Tonight I e-mailed other bloggers who write for The American Street and pointed them to the information about the National Council of Churches meeting concerning Iraq held today with the Secretary General of the United Nations. I thought some of them might be able to use the information as they blogged about President Bush’s speech tonight.
One of my colleagues from The American Street, Mark Kleiman, wrote back quickly:
Sorry, I must have missed something. Why should I give a rat's ass what a bunch of preachers think about when American forces should withdraw from Iraq, any more than I care what Jerry Falwell thinks about sex education or what the Pope thinks about stem cell research?
Mark also wrote a post on his blog with similar sentiments.
Last month I wrote a couple posts (see here and here) on this site (one was cross posted on TAS) were I “questioned why some on the political left react with such anger toward the religious community – regardless of our theological beliefs or social stands.” Most the feedback was negative and a lot of people wondered why on earth I would accuse secular progressives of such behavior.
Mark added some new evidence to my claim. There is a great deal of hostility directed at religious people by some of those on the political left. Mark also wrote:
But the claim by religious leaders as such to have valuable opinions about political matters I take to be an illegitimate claim, whether it's used for a cause I like or for a cause I don't like.
So our claims are illegitimate? Does this mean that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s sermons on racial justice and Vietnam were illegitimate? Or William Sloane Coffin’s crusade against nuclear weapons? Or the work of such groups as Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice on family planning? Yes, for Mark this is apparently all illegitimate participation on the part of Christians.
At least he is consistent in dismissing all people of faith. Even if he is wrong.
You should give a rat’s ass because people of faith are working hard to do what we’ve always done when we are at our best: proclaiming God’s justice for all in a time when governments and institutions are fighting for the few and the powerful. We’re all in this together.
Update: I want to thank The Village Gate, Electrolite, and skippy the bush kangaroo for seeing that the information on church opposition to the Iraq War does have some value.
Update: Mark added an addendum to his post in which he continues to assert that NCC and other religious bodies have no special insight into matters of war and peace that needs to taken into consideration by the public. He writes:
…..when they go on to recommend that the United Nations take on a greater role in the reconstruction of Iraq, and give no hint about how their religious tradition speaks to that sort of detail, they've strayed into territory where their expert writ doesn't run. (Don't take my word for it; read the full text of the "pastoral letter," and note how quickly it shifts from the general proposition that war is wrong to assertions that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by narrow U.S. economic self-interest.) It is, of course, their right to speak out; but I doubt that it's anyone's duty to listen.
I agree that people should read the Pastoral Letter on Iraq. It is a theological statement through and through. Here’s a small sample (using part of the text that Mark criticized):
In a sinful world, some of us may hold that there may be times when war is a necessary evil. But Christians should never identify violence against others with the will of God and should always work to prevent and end it. We believe, with these things in mind, that the guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy must be to build up the whole, interdependent human family and to promote reconciliation whenever possible. Yes, this means standing firmly against all acts of terror, but it also means envisioning a world in which war is truly a last resort.Current U.S. foreign policy, however, is not aligned with this principle. Many people see our policy as one based on protection of our country's economic interests narrowly defined, rather than on principles of human rights and justice that would serve our nation's interests in deep and tangible ways. We are convinced that current policy is dangerous for America and the world and will only lead to further violence.
Finally, I want to acknowledge that Mark is upset that I quoted from an e-mail he sent to me. My policy (and it is stated on this site) is that I will publish e-mails sent to me about this blog on my discretion. I started that policy because of the large number of people who sent me angry and hate filled e-mails (mostly concerning my support for abortion rights and gay marriage) but were afraid to post comments and take their stands in public – something I do every day. People ought to be held accountable for what they say. It is not my job to protect people who write in to criticize me or the organizations I support. That applies to those attacking from the right or the left. It does not apply to those who write in the spirit of dialog. Mark did not write for the later.
