In 1770 French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) wrote,
“On en trouve [l’argent] toujours quand il s’agit d’aller faire tuer des hommes sur la frontière: il n’y en a plus quand il faut les sauver.” (“Money is always to be found when men are to be sent to the frontiers to be destroyed: when the object is to preserve them, it is no longer so.”)
No truer words were ever spoken, and, unfortunately, what was true in 1770 is still true today. For eight years, our federal government borrowed money like a credit-card abuser and spent money like a drunken sailor (the latter simile attributable to Senator John McCain) to pay for a war in Iraq that nobody has yet figured out why we started in the first place.
Now we have a President who is trying to shift our priorities from “sending people to the frontiers” to “preserving them,” but THAT kind of spending is unacceptable to the thousands who gathered in “Tea Party” protests April 15th. We heard nary a peep out of those same protesters when Bush, et al. were running up the greatest budget deficit in our history because, presumably, the Tea Party people are infected with the same mindless jingoism that Voltaire condemned almost 240 years ago. Presumably they believe that spending to kill human beings is appropriate, but spending to help people to get back to work or provide them with affordable health care is not.
A few days ago I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that read “I’ll keep my guns, freedom and money.” My guess is that the driver of that pickup truck believes that his freedom depends on his not paying taxes and using his gun to shoot anybody who tries to take his money and spend it on something “frivolous” like improving the human condition.
Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841-1935) is supposed to have said, “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” Justice Holmes was right. Paying taxes is patriotic, especially when those taxes are used for improving the quality of life instead of destroying life.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Torture
“The healthy man does not torture others--generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” - Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961).
President Obama’s release of the secret Bush Administration documents that contained the “justification” for torture techniques such as waterboarding has generated much debate. Former Vice President Dick Cheney argues that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” resulted in our obtaining valuable information. Here in West Virginia, MetroNews radio talk-show host “Hoppy” Kercheval has alleged that our junior U.S. Senator, Jay Rockefeller, knew about and approved of the torture because, at the time, he was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Intelligence.
I have serious doubts that torture results in any useful information for its practitioners. Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican standard-bearer, has consistently maintained that what torture accomplishes is to cause the person being tortured to say what the torturer wants to hear, whether it is true or not. Senator McCain knows a little something about torture; certainly, he knows more than former Vice President Cheney, a draft-dodger who sought and received five deferments to avoid the Vietnam War.
But whether torture “works” or not is beside the point. The point is that, as Jung said, only sick people order, engage in or condone torture. (If Senator Rockefeller knew about and approved of the torture, then, in my eyes, he is as guilty as those who ordered and engaged in it.) Call me naïve if you will, but, as one who is proud to be an American, I think that we are better than that. Must we become like our enemies to defeat them? If we do, then what have we accomplished?
Now comes the disturbing news. The results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center show that 49 percent of all Americans polled believe that torture can be justified at least sometimes. However, most disturbing of all is the breakdown of the survey relative to churchgoing frequency. Of those who attend religious services at least weekly, 54 percent believe that torture can be justified at least sometimes; of those who attend religious services monthly or a few times a year, 51 percent; of those who attend religious services seldom or never, 42 percent. What are those people learning at their religious services? Or--and this is even scarier--what are those people being TAUGHT at their religious services?
According to Yale University religious historian Sydney Ahlstrom (1919-1984), the early part of the 19th century was characterized by an individual approach to religion: “The quest for holiness, however, came to take a very individualistic line. The accent was on vices of persons, not evil in the forms of society. Reform meant change in the individual, not the tearing up or modification of a social contract that had been religiously approved.”
It is sad to say, but Ahlstrom could easily have been talking about 2009.
President Obama’s release of the secret Bush Administration documents that contained the “justification” for torture techniques such as waterboarding has generated much debate. Former Vice President Dick Cheney argues that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” resulted in our obtaining valuable information. Here in West Virginia, MetroNews radio talk-show host “Hoppy” Kercheval has alleged that our junior U.S. Senator, Jay Rockefeller, knew about and approved of the torture because, at the time, he was the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Intelligence.
