ALL THINGS THAT MATTER

The March 17th news story reported by AP’s writer Sarah Karush on the Christian march in Washington, D.C. against the war in Iraq is disheartening.  Karush reported that thousands of Christians took to the streets and held prayer services and a candlelight march on the empty White House.  A permit for 30,000 marchers has been issued for a march from the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial to the Pentagon.

In the United States people who claim that they are of the Christian faith represent 75% to 85% of the total population.  Obviously we are talking in the hundreds of millions who claim to be followers of Jesus and the Christian Bible.  The percent “on the march” should be embarrassing to the Christian faith.

Equally disturbing are some of the comments made by several of the marchers.  One marcher said that his “opposition to the war developed over time.” Another said that he “toasted the military might of the United States on the night of the attack” (against Iraq).  A protester said that the war has been dominated by the religious “right,” who have supported the war but that he is not how he reads the Gospels.  A reverend added that, “This war…is an offense against God.”

When the national sentiment was all in favor of the war in Iraq, barely a protest was heard.  Now that public opinion has swayed in opposition to the war, we begin to religious rumblings.  My take is that the Bible, actually all sacred religious texts including the Qur’an are opposed to violence and war. How does one proclaiming the Christian faith justify opposition developing over time?    How does one claiming to be a follower of one of the most peaceful person to walk the face of the planet “toast the military might of the United States?”  Is the claim “This war is an offense against God” imply that others wars are not?

Religion has been the cause or underlying reason for many of the world’s ills.  While on the one hand the teachings claim that the guiding principle is “love thy neighbor,” it seems that a footnote should be added that says “If your neighbor is of the same religion.”  Time and time again religions have remained silent and even promoted war, persecutions, genocides, tortures and division among peoples.  They were silent, and some say supported, the Holocaust.  They have been silent in Darfur.  They were silent in  

Rwanda.  They have amassed great wealth while touting their charities.  Is it any wonder why the younger generations are searching for a new spiritual experience?  Religious leaders of times past always said that “you will know people by their works.”  If we teach by example, what kind of example are we setting for the world’s youth? 

History is only repetitive because for some reason, each generation loses sight of the lessons learned from those that preceded them.  A fundamental issue is how do we communicate past lessons to our sons and daughters in a meaningful and effective way?  Must each generation experience the errors of their fathers in order to learn?   If we are to know followers of any religion “by their actions,” there is little doubt that most faiths have any true believers. The so called, “Christian march for peace” is too little and way too late and is indicative of how many selectively practice the teachings of their founders.

I am not sure that President Bush hasn't gone off the deep end.  What is he thinking with regards to Iran?  The U.S. cannot afford to expand the conflict in the Middle East.  The leaders in Iran have had a screw loose for some time now and Bush seems to have joined the club.  The lack of dialogue can lead us down a hole and no shovel will be big enough to get us out.  Is the President trying to divert our attention from the disaster in Iraq by getting us worried about a possible conflict with Iran?  The President should know by now that all of the stories about Iranian involvement regarding weapons supplies to so called insurgents in Iraq is not going to fly with the American public. WMD's are all to fresh in our memories.

What is the President's problem with talking to leaders of other nations?  Throughout history we have talked with our enemies until they decided not to talk to us.  Talking ended the Cold War and prevented nuclear war.  We cannot afford silence on the part of our leaders-the stakes are too high if we avoid the conference table.  Let it never be said that we were the first to turn a deaf ear.  Yes, there are times when the talk ends and fighting may begin, but that is not the case with Iran and it is not the case with North Korea.  Hell, the President barely talks to our friends and allies. A lot can happen in two years and it doesn't look good if our diplomacy is based upon non-dialogue.

To have peace, you must want peace.  I do not believe that the people of Iraq want peace.  Do Iraqi mothers want to see their sons and daughters killed by a suicide bomber?  Of course they don’t.  Do fathers want to see their families slain on a bus or as they shop at the local market or head out for school?  I sincerely doubt it.  Do the Iraqi people want war?  They say they don’t.  But do they want peace?

It is easy to say that the problems and the fighting in Iraq are between two or more sectarian groups.  Each group is vying for power or a greater share of the countries wealth and there is also a history of differences of religious opinion among these groups.  But do these factors alone account for the daily slayings and brutal murders?

People often blame their leaders for all kinds of heinous acts.  The German people blamed the Nazis for the Holocaust and it was not until recently that some level responsibility was taken by the people.  For that matter, in most cases of genocide, blame is always placed on the leaders, but rarely on the citizens.  During the American Civil War, did the populace support the positions of their respective sides?  Were German citizens really ignorant of the actions of their government?  Were only world leaders aware of the atrocities in Africa, the former Yugoslavia or the infamous killing fields? Can any government or faction operate without at least some acceptance of the people?

It might be the easy road to say that the people are helpless in the face of the weapons of a dictatorial regime.  And yet, history is replete with examples of people rising up to remove the yoke of their oppressors.  From every corner of the globe there has come a time when people have said “enough is enough.”  The great age of revolutions in the 18^th and 19^th centuries is chapters in history books.  People are not helpless, they never have been.  Almost every nation on earth has its example of people rising up to put an end to tyranny.

If people in Iraq truly want peace and an end to the constant violence they too would rise up against the terrorists.  If the Palestinians really wanted peace they would demand an end to the bloody internal politics that plague the Middle East.  Do they really want peace or does each side hope that their armies will be victorious over their rivals?  Perhaps support on the part of the people for rival factions is not overt.  But their inaction yields the same results.  We are all to blame for Darfur by our inaction.  We are all to blame for the millions that have died through ethnic cleansings and genocides. 

We hear all of the time that polls in Iraq blame the West in general and the U.S. in particular for all of their woes.  Of course these same people sat back and watched as Kurds in their own country were gassed and dissenters sent to be tortured and they watched as the women were raped.  Do they really want peace?  Does the average citizen in Iraq want the killing and violence to stop or are they secretly or even unconsciously hoping that their side will come to dominate their nation?  There is a lot of talk of what our leaders have done wrong, and rightfully so.  But let us not forget that we are all responsible for our own futures, and that includes the Iraqi people.