Friday, February 28, 2003
Ok, folks. For anyone who knows me, y'all know that I'm not in anyway a nationalist. I am a globalist. I think that nationalism just causes conflict. I remember what I read in T.S. Elliot's "Sword in the Stone" when Merlin Turned Arthur into an eagle. When Arthur flew high over the land he asked Merlin, "where are the borders?" And Merlin replied something along the lines of "on the map". There are no borders on the land or sea. It's all one planet. Borders are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by human beings. And they are still changing after how many thousands of years of human existance? But my point is, I still consider myself an American and I appreciate everything the American way of life has done for me and my family. But that is being threatened by the very people who were entrusted to protect it. And I have a little article that will reflect how some of the members of the military, past and present, feel about the current situation the country they fought for and some of their commrades died for is in.
PEACE IS PATRIOTIC
by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, Ret. President, Institute for Space and Security Studies, National Advisor, Veterans For Peace, Presiding Archbishop, United Catholic Church.
I'm here representing Veterans For Peace, an organization of thousands of combat veterans. All of us have put our life on the line for this country. And all of us are opposed to a war with Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. He's a bad guy now. He was a bad guy in 1990 when April Glaspie of the State Department gave him the green light to invade Kuwait. He was a bad guy in the 1980s when Donald Rumsfeld sat down with him for a chat while he was gassing the Kurds. He was a bad guy in 1977 when Zbigniew Brzezinski met with him and proposed the invasion of Iran. And he was a bad guy in the 1960s when the CIA hired him to assassinate Iraqi leader Abdel Karim Qassim and then helped him take over Iraq.
He's always been a bad guy. But he was always our bad guy. Right up to 1990, official DOD documents praised Saddam for vastly improving the education, medical care, and standard of living of his people. His regime was called one of the most enlightened, progressive governments in the region and it was.
But there was a problem. The Berlin wall had come down and the Soviet Union had collapsed. The first Bush White House had to find another bad guy -- fast. And they did -- Saddam Hussein. They suckered him into attacking Kuwait, and the first Gulf War was on. This was the war the first Bush administration wanted, the war they planned for, the war they instigated, the war they salivated over, the war that Saddam's unconditional withdrawal wasn't going to deny them, the war that would show off our smart bombs better than a hundred trade shows, the war that would prove George wasn't a wimp, the war that would make billions for the future president George W. Bush, who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf, the war that would kill the "loser" image from Vietnam once and for all.
Now the second President Bush wants his Gulf War too. Planning for it started long before 9/11, even before he became president. In September 1990, his advisers set "regime change" in Iraq as a primary objective of US foreign policy should Bush become president. They made it clear that the purpose of moving against Saddam is to set the stage for occupying the entire Middle East (and therefore controlling its oil, no matter who's in power, especially in Saudi Arabia).
The problems with starting a preemptive war against Iraq are several: (1) It would be immoral and would probably be judged illegal by the World Court. (2) It would be costly, in terms of American lives and in dollars. (3) It would require us to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. (4) It would fracture NATO, split the United Nations, and come between us and our allies. (5) It would incense the Arab world, probably causing the downfall of friendly governments who cooperate with us (like Saudi Arabia and Turkey). (6) It would provide Osama bin Laden with thousands of new recruits ready to die in a Holy War against Americans. (7) It would therefore cause an enormous increase in the terrorist threat to Americans at home and abroad. It might even cause World War III. It would destroy our national security and further endanger the American people.
As a combat veteran, I will not stand idly by and watch our security destroyed by a president who went AWOL rather than fight in Vietnam. I say, "NO" to war against Iraq. As one who has devoted his life to the security of this country, I will not stand by and watch an appointed president send our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so the oil companies can sell the oil under their sand, making us the target of terrorists.
I say, "NO" to war against Iraq. I joined the Air Force to protect our borders and our people, not the financial interests of Folgers, Chiquita Banana, and Exxon. I say, "NO" to war against Iraq. As a pilot who flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, I can tell you that the best thing our government can do for its combat veterans is to quit making more of them. I say "NO" to war against Iraq.
Peace is patriotic; a preemptive war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, and a war crime. I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies -- foreign and domestic. That includes a renegade president.