I have serious doubts that torture results in any useful information for its practitioners. Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican standard-bearer, has consistently maintained that what torture accomplishes is to cause the person being tortured to say what the torturer wants to hear, whether it is true or not. Senator McCain knows a little something about torture; certainly, he knows more than former Vice President Cheney, a draft-dodger who sought and received five deferments to avoid the Vietnam War.
But whether torture “works” or not is beside the point. The point is that, as Jung said, only sick people order, engage in or condone torture. (If Senator Rockefeller knew about and approved of the torture, then, in my eyes, he is as guilty as those who ordered and engaged in it.) Call me naïve if you will, but, as one who is proud to be an American, I think that we are better than that. Must we become like our enemies to defeat them? If we do, then what have we accomplished?
Now comes the disturbing news. The results of a recent survey by the Pew Research Center show that 49 percent of all Americans polled believe that torture can be justified at least sometimes. However, most disturbing of all is the breakdown of the survey relative to churchgoing frequency. Of those who attend religious services at least weekly, 54 percent believe that torture can be justified at least sometimes; of those who attend religious services monthly or a few times a year, 51 percent; of those who attend religious services seldom or never, 42 percent. What are those people learning at their religious services? Or--and this is even scarier--what are those people being TAUGHT at their religious services?
According to Yale University religious historian Sydney Ahlstrom (1919-1984), the early part of the 19th century was characterized by an individual approach to religion: “The quest for holiness, however, came to take a very individualistic line. The accent was on vices of persons, not evil in the forms of society. Reform meant change in the individual, not the tearing up or modification of a social contract that had been religiously approved.”
It is sad to say, but Ahlstrom could easily have been talking about 2009.
Friday, January 23, 2009
I was there
Dupont Circle, January 19th: A crowd has gathered, and the people are throwing shoes at a large, inflatable George W. Bush. Muntazer al-Zaidi, wherever he is, is vindicated.
Not far from Dupont Circle, January 19th: A Catholic church sports a sign that thanks President Bush for “protecting life,” reminding me of the unfortunate truth that many of my fellow Catholics believe that an embryonic stem cell is a person, but a pregnant Iraqi whose death (along with the death of her unborn child) is caused by Bush’s unnecessary war on the Iraqi people apparently is not. This shallow thinking ignores Pope John Paul II’s March 2003 characterization of the invasion of Iraq as neither morally nor legally justified. Or is it that the Catholics who support Bush and his policies think of themselves as holier than the pope?
Union Jack’s, a pub in Arlington, the evening of January 19th: The crawler across the bottom of the big-screen television tells us that Vice President Cheney will be in a wheelchair the next day at the Inauguration. Most of the customers cheer. Disrespectful? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just that one reaps what one sows.
Inauguration Day: President Bush appears, and there is groaning in the crowd, which eventually turns to scattered boos. Somebody starts singing, “Na-na-na-na; na-na-na-na; hey; hey; good-bye;….” It catches the fancy of many in the crowd. I join in. Again, one reaps what one sows. One cannot treat the Constitution and Laws of the United States with disrespect and expect to be treated with respect by the people.
The swearing-in: Despite Chief Justice Roberts’s botching the oath, Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th President. The crowd, which has been holding its collective breath (afraid that somehow, somebody or something would prevent this happy moment from taking place) exhales and erupts. Tears are running down cheeks, and people are hugging people whom they do not know, have never seen before and will never see again.
After the ceremonies: As the helicopter with the former first family flies overhead, many people begin to cheer. Two thoughts enter my mind: (1) Gone at last! Gone at last! Thank God Almighty! George W. Bush is gone at last! (2) The Village of Crawford, Texas, is no longer missing its Village Idiot.
