosted by the fake newsmen was when they asked a fake priest to offer a fake prayer.  Fr. Guido Sarducci, a character by comedian Don Novello, asked God for a sign of which religion is correct.  When God didn’t answer, Sarducci was left in an awkward position of thanking God for dogs and good works by other people. 

The agenda is peace through irony.  If no one had deeply held convictions, we could sure get more accomplished around here.  Our divisions are suggested to be simply matters of taste like the person who prefers Mexican food to Italian food.  If so, it does little good to yell at one another about it.  We should just get over our preferences.  John Lennon’s Imagine is probably the best anthem for this attitude. 

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I am very sympathetic to the cause.  I decry the meanness found in our public life.  I think that many of our differences and disputes at their source are meaningless.  I long for debate that is thoughtful and reasoned.  Do we really think the Daily Show is the solution?  Laughing at silly divisions doesn’t necessarily create unity.  In fact, it often leads to self-satisfaction and self-righteousness. 

Someone from the rally “tweeted” a picture of a sign.  It had a simple, clever message, “  +  >  ÷  ”.  The person commented, “The best thing about this sign is that the Tea Party won’t understand it” (my paraphrase).  Talk about irony. 

Moreover, some divisions are important.  Some differences are meaningful and should not be dismissed.  Depending on the cause, dying for something or someone can be noble.  Strongly held and defended beliefs can promote a better society.  How do we make the case to our neighbors?  The question is not one of sanity but civility. 

In a way, Jon Stewart’s final statement was the best moment of the entire rally.  He finally was talking about how we get along in a society.  The example of cars on the freeway entering a tunnel was smart. 

Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear—often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers.

The drivers will get to their destinations because each person makes, in Stewart’s words, “little reasonable compromises”—a concession here,  a concession there.  Stewart is absolutely right, but the question is why?  No one on the stage was answering, "Why does civil society work?"  If we can answer that question, we will go a long way to solve our problems.  For example, I would suggest that honking your horn is a preferable way to deal with a problem than shooting the driver next to you.  I prefer shouting on cable news shows than fighting in the streets. 

Drawing upon our traditions, history and heritage, what are our non-negotiables?  Irony is not enough.  Eventually we need to stand for something.

Terrorism as a Disqualifier

After the destructive acts of September 11th, 2001, the United States responded with a "War on Terror."  Critics of all political stripes have suggested that the name doesn't fit.  Even President Bush, who coined the name in June of 2002, was not keen on the name in 2004 when he stated,

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be: 'the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.'"

Some take issue with the designation of "war".  I think this was the rationale behind President Obama dropping the name.  He has opted for a bureaucratic and innocuous sounding name, "Overseas Contingency Operation." With large numbers of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan where bullets and bombs continue to kill, it seems a bit disingenuous to call those conflicts anything other than wars. 

Others take issue with the term "terror."  Pastor Rick Warren actually made this point in a recent "tweet".

Terrorism is a TACTIC. You dont fight a war against a method (like blitzkrieg) It's a battle of ideas, a war of worldviews

I actually tend to agree with this argument. The battle is with a particular terrorist entity and perhaps the failed nation-states who harbor them.  I found Peter Breinart helpful as he describes the conflict with Al Qaeda as a long-term ideological struggle.  Just like the "Cold War", this struggle will be fought with military and law enforcement, but also with education, diplomacy, and economic aid.

That being said, I do find something useful in the designation, "War on Terror."  In its imperfect and clunky way, the title suggests that terrorism is out-of-bounds.  If we are entering a period of history marked by the clash of civilizations and ideologies, then we should establish some ground rules.  However legitimate our concerns, we cannot further our political ends by terrorism.  The person or group who commits terrorist acts has given up the right to be heard. 

For example, the abolitionist cause in the United States before the Civil War was just.  However, John Brown's armed insurrection disqualified him personally from taking part in the debate.  Likewise, I found Chris Kennedy's position on refusing William Ayers emeritis status at the University of Illinois at Chicago correct:

“There is nothing more antithetical to the hopes for a university that is lively and yet civil, or to the hopes of our founding fathers for their great experiment of a self-governing people, than to permanently seal off debate with one’s opponents by killing them.”

