The Conservatives' Big Lie + How it Won Obama the Presidency + The Truth

Villagers protest drone bombings authorized by President Obama which have murdered donzens of civilians.

“Barack Obama wants to wave the white flag in the war on terror.” I think most people can remember hearing similar statements during the exceedingly long presidential campaign. Some people might even remember believing it after having it drilled into their heads for so many weeks by GOP politicians, conservative pundits, and right-wing talk radio. The intense onslaught of spin and propaganda was intended to “wake up America,” “expose the radicals,” and in short, damage Obama in order to keep a Republican in the White House.

However, I regret to inform Rush Limbaugh and the lot that the effort to paint Obama as a European-style peacenik (an image Obama was happy to accept) is precisely what handed the election over to him. It is a dying shame that the overwhelming effort to make this big lie into a publicly recognized truth put the Stop Obama Express on a countdown to self-destruction.

The irony is that, rather than inflame the conservative base enough to drown out or reeducate the left, the lie actually ignited overwhelming numbers of young liberals. Once the idea of Obama as a candidate for peace began to be perceived as true, the GOP could kiss their presidential hopes goodbye, as that is exactly the type of candidate so many in our generation want. Even outside left-leaning student circles, America was ready for change, ready to leave the ways of militaristic power struggles behind; and conservatives showed them exactly who to vote for. The only problem was that many of these Obama voters did not have the wherewithal or desire to do the research necessary to find out they were being duped.

One needed only listen to what President Obama expressly stated in any number of nationally televised debates during the primaries to know that, far from waving the white flag in the war on terror, he would keep the nuclear option on the table in relation to Iran, raise troop levels in Afghanistan, carry out military operations across Pakistani borders without their permission, and continue anti-terrorism aggression in Iraq. For what it’s worth, Obama was at least honest, since he has followed through on all of the above.

Just this week, President Obama reminded the American people that they should be scared; al-Qaeda is “actively planning” attacks on the U.S. from Pakistan! He then had the gall to ask Congress for over a billion dollars to fund a military solution to the problem and mask it as a favor to the people of Pakistan. He also stated that we will "defeat terrorism," yet refrained from defining either what terrorism is, or exactly how many people need to be killed in order for it to be defeated. I hope I’m not the only one having some major déjà vu right about now:

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush (9/28/2002)

"If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney (9/14/2003)

If Conservatives wanted to win the election, they need only have pointed out the bare naked truth about Obama’s militaristic tendencies and refusal to Imagine a United States that can hold itself together without a war. Loyalty would have then been fragmented away to third party candidates who offered a platform of peace, and John McCain would have won the election.

Bearing this in mind, for the time being, maybe we should count our blessings.

Urban Evangelism?

I read an article in the current issue of Comment magazine about Christian attitudes toward cities, and I was struck by a comment the author, Robert Joustra, made about the nature of urban mission work:

"If our urban activities as people of faith are consistently predicated on conversion, we shall quickly become very bad neighbours. I think of this as a kind of spiritual narcissism which grows out of an interior insecurity about our own faith and life."

He later goes on to suggest that rather than viewing missions work, particularly in our home cities of urban North America, in a truncated sense, with conversion and proselytization as its exclusive goal...

"...we learn to live and share the Gospel story in ways that far exceed a simple dualistic mission--we start to think of worshipping God and honouring him by building efficient transit [etc.]...the Gospel in the urban metropolis calls us forth into all the manifold spheres of city life, to enact justice, sustain and cultivate beauty..."

I think this observation is right on, and I think the practices of even the most adamant, unapologetic, and conservative Christians show that they agree. The most evident example of this that I see is the way in which most overseas missions work, especially when there is a language barrier, is carried out. I've never heard of a team memorizing the Romans road in Spanish or Chinese; but they do have faith that the Spirit of God will be evident in their work of building a home for a single mother, or teaching English to students.

I am not saying that I think preaching the gospel has no place in missions work. Obviously, even in the above example, for instance, the gospel is at the forefront. However, I am indeed suggesting that there are benefits to reexamining urban missions along the lines mentioned. Rather than conversion being our number one goal, what if our goal was to cultivate life-giving practices within an urban context so that the gospel can be embodied through our actions, rather than (often empty) words? And what would happen if we partnered with inter-faith non-profits, government organizations, and all resources at our disposal creatively and faithfully to do it?

I think implicit in Christ's command to go and preach the gospel to all nations is a call to constantly deconstruct the practices we employ to accomplish it. While it may have been appropriate and effective in St. Paul's context to walk into a city, head to the synagogue and start converting people, our own reality is much different.

While there are appropriate times to evangelize and a number of people who respond positively to it, I think one thing that is lacking in our Church culture is a desire to serve with absolutely no ulterior motives including the desire for the one served to come to Christ or attend a church service.

What if we serve selflessly, often, and creatively enough that we become known as lovers rather than preachers, and by the work of the Holy Spirit, our cities invite themselves to a Sunday service? Amidst a culture of death and violence, there is something so compelling about the Church, whose gospel offers life and peace.

Rejecting Obama Bush-era Policy

Amidst the Hope expressed in the impending closure of Guantanamo bay and the official rejection of torture as a legitimate interrogation technique, we cannot help but feel short-changed by the White House as our watchful eyes make us painfully aware of what these symbolic—nevertheless important—acts are intended to mask.

Beneath the façade of Change and progressive foreign policy, lies a disturbing cache of stockpiled Bush-era stratagem ranging from extraordinary rendition to preemptive war, combined with the same destructive ego/natio-centric worldview which takes great pains to justify every sort of evil by way of self-interest and self-preservation.

As civilian casualty rates in Afghanistan reach an all-time high and the documented number of such deaths in Iraq approaches the 100,000 mark, we are compelled to reflect on the high price paid for our national security. We are compelled to beg of President Obama an answer to the question first posed by Mahatma Gandhi, “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”

We can no longer bask in our own privileged circumstance, averting our eyes from those unfortunate enough to live on the wrong side of the world; the side where a family is just as likely to be blown to pieces by a suicide bomber as they are to be incinerated inside their own home by a Coalition missile.

Despite the wave of popularity surrounding the new President, and the dizzying array of inane economic noise, we, the American public, refuse to be seduced or distracted. We challenge our new national leaders to publicly defend the policies they reject in their rhetoric, yet retain behind closed doors. We will not stand idly by, smiling to ourselves as 17,000 more U.S. armed forces are sent into Afghanistan to kill or be killed in service of the nation, its market, its consumerist ideals, and its political interests.

Let us remember that, “To fight violence with violence can only ever result in a victory for violence, not a victory over it,” as Bishop N.T. Wright warns.

It is high time the American people, particularly Christians, call into question the appropriateness of Obama’s decision to continue drone bombings in the sovereign nation of Pakistan, which invariably result in the murder of innocent families.

We, the Church, must openly reject the destroy-them-before-they-destroy-us mentality which President Obama has allowed to carry over into this new administration, as all resulting policy is in no way life-giving, redemptive, or reflective of faithful human be-ing. This mentality, being in every way inappropriate for any type of Christian or civil interaction, can no longer be seen as legitimate policy, blindly accepted, or passively coalesced.