Back home in West Virginia, January 22d: I sit down to breakfast at Harding’s, a restaurant just north of Charleston. A man near me says (to nobody in particular), “What’s so special about this Inauguration? It was just another Black man moving into public housing!” I announce that I was at the Inauguration and that it was special to me. Another man asks me whether I heard the “inappropriate” benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery. I tell him that it was a great prayer, that I heard nothing inappropriate.
I was there. Now I’m back here.
Not far from Dupont Circle, January 19th: A Catholic church sports a sign that thanks President Bush for “protecting life,” reminding me of the unfortunate truth that many of my fellow Catholics believe that an embryonic stem cell is a person, but a pregnant Iraqi whose death (along with the death of her unborn child) is caused by Bush’s unnecessary war on the Iraqi people apparently is not. This shallow thinking ignores Pope John Paul II’s March 2003 characterization of the invasion of Iraq as neither morally nor legally justified. Or is it that the Catholics who support Bush and his policies think of themselves as holier than the pope?
Union Jack’s, a pub in Arlington, the evening of January 19th: The crawler across the bottom of the big-screen television tells us that Vice President Cheney will be in a wheelchair the next day at the Inauguration. Most of the customers cheer. Disrespectful? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just that one reaps what one sows.
Inauguration Day: President Bush appears, and there is groaning in the crowd, which eventually turns to scattered boos. Somebody starts singing, “Na-na-na-na; na-na-na-na; hey; hey; good-bye;….” It catches the fancy of many in the crowd. I join in. Again, one reaps what one sows. One cannot treat the Constitution and Laws of the United States with disrespect and expect to be treated with respect by the people.
The swearing-in: Despite Chief Justice Roberts’s botching the oath, Barack Obama is sworn in as our 44th President. The crowd, which has been holding its collective breath (afraid that somehow, somebody or something would prevent this happy moment from taking place) exhales and erupts. Tears are running down cheeks, and people are hugging people whom they do not know, have never seen before and will never see again.
After the ceremonies: As the helicopter with the former first family flies overhead, many people begin to cheer. Two thoughts enter my mind: (1) Gone at last! Gone at last! Thank God Almighty! George W. Bush is gone at last! (2) The Village of Crawford, Texas, is no longer missing its Village Idiot.
Back home in West Virginia, January 22d: I sit down to breakfast at Harding’s, a restaurant just north of Charleston. A man near me says (to nobody in particular), “What’s so special about this Inauguration? It was just another Black man moving into public housing!” I announce that I was at the Inauguration and that it was special to me. Another man asks me whether I heard the “inappropriate” benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery. I tell him that it was a great prayer, that I heard nothing inappropriate.
I was there. Now I’m back here.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Hypocrisy
Every election year the Republicans dust off Roe v. Wade and beat Democrats over the head with it, calling us “baby killers” (or worse). Although I’ve written on this subject before, because we’re in another election campaign, I think it’s worthwhile to revisit it. My purpose here isn’t to take either a “pro-life” or a “pro-choice” position; rather it’s to call attention to yet another example of Republican hypocrisy.
WHO gave us Roe v. Wade? From 1970 continuously to the present day, Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents have constituted a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1973, the year in which Roe v. Wade was decided, the Court consisted of SIX Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents (Warren E. Burger, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Harry A. Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell Jr. and William H. Rehnquist) and three Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents (William O. Douglas, Byron R. White and Thurgood Marshall).
The majority decision in Roe v. Wade was written by Justice Blackmun, an appointee of REPUBLICAN President Nixon. He was joined in his decision by FOUR other REPUBLICAN appointees: Chief Justice Burger (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Nixon; Justice Stewart (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Eisenhower; Justice Brennan, an appointee of President Eisenhower; and Justice Powell, an appointee of President Nixon.
To summarize, of the six REPUBLICAN appointees on the Court, FIVE voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade. Only ONE REPUBLICAN appointee, Justice Rehnquist, an appointee of President Nixon, DISSENTED from the decision and filed his own dissenting opinion.
