Peace above all else

It is about being right and not about doing right. This is the only way I can explain the views of the 33% or so Americans who continue to think the President is doing what is best for America. I have talked to a number of these individuals, many of whom are my friends and family. They continue to support the President regardless of what new illegal, dishonest or downright sneaky actions he commits. The press, who has finally woken up from their post 9/11 fear of printing anything negative about the administration, has been revealing disturbing facts about the way this administration has been operating for the past 5 years. Millions of Americans have been shocked, appalled and sickened by the abuses of power and the attack on our constitution. Others, however, are secure in their convictions that they voted correctly regardless of the facts. Really, who needs facts when you have great self-esteem?

These Americans sometimes site patriotism as their reason for supporting the President regardless of his actions. Following a leader regardless of his actions, however, has nothing to do with patriotism. Loyalist would be a better description. Loyalists remain loyal to their ruler regardless of his actions even if those actions violate the premise of their own country. The term was popular in the US during the revolutionary war and was used to describe people loyal to the king. Patriots, on the other hand, are looking out for what is best for the country. Patriots defend the constitution of the United States regardless of who is the current President and regardless of political affiliation. That is why every soldier presently serving our country is a patriot. Although many do not believe in what this President stands for, they do believe in America and our constitution and they defend it each day by putting their lives at risk.

Our constitution specifically names three separate but equal branches of government that are to act as a type of fail safe. Anyone who has seen Saturday morning cartoons know that no one branch is to hold all of the power. That is why the executive branch can veto a bill but the legislative branch can vote to override the veto. President Bush has illegally signed hundreds of bills by simply crossing out parts he does not like or adding statements saying that he does not have to follow the laws if he chooses not to. By doing this, he avoids the veto process in which congress would/could vote down the changes he has made to the bill. Most frightening is that he did this with last year’s so called “torture bill” on which he wrote that the president could order torture of enemies if he deems fit even though the bill expressly forbids it. This is undermining our constitution and is a way for the executive branch to hold power without oversight by the legislative or judicial branches of government. This is the largest danger that faces the United States today.

Another way this president has snubbed the constitution is by ignoring the FISA court. President Bush admits that he has ordered wire-tapping and searches of phone and financial records of millions of citizens without gaining a warrant. The FISA court was created in order to make it easy for federal agents to gain necessary warrants in a secretive manner. The court has rarely denied requests for warrants and actually grants warrants up to 72 hours AFTER the search or wire-tapping. If our administration or any security agency really needed to conduct wire-tapping or other searches on suspected terrorists they could have easily gained a warrant either before or after the search was conducted. This is the legal way to conduct such searches in the United States. By deliberately not getting these warrants, the government has conducted illegal searches. Of course, the court then could throw out any evidence discovered during these searches. So why would the government not get a warrant if it is easy and if they cannot use the evidence without one. Why has President Bush continued to stand behind his decision to conduct searches without a warrant and why has he refused to turn over lists of people whom were involved in these searches and wiretaps? There is only one logical answer to these questions. The government does not intend to prosecute these people and the FISA court would not grant a warrant if asked because the people were not enemies of the state. The only logical reason why Bush would not attempt to get a warrant would be that these people are not terrorists at all but just people who disagree with him and have somehow crossed his radar by either protesting against him or running in an election against a republican candidate. Bush refuses to give out these names and refuses to adjourn an oversight committee because he will be caught. Bush continues to refuse to comply with federal law and gain warrants for searches and wiretapping.

Other presidents have been careful to maintain the equality of power among the branches because they know how important this balance is in a democracy. President Nixon nominated a liberal judge for Supreme Court while Jimmy Carter nominated a conservative. These presidents and others before them both understood the importance of our constitution and our democracy and put the wellbeing of both before the wishes of their party. It is not against the law to do otherwise but it certainly undermines the constitution each time Bush attempts to throw off the balance of power and attempts to gain more power for the executive branch. I would hope that even die-hard republicans could see the danger in the precedent given that someday a democrat will again hold the office of president. I wonder if they will be so willing to defend Bush’s actions if a democratic president uses this precedent to get around the laws and the constitution the way Bush has done for the past 5 years.

Finally, there is very clear and overwhelming evidence that Bush lied to congress and the American people in order to gain support for invading Iraq. The republican congress has been able to put off a formal investigation for more than 3 years now because they hold a majority but they did promise, 3 years ago, to investigate the information that led to the invasion of Iraq. They agreed to do this investigation in two parts. The first part was completed relatively quickly because it was the investigation of the intelligence agencies that provided the faulty pre-war intelligence. Even after the investigation was completed, the subcommittees in congress were able to hold off the release of much of the information until now. The investigation found that much of the intelligence gathered was actually correct however; the president only sited the incorrect and misleading intelligence in speeches to the American public and in documents to congress. The CIA and FBI both gave correct intelligence about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities and Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda but both were ignored. Bush chose to believe information that supported his decision for war although it was less reliable, more obscure, was disputed openly by our own intelligence agencies, and was in the end, false.