My only regret is that William Ayers was given a teaching position in the first place.  Can someone renounce violence and return to the debate?  Yes, I certainly would welcome that possibility.  Nonetheless, our methods are as important as our ends.  Frankly, I may be naive, but I have confidence that truth will ultimately succeed if civility rules the debate.

Avoid Speeches on the Constitution?

I recently read the article "Republicans and the Tea Party - Enlist but Avoid Speeches on the Constitution" by Kate Zernike.  Unfortunately, I can't tell if this is Ms. Zernike's advice for the Republicans or the mood within the Republican party.  The only authority that she cites is Stuart Rothenburg who is a non-partisan political analyst.

“You see these rallies and the signs are all about the Constitution,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political report. “They want it to be about these big ideological ideas, when I don’t think most voters think that way. It’s very clear that what’s best for the election is to make it about Obama, Pelosi, health care, the deficit.” 

From wherever the advice is coming, I disagree.  It seems that the American people could benefit from a large-scale debate about the Constitution and the proper role of government.  Some guy in a tricorn hat railing on the 17th Amendment and the direct election of senators might be a non-starter, but American rhetoric needs more than "who's hot" and "who's not".  In the last presidential election, I was sadly disappointed that neither candidate seemed willing or able to articulate a governing philosophy.  There are hard questions facing the republic, and many voters want to know how a leader thinks. What can government do and not do?  What are the limits to freedom?  How will a leader establish priorities and resolve conflicts of interest? 

All these folks dressed as Revolutionary reenactors have a point.  History and our founding documents matter.  The excesses of the Tea Party movement should be met with principled argument, not ridicule.  Whether the issue is health care or war in the Middle East or the role of religion in society, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" require some explanation.  Americans are generally conservative, and they want to know that the rules aren't changing in the middle of the game.  At the very least, they want to know that change is consistent with their heritage and principles.  The conservatism of which I speak is not ideological.  It's an outlook.  In a few years, I bet we will hear again that the Republicans have overreached precisely because they forgot this advice. 
 
In the meantime, showing disdain for the Constitution is not the way to get elected.  

September 11th

Nine years ago, we were reminded that evil is real, that heroes exist, and that hope never dies. Despite her sins, America remains a beautiful, wonderful land whose greatest resource is her people. Let us not forget those who died, those who mourn, and the children whose parents are never coming home.

"Oh, that my words were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead, or engraved in rock forever! I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth" (Job 19:23-25).

Community Organizers

I currently receive e-mail from Sojourners.  Even if I disagree with an article, there is always food for thought.  The cover story for this month is about congregation-based "community organizers".  In another time in my life, I worked as a teacher in a poorer community in Arkansas.  I appreciate the work of those who bring communities together, empowering individuals and strengthening families.  Those folks are doing the Lord's work.  From the conclusion of the article...

That is what hundreds of thousands of Christians and others have found in congregation-based community organizing, a practical way to live the values of the kingdom of God, or “the world as it should be,” amid the messy realities of “the world as it is.” As Nolan said, “Organizing is a really great marriage of the pragmatic and the prophetic.”

Unfortunately, there are some organizers who only see the community as "haves" and "have-nots".  They reject the possibility of personal transformation, ignore the gifts already present in the community and treat the powerful as the enemy.  Rather than seek reconciliation, they perpetuate the divisions in society pitting one group against the other.  Others have a myopic view of the problems that communities face.  Clearly, encouraging political involvement is important, but politics is not a panacea.  Even Barack Obama, the former community organizer, has acknowledged, "...we know the government can't solve every problem."

Saul Alinsky is credited as the father of "community organizing" which I personally think is unfortunate.  Alinsky's writing gravitates toward the worst tendencies of community organizing.  However, the Sojourners' article suggests that things are changing...

When organizing moved into churches, it also started to lose some of the rough edges that were hallmarks of the Alinsky style. For instance, Alinsky’s method called for “personalizing” the issue, making one individual the face of the enemy. Today organizers are more likely to talk in terms of building relationships, even with public officials or business leaders who might be the current adversary.

Thank God that we are moving away from "personalizing" the issue...

...Never mind.