Of the three Democratic appointees, two joined the majority: Justice Douglas (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Roosevelt; and Justice Marshall, an appointee of President Johnson. One Democratic appointee, Justice White, an appointee of President Kennedy, dissented from the Court’s decision and filed his own dissenting opinion.
So, WHO gave us Roe v. Wade? They were FIVE Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents (Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun and Powell) and two Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents (Douglas and Marshall).
WHO gave us Roe v. Wade? From 1970 continuously to the present day, Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents have constituted a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1973, the year in which Roe v. Wade was decided, the Court consisted of SIX Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents (Warren E. Burger, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Harry A. Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell Jr. and William H. Rehnquist) and three Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents (William O. Douglas, Byron R. White and Thurgood Marshall).
The majority decision in Roe v. Wade was written by Justice Blackmun, an appointee of REPUBLICAN President Nixon. He was joined in his decision by FOUR other REPUBLICAN appointees: Chief Justice Burger (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Nixon; Justice Stewart (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Eisenhower; Justice Brennan, an appointee of President Eisenhower; and Justice Powell, an appointee of President Nixon.
To summarize, of the six REPUBLICAN appointees on the Court, FIVE voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade. Only ONE REPUBLICAN appointee, Justice Rehnquist, an appointee of President Nixon, DISSENTED from the decision and filed his own dissenting opinion.
Of the three Democratic appointees, two joined the majority: Justice Douglas (who also filed his own concurring opinion), an appointee of President Roosevelt; and Justice Marshall, an appointee of President Johnson. One Democratic appointee, Justice White, an appointee of President Kennedy, dissented from the Court’s decision and filed his own dissenting opinion.
So, WHO gave us Roe v. Wade? They were FIVE Justices appointed by REPUBLICAN Presidents (Burger, Brennan, Stewart, Blackmun and Powell) and two Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents (Douglas and Marshall).
Monday, August 25, 2008
Growing up
I’m old enough to remember the 1960 Republican National Convention, when Senator Barry Goldwater’s supporters were angry and disappointed because the convention had chosen Vice President Richard Nixon to be the GOP standard bearer. Goldwater, in that raspy voice and plain-speaking manner, urged his supporters to get over it: “Grow up, Republicans!”
Eight years later, in 1968, the Democrats were fractured, apparently beyond repair. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was dead, the victim of an assassin’s bullet, and the Democratic National Convention was in the process of choosing Vice President Hubert Humphrey. (Most of the primary elections that year were won by either Kennedy or Senator Eugene McCarthy, whom I supported.)
I was outraged as I watched the convention on television. I was outraged at Chicago’s “finest” clubbing and tear-gassing Americans who were exercising their right of free speech in the streets of the Windy City. I was outraged at Vice President Humphrey, who had gone from the hero of the 1948 convention--the young mayor of Minneapolis pushed for and won adoption of a strong civil rights plank in the party platform that year--to the villain of the 1968 convention: In 20 years he had regressed from a progressive to a supporter of Lyndon Johnson’s unpopular war.
But, I remembered Barry Goldwater’s rebuke to his followers eight years earlier: I supported and voted for Hubert Humphrey in November 1968.
Now, it’s 2008, and many supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton are saying that they plan either to “sit this one out” or--God forbid--to vote for Senator John McCain. As I type these words, the 2008 Democratic National Convention is only beginning, but I’m confident that both Senator Clinton and her husband will be as forceful with her supporters as was Senator Goldwater with his in 1960.
Clinton supporters: Do you understand that, unlike 1968, the positions of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton on the major issues are virtually indistinguishable? If large numbers of you Clinton supporters don’t support the Obama-Biden ticket, and if the Democrats don’t win the White House, it won’t be you whom the historians write about. The historians will blame Senator Clinton (and her husband) for the loss. If you don’t support the Obama-Biden ticket, you’ll be tarnishing the legacy of the very person whom you claim to support.