The second part of the promised investigation is to be whether the president and administration knowingly used false information about Iraq in order to gain support for an illegal war. This investigation has not yet formally begun because congress has been able to stall. Why wouldn’t any congressperson in the United States want to know if he or she was lied to by the president of the United States and tricked into giving the president the power to go to war with out just cause? I simply do not understand how a congressperson can put loyalty to their president or their party over a loyalty to their country and their constitution. When Nixon participated in illegal activities and lied about it, his own party insisted that something be done. Americans love to talk about democracy and how we are so wonderful but other countries in the world see our hypocrisy and wonder why we feel we have any right to preach to the rest of them. Other countries see very clearly that the president of the United States does not follow the rules he is trying to force them to implement and therefore we, as a country, have become a joke in the Middle East, in Europe and in the rest of the world. The president of Russia sees this irony but 33% of Americans in this country have not caught on yet.

Injecting religion into this equation has only made the situation more bizarre. Recently someone told me that I am not a good Christian because I believe the president is lying. Last Memorial Day I sat through a sermon about why it is okay to put the flag behind the cross. The premise was good. He started by saying that the cross comes first but we are all Americans after we are Christians. The problem came with the delivery in which he explained why we all must support America’s war and America’s government because we are good Christians. That part was a bit confusing to me if not downright heresy. When were Christians called by God to support American political figures or political agendas? I can see being deemed unchristian if I questioned God’s truthfulness or motives. I can even see how some would think me unchristian by questioning the king, if we had one, since many believed kings have divine rights to the throne. When did God start supporting our president or our country above all others? I think it is odd that Americans have begun to believe such absurdity although the religious right has spent billions of dollars to force this connection. The truly frightening thing, however, is that the religious right, and those who follow them, does not recognize the heretical act in claiming God is on their side.

The Christian right has made a political agenda of supporting one party regardless of their actions in order to advance their political agenda to ban gay marriage and outlaw abortion. Although they may have true religious beliefs about these two issues, they have misrepresented Christianity in order to advance this agenda. They have overlooked or even supported many actions by the administration that are questionable if not outright antichristian. The religious right has increased racism, bigotry and hatred in this country at a rate that is beyond compare in any other era. They have increased separatism and have been feeding on and encouraging the divided political atmosphere of our nation. This has not only made it impossible for Congress to work together to help anyone in our country, it has fed an anger toward homosexuals, liberals, democrats, feminists, muslims, immigrants etc that has resulted in violence against these groups. This effort to divide the people of our country and to ignore the political left may have helped their two main causes but it has left a majority of our nation without representation. It also has turned ordinary people, even Christians, away from the church and our religion. The plight of the poor has been virtually unheard for the past 5 years, as the rich have gotten billions of dollars worth of tax breaks. They have overlooked or even supported unjust war, torture, the death penalty, decreased gun control, and program cuts for our poorest citizens in order to advance their narrow agenda.

I have another good friend that will claim that the above paragraph is judgmental and therefore antichristian. He would tell me that by claiming they are not following God I am being judgmental and therefore doing the same as them. I do not think that is the case. We are called, as Christians, to spread the good news and to point out those who are misrepresenting our faith. In the book of Revelations John writes to the first church, “I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.” This is his complement to them before he then criticizes them for forgetting their first love. God. By putting America and our president on a pedestal, have we too forgotten our first love? Again, in the letter to Smyrna John states there is “slander by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” John recognizes the people of Smyrna for choosing to suffer rather than to follow those who claim to follow God but who are not. John spoke of the same ideas in his letter to Philadelphia. Are we forgetting to look for false apostles and are we overlooking their false statements because we are afraid to judge other Christians?

Jesus was especially concerned about the religious people of His time who were misrepresenting the Father and who were hypocritical. I believe the people of the religious right are the Pharisees of our time. They have twisted the message of the Bible so completely that it is unrecognizable to me as a Christian woman. Jesus spoke of love, forgiveness, giving all that you have for the poor and the least of these. Jesus spoke about humility and faith that God will judge and that we do not need to judge. The only warning he gave was to avoid the religious leaders who pointed out the sins of others without the proper humility. Jesus had great contempt for these religious leaders and stated that their sin is greater than any sins they were preaching about. I believe that supporting the hedonistic, violent and dishonest tendencies of this administration in order to gain political power to persecute people is the greatest sin. Even if they believe the people they are persecuting are acting in a sexually immoral, it does not excuse their own actions. The end does not justify the means, so to speak.

As Americans, we have freedom of religion so we tend to think that everyone has the right to think and say whatever they want to think and say. As Americans we do have this right. The religious right has a right to distort Jesus’ message in our country without consequence from the government. They can believe that Jesus is pro war, pro torture, anti gay, pro gun, etc. and legally they have a right to believe that and preach that. The ACLU would be inflamed if we tried to deny them that right. As Christians, however, we are not supposed to just sit back and ignore false statements by other Christians. We are not supposed to overlook their hypocrisy and ignore their distortion of our faith. We are caught up in the right of Americans to think whatever they want to think and we forget that we are Christians first and then Americans. The cross should be in front of the flag, not the opposite. Christians have an obligation to God to point out when other Christians are distorting His teachings. Historically Christians have upheld the premise of peace, equality, and love and we should continue to do that even in the face of the more “popular” Christians preaching the opposite. We should worship only the Father and the Son and recognize that the country and the president are not to be worshipped but admired. Only then can Christianity be omnipresent and the country a true democracy.