Sister Joan Chittister from 2003: Our country's plan is "war by-guess-and-by-golly."

[madfloridian]

I remember reading her columns in some of the darkest days in 2003 and 2004. It is still pretty dark in our country, but the light is beginning to shine now and then. Some days more brightly than others.

This one was called A Call To Preemptive Patriotism

It is from the National Catholic Register.

She devastatingly pointed out what we were doing....we were setting a policy for our country from which it would be hard to turn back. It was called pre-emptive war, or preventive war. It was a policy that we had the right to attack those we thought might be dangerous to us in the future.

Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th president of the United States, was not a patriot, at least not by this year’s definition. Roosevelt wrote, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” And Teddy Roosevelt ought to know: he was criticized plenty -- even during the invasion of the Philippines -- and for good reason.

But today in this country, just as during the McCarthy era and its communist witch-hunts, unpatriotic patriotism, devotion to the government rather than to the Constitution, is again rearing its ugly and dangerous head. Other governments of the world debated the legitimacy of Bush’s so-called “doctrine of pre-emptive war” while our own representatives said little or nothing. Journalists were fired for saying the truth. What does ‘loyalty and faithfulness’ really demand here?

Most everyone here at Democratic Underground knew why we were invading Iraq. We were activists, we called, we wrote, we emailed to no avail. On March 20 2003, the bombs began to fall on Iraq to show the world how powerful we were. They called it Shock and Awe.

I can believe that Sister Joan Chittister probably cried that day of the invasion along with many of us...unbelieving what our country was doing.

What’s wrong with this picture? We insisted to the U.N. Security Council that we were invading Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. Now, it seems, he was not very well armed to begin with. But then, that’s what “pre-emptive war” is all about, isn’t it? We attack what might attack us -- just in case they ever get armed enough to do it. So, the world had better get used to it.

In fact, the world had better get used to the new us. From now on, it’s war by-guess-and-by-golly. And, given the relative absence of the US Congress from the debate on Iraq, if this present situation is any model of congressional “patriotism,” war will be planned, launched and conducted apparently at the whim and mercy of one man in the White House.

Clearly, the Roman Empire rises again. Except that this time we’re it. And there’s no telling who will be next to know it firsthand: Korea? Syria? China? Pakistan? All for the best of motives, of course. All in the most humane of inhumane ways, I’m sure. But each and all of them distinct, doubtful, and devastating to the US Constitution itself.

She questions how we can be patriotic about pre-emptive war and ends with these words.

As I read this report, two comments played like a descant in my ears. The first came from the Book of Proverbs: “Loyalty and faithfulness preserve the king, and his throne is upheld by righteousness.” I found myself wondering what real loyalty and faithfulness imply at a time like this.

...."along with this kind of patriotism will go the democracy we intend to impose. By suppressing the voices of people who are patriotically unpatriotic enough to remind us of ideas like these, we run the risk of losing the very society we purport to defend. Worse, we will forfeit, as well, the righteousness which really upholds a government and to which the Book of Proverbs surely refers.

Someone recently sent me a private message that I was mocking religion when I posted about evolution and intelligent design. No, I wasn't. I was delineating the difference between a person like this Benedictine nun who stands for honesty and peace and those who stand for petty quarrels and wedge issues.

Bill Moyers interviewed her several years ago. Here is the link. The video still appears to be available.

An interview with Sister Joan Chittister

I thank her for being one of the few voices during those terribly dark days who had the courage to speak up.

[PDJane]

1. Sister Joan is an amazing person..........

A down to earth, generous, and absolutely moral person. A very special addition to this world.

[burrowowl]

2. Yes she is! K&R!

[pingzing58]

3. Great piece thanks for posting it.

[madfloridian]

7. Most welcome. I enjoy her writings.

I posted the archives in the post below this one.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/archives2.htm

[madfloridian]

4. Christian, Secular or Something Else Entirely

I was browsing through her column archives, and I found this about the Brussels Declaration and the Berlin Declaration....and they sound pretty important.

Christian, Secular or Something Else Entirely

Here's a tip: If you want to know before your friends do what may well be one of the major questions of the 21st century, keep your eye on two new documents. The first is the Berlin Declaration to be released by E.U. President Angela Merkel within the month. The second is the Brussels Declaration, a statement by prominent European academicians, community leaders, and national and European politicians, which disagrees with the tenets included in the Berlin Declaration and which has already been released in response to it.

These two declarations could engage Western society for years to come -- and with no small consequences. But don't expect either one of them to raise too much discussion at the club next week. The fact is that the most important things going on in the world are often neither the most obvious things nor the most publicized ones. I doubt, for instance, that the Enlightenment philosophers whose ideas were the undergirding of either the revolutionary American Constitution or the bloody French Revolution that followed it were much in the news before either of those events.

Now, we may be in the throes of another civilization-shaping moment in history without even being aware of it.

Oh, there have been scuffles along the way, of course, that could have alerted us to the problem.

In this case, the first shots fired over the bow have been simple ones. Court cases in the United States have argued for the admissibility of religious icons in U.S courtrooms, and students have sued for the right to pray on school grounds.

Interesting. Little steps that are not very noticeable.

[Time for change]

5. World civilization will not last long if we continue our preventive war doctrine

We need a president with the courage to say that.

[madfloridian]

6. I have a fear though that some in our own party are for this.

They may call it something else, but it is spreading Democracy.

DLC's Ideas Primary: The Left views any talk of “democracy promotion” with growing suspicion."

Thanks to the Bush administration, the Left views any talk of “democracy promotion” with growing suspicion. This is one of the tragic consequences of the Iraq war and the incessant belligerence of an administration that has tainted everything it has touched in the Middle East. In response - and in disillusion - progressives have abandoned one of the core tenets of liberal internationalism. The task ahead of us, then, is a difficult one: reclaiming democracy promotion as our own, in a way that upholds the best of our ideals, and, at the same time, appreciates the very real limits of power and idealism. First, the rationale; beyond the moral component, democracy promotion is the only way to protect the homeland and secure our long-term national interests.

Democracy promotion...same as spreading Democracy. Often turns out to be at the point of a gun.

[Time for change]

8. Nothing wrong with promoting democracy

One way to promote democracy is to provide an example to the rest of the world by such things as upholding international law and lending a helping hand to struggling democracies with aid in such areas as medical care, public health, or basic education.

Another way to "promote democracy" is to invade and occupy countries that pose no threat to us, kill hundreds of thousands of their civilians, and re-write all their laws to give our corporations access to their oil and other resources.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two different mechanisms of promoting democracy shouldn't be in government.