Grow up, Democrats!
Eight years later, in 1968, the Democrats were fractured, apparently beyond repair. Senator Robert F. Kennedy was dead, the victim of an assassin’s bullet, and the Democratic National Convention was in the process of choosing Vice President Hubert Humphrey. (Most of the primary elections that year were won by either Kennedy or Senator Eugene McCarthy, whom I supported.)
I was outraged as I watched the convention on television. I was outraged at Chicago’s “finest” clubbing and tear-gassing Americans who were exercising their right of free speech in the streets of the Windy City. I was outraged at Vice President Humphrey, who had gone from the hero of the 1948 convention--the young mayor of Minneapolis pushed for and won adoption of a strong civil rights plank in the party platform that year--to the villain of the 1968 convention: In 20 years he had regressed from a progressive to a supporter of Lyndon Johnson’s unpopular war.
But, I remembered Barry Goldwater’s rebuke to his followers eight years earlier: I supported and voted for Hubert Humphrey in November 1968.
Now, it’s 2008, and many supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton are saying that they plan either to “sit this one out” or--God forbid--to vote for Senator John McCain. As I type these words, the 2008 Democratic National Convention is only beginning, but I’m confident that both Senator Clinton and her husband will be as forceful with her supporters as was Senator Goldwater with his in 1960.
Clinton supporters: Do you understand that, unlike 1968, the positions of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton on the major issues are virtually indistinguishable? If large numbers of you Clinton supporters don’t support the Obama-Biden ticket, and if the Democrats don’t win the White House, it won’t be you whom the historians write about. The historians will blame Senator Clinton (and her husband) for the loss. If you don’t support the Obama-Biden ticket, you’ll be tarnishing the legacy of the very person whom you claim to support.
Grow up, Democrats!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Evil
This one is for you Christians out there.
When presumptive presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama participated in a forum August 16th hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church, perhaps the most revealing questions and answers concerned “evil.”
When asked about evil in the world, Senator McCain said that it should be defeated. Senator Obama said that it is God’s job to defeat evil but that we could be soldiers in that fight.
Because this was a “Christian” forum, it’s instructive to read what Christian Scripture says about what we should do about evil in the world:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. (Romans 12:17.)
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. (Romans 12:21.)
Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult. (1 Peter 3:9.)
Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. (3 John 1:11.)
I think that what Saints Paul, Peter and John are all saying to us is that, if we have to resort to evil deeds to combat evil, then we have ourselves become evil. In the words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Senator McCain’s hell-for-leather approach demonstrates his unfamiliarity with Scripture. What he proposes may or may not be good foreign policy, but it’s very bad religion. Senator Obama’s attempt to balance what he as a Christian believes with the practical problem of defending our beloved country shows his superior knowledge and understanding of Scripture.
That the so-called Christians in the live audience liked Senator McCain’s answer to “evil” better than they did Senator Obama's illustrates that they, like Senator McCain, must be ignorant of what Scripture says about dealing with evil.
Senator McCain talks a lot about “Judeo-Christian” values. Maybe he should spend some time learning about them.
When presumptive presidential nominees John McCain and Barack Obama participated in a forum August 16th hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at Saddleback Church, perhaps the most revealing questions and answers concerned “evil.”
When asked about evil in the world, Senator McCain said that it should be defeated. Senator Obama said that it is God’s job to defeat evil but that we could be soldiers in that fight.
Because this was a “Christian” forum, it’s instructive to read what Christian Scripture says about what we should do about evil in the world:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. (Romans 12:17.)
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good. (Romans 12:21.)
Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult. (1 Peter 3:9.)
Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. (3 John 1:11.)
