PhilTeach Blog

LA Catholic Examiner: Conscience protection regulation: Bush’s last attack?

Posted using ShareThis

Take a look at this video clip.  Let us be thankful that Pres. Obama was born before Roe vrs. Wade .  

www.CatholicVote.com

Posted using ShareThis

As Barak Obama takes the oath to serve our Nation, and to uphold and defend the Constitution, I pray that the message that he so clearly and inspirationally articulated in the campaign comes to be accomplished. His words inspired many, and provided us with optimism about the future.  Hope was his rallying call, and many, including myself responded. This was against the backdrop of a campaign that also demonstrated how easily our nation can be polarized around issues dealing with life, war, economics, immigration, religion and race.  Polarization, defining reality as either black or while, is the opposite of hope. Today our nation defines reality as either right/left; Democrat/Republican; Pro-life/Pro-choice; Conservative/ Progressive; Legal/Illegal.  Such ideological categories paint the complexity of life in simplistic language which often leads us into a type of dualistic blindness. This blindness is governed by the mottos, “If you are not with us, you are against us” and “If you do not agree with me, then you hate me.”  It is this blindness which often prevents us from seeing that God’s creation is filled with possibilities, and that we have been given the power to be co-creators and care keepers of it.   It is a blindness-of-possibilities that induces the fear to move beyond ourselves, makes us deft to one another, and impedes us from seeking the truth. 

Hope is the virtue that helps us to see future possibilities. It is the habit of seeing what we can be while still being grounded in the reality and difficulties of the present. To be hopeful is to know that the truth can only be discovered when we are open to each other’s ideas, gifts, talents and energies. It is only in hope that we can seek new solutions to social, political, and moral challenges. It is this sense of possibilities that leads Obama to say that change is possible and that all of us can contribute to a new future.  Two thousand years ago, St. Paul wrote that in the end only three things will last: faith, hope and love. At the end of eight years of the Bush Administration, and at the beginning of a new era in U.S. history, we must also acknowledge that hope alone is not enough. Faith demands that we act to achieve that which we hope for. Love elicits recognition that what we hope for is only valuable when we achieve it for the sake of another. 

But hope is a beginning, a first step.  So, on this occasion, I hope that the illusion that destroying life is the way we can assure our personal liberty, achieve personal fulfillment, or maintain a good quality of life, be replaced with the vision that all human life be seen as a gift, as a moment of celebration and as an opportunity for each of us to move beyond ourselves.I hope that the practice of determining human value and integrity be not grounded on political, fashionable or economic convenience, but instead on the conviction that each person has been lovingly created with an intrinsic dignity.  I hope that instead of living by the fallacy that the human family is divisible into “us and them,” we live by the truth that all human beings belong to one family and thus share in a common life and destiny.

On the occasion of the inauguration of Barak Obama, we recall his message of hope. But as he takes the oath of office, let us chose to hope by our action.  Failure to lovingly act diminishes hope into a mere delusion.  As we move to form ‘A More Perfect Union’ may we recognize that no authentic community can exist if it is not grounded on the belief that all human life has intrinsic value.   Obama’s swearing-in ceremony is not a magic-laden ritual that will transform the nation, but a call, a challenge for each of us to actively move beyond the polarizing conversations of the past, and into an open creative exchange about who we are, how we belong to each other, and that a “perfect union”, can only be measured by the way we acknowledge the dignity of those who are vulnerable, poor and marginalized in our society.

Recently two events occurred; Christians around the world celebrated the Feast of Epiphany, and President Bush revealed his plan to escalate the US military presence in Iraq. What do these have in common? In both cases you see a nations leader hiding his real agenda behind words of goodness.

The image of three magi following the Star of Christmas is one which adorns many seasonal card. The story of the Wiseman of the East being guided by the star that announced the birth of a new king, the child Jesus is remembered by Christians on the yearly feast of Epiphany (manifestation). The story however states that the wise men did not exactly get their facts correct. Instead of going to the place where the infant Jesus was, they instead visited the palace of Herald the Great, the king of Judea. King Herald, who jealously held to his power even to the point of killing his own children, welcomed the mysterious foreigners. After hearing their story, and consulting with his advisors, he sent them off with the words, “When you find the child, come back and tell me where he is so that I too may worship him”. However, worship was far from his heart. Instead he sought the child in order to kill him and thus maintain his power. Luckily, the wise men did not comply with his request.

Many Americans heard President Bush’s speak in which he stated that he would increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. He used language and imagery that Americans would have no difficulty identifying as their own. Some of these included that Americans do not run from a fight, and that victory and not defeat is the goal of any struggle. That national leaders, more specifically Iraqi leaders, ought to govern in a manner that generates dialogue and peace among its citizens. That Liberty is something that all Americans treasure and have a responsibility to promote and defend. That the oil riches of Iraq should be use for the reconstruction and development of a democratic and just society in Iraq. That America should not abandon those who struggle for liberty. And that terrorist must not be permitted to attack U.S. citizens as they did in 2001. Just as the Wise men did not disagree with Heralds words about adoring the newborn king, so Americans do not disagree over the President’s sentiments. However, though all these the sentimental words ring true to Americans, do they actually reflect the heart of our administration and of those who govern it? Are we in Iraq and refuse to leave Iraq for these reasons, or is there another?

The Presidential Office of the Unites States is a noble office, and those elected to it, must govern wisely while constantly seeking the common good of all. This must be done in a spirit of honesty and respect for all Americans and toward people whose lives are affected by American policy. Lets face it, we do not want to entrust the most power office in the nation, and most economically and militarily influential office in the world to someone who is neither respectful nor honest with us.

So why are we still there? Did we not already complete the mission? Sadam Hussein, and his cohorts have been defeated, and are dead. A constitution has been written. Free elections have taken place and the people of Iraq have a new government. Though an expected civil war has developed, the American people did not send their children and resources to militarily build a nation, but instead to assist a people in the elimination of a tyrant, (one we conveniently no longer liked), and to, using the revenue from their natural resources, assist them in the rebuilding the life of its people. We did not go to Iraq to create a puppet state in a region that also happens to be one of the world’s top three sources of oil. Or, did we?

After reading a recent article in the British Independent press, which reports how oil corporations have been politically active in Iraq, one cannot help ask who is to primarily benefit from the establishment of the government. According to the article, oil corporations, under the careful support of the US government have been taking advantage of the growing pains of the new Iraqi government. These corporations have been pushing for Iraqi legislation, which may be soon passed giving them unprecedented control over the oil in the region. What is even most surprising is that the majority of the legislators are not even aware of such efforts, while US officials are, and have approved such measures. One cannot help but wonder whose interest is being sought by the elimination of Hussein and the orchestrated formulation of the new government. Is it really the people of Iraq, or the oil industry?

In the last few years the Republican lead Congress has consistently refusal to have oversight hearings on how US dollars are being spent by private industries involved in the providing of weapons and services to our soldiers. No substantial oversight has been given to how money, allocated to rebuilding programs in Iraq, is actually being used. Or of how much of the revenue of the sales of Iraqi oil has been reserved or used for the rebuilding of Iraq. So the question arises, “ Who is benefiting from the military action in Iraq, and who would continue to benefit?” One thing is clear; two mayor groups have already benefited, and have a great deal to gain by an increase of military presence in the region, the international oil corporations, and the weapons and war industry.