I think that what Saints Paul, Peter and John are all saying to us is that, if we have to resort to evil deeds to combat evil, then we have ourselves become evil. In the words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
Senator McCain’s hell-for-leather approach demonstrates his unfamiliarity with Scripture. What he proposes may or may not be good foreign policy, but it’s very bad religion. Senator Obama’s attempt to balance what he as a Christian believes with the practical problem of defending our beloved country shows his superior knowledge and understanding of Scripture.
That the so-called Christians in the live audience liked Senator McCain’s answer to “evil” better than they did Senator Obama's illustrates that they, like Senator McCain, must be ignorant of what Scripture says about dealing with evil.
Senator McCain talks a lot about “Judeo-Christian” values. Maybe he should spend some time learning about them.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Unrepentant
Rumor has it that President George W. Bush will join former British Prime Minister Tony Blair by converting to Catholicism upon leaving office next January. When an adult baptized Christian of another denomination joins the Catholic Church, he or she must confess his or her serious sins to a priest (Sacrament of Penance/Rite of Reconciliation) before being confirmed and then receiving Holy Communion as a Catholic for the first time. Here is how I imagine Bush’s first experience with confession:
Priest: Mr. President.
Bush: Hiya, Father.
Priest: Mr. President, what would you like to talk about today?
Bush: Gee, I don’t know.
Priest: What I mean, Mr. President, is have you thought about the sins that you have committed in your life?
Bush: Father, offhand, I can’t think of anything that I’ve done wrong.
Priest: O.K., Mr. President, let’s try this. I’ll share some of the basic teachings of the Church with you, and you tell me whether you have violated them.
Bush: Sounds fair to me.
Priest: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, unequivocally condemns torture: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” Mr. President, have you ever employed or condoned torture?
Bush (laughing): Well, I’ve tortured the English language on a number of occasions.
Priest: I see. Uh, let’s try something else. At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Pope John Paul II declared that the action did not constitute a “just war.” Would you now like to reconsider your decision to invade Iraq?
Bush: Maybe it wasn’t a just war, but, come on, it was just a war. A just war; just a war; get it? (Laughing.)
Priest (rolling his eyes): Let’s move on, Mr. President. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 501, reads as follows: “Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions.” Mr. President, did you preside over a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent?
Bush: Wow, juridical. That’s a fancy word. What does it mean?
Priest: Legal.
Bush: Hey, what are you, a Democrat?
Priest (sighing): Mr. President, I’m going to grant you absolution now.
Bush: Absolution? Absolutely! Absolution; absolutely; get it? (Laughing.)
Priest: God help us!
Priest: Mr. President.
Bush: Hiya, Father.
Priest: Mr. President, what would you like to talk about today?
Bush: Gee, I don’t know.
Priest: What I mean, Mr. President, is have you thought about the sins that you have committed in your life?
Bush: Father, offhand, I can’t think of anything that I’ve done wrong.
Priest: O.K., Mr. President, let’s try this. I’ll share some of the basic teachings of the Church with you, and you tell me whether you have violated them.
Bush: Sounds fair to me.
Priest: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, unequivocally condemns torture: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” Mr. President, have you ever employed or condoned torture?
Bush (laughing): Well, I’ve tortured the English language on a number of occasions.
Priest: I see. Uh, let’s try something else. At the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Pope John Paul II declared that the action did not constitute a “just war.” Would you now like to reconsider your decision to invade Iraq?
Bush: Maybe it wasn’t a just war, but, come on, it was just a war. A just war; just a war; get it? (Laughing.)
Priest (rolling his eyes): Let’s move on, Mr. President. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 501, reads as follows: “Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions.” Mr. President, did you preside over a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent?
Bush: Wow, juridical. That’s a fancy word. What does it mean?
Priest: Legal.
Bush: Hey, what are you, a Democrat?
Priest (sighing): Mr. President, I’m going to grant you absolution now.
Bush: Absolution? Absolutely! Absolution; absolutely; get it? (Laughing.)
Priest: God help us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