If this war happens, I will call for the impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the whole oil Mafia. I say "NO" to war against Iraq. We are the people. We are sovereign. The whole world is with us. And we say, "NO!" "NO" to war! "NO" to preemptive war. "NO" to wars of aggression. "NO" to war against Iraq. "NO!" "NO!" "NO!" This war would be treason! PEACE is patriotic. God bless America! And God save us from George W. Bush!
http://www.veteransforpeace.org
posted by Kimber
at 8:49 PM ::
~#~
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
I think today we will have another commercial break. Here we go.
posted by Kimber
at 10:37 PM ::
~#~
Sunday, February 23, 2003
As you can see, I am obviously not catholic. So The Troubles that have been forced upon the church lately don't immediately effect me. But my hubby's entire family is Irish Catholic. And since I have been studying and trying to practice the Wiccan ways I find that any abuse of anyone's spirituality effects me. If these people feel half the joy and contentment Wicca gives me, to have that shredded and betrayed by someone who is supposed to be a symbol of their god on earth seems to me to be the ultimate rape. Then there is the issue of me being an abuse survivor. The manipulation through power of innocents for sexual gratification is deplorable.
So I think to myself. Who do I hold responsible for all of this? Who should be made to pay? Not the parishoners, surely. They are the victims. Well, I'm sure there were some who helped in the coverup for the good of the church or simply refused to believe in blind, mindless faith in the church. I'm sure there were some who only helped to torment these victims.
So then it must be the priests. Well, yes, to a certain extent. They are the actual perpetrators of the violation. And their denial and torment of victims who tried to come forward is just a compounding of their evil. But these are sick men. Pedophilia is a disease for which there is no cure. Ever. It's not like alcoholism or drug addiction. It's not a chemical process. It's a mental process. A programming abberation. There is no therapy to cure these people and there is no way they can stop attacking children. It's out of their control. The only logical thing to do is lock them up, or gps band them for life. But I digress.
Ok, so it's not all the parishoners, it's not all the priests, so it has to be the church. The buck has to stop where the power is. They knew. They did nothing.
“It is fair to say...that society has been on a learning curve with regard to the sexual abuse of minors. The Church, too, has been on a learning curve. We have learned, and we will continue to learn. Never was there an effort on my part to shift a problem from one place to the next. It has always been my contention that it is better to know a problem and deal with it than to be kept in ignorance of it... In the final analysis, after we have done all that we humanly can do to ensure that persons who are a threat to children are isolated from them, and after we have done all that we can do to bring some measure of healing psychologically and emotionally to all who have been traumatized by the sexual abuse of minors, it is only the peace which is the gift of the Risen Lord that can quiet our minds and hearts. His is a message of reconciling love, and to the extent that we can accept that message, to that extent we can all find healing.”
Cardinal Bernard Law
July 27, 2001
Let's just use the most popular example since I'm not writing a book on the subject.
Father James Porter molested his first child in 1953 before he ever entered the seminary. At his first posting begining in 1960 he molested by the church's own estimation 30-40 children. When the parents there caught on and began causing a stink the priests in the church "...tried appeasement, then turned angry, Father Booth shouting, “What are you trying to do, crucify the man?” Complaints multiplied over the next few months, until leaders of the Fall River Diocese assured parishioner Henry Viens - uncle of male victim Peter Calderone - that Porter would be placed in counseling."
So assuming we give the church the benefit of the doubt that they somehow thought this was an isolated incident, they still had knowledge of the
possiblity of child molesting priests as far back as the early 1960s. And for the time being, we won't go into Law's personal record with Geoghan which was the focus of the above quote. Let's just take the church as a whole in it's "learning curve" staying with Porter.
In 1965 after spending time with his family, "meditating and seeking spiritual guidance" he was deemed "fit to return to clerical duties". He was assigned to "...Sacred Heart Church in New Bedford, Massachusetts - some 15 miles from the scene of his original crimes at St. Mary’s. Fathers Duffy and O’Dea, at Sacred Heart, were warned by their monsignor that Porter had “a problem with little boys,” but no special precautions were taken to isolate him from children."
28 victims later they sent him to the The Servants of the Paraclete (or Holy Spirit) treatment center in New Mexico. In 1967 he was again deemed fit and released to say mass in some local churches. 6 more victims and he was sent to Houston. After that debauchal he was sent back to New Mexico to a local parish where he was deemed still in need of treatment and sent back to Paraclete. In 1969 he was unleashed on an unwitting parish in Minnesota with a letter of introduction stating that during an illness he had "...some moral problems which were, from all appearances, the result of his illness, something for which he was not responsible. Now, having recovered, he gives every sign of having the former problems under control.” In 1970, 24 victims later, he was again back at Paraclete. At this point, his therapist at the center suggested he may want to think about leaving the priesthood. Three years later he decided maybe the therapist was right and wrote to the Pope asking for release.
Now we can bring in Law to see where his "learning curve" starts. 1992. 8 victims of Porter come out to the Boston Globe and they run with it. Law resonded "...by raging at the press, ignoring Porter’s crimes and the officials who had covered for him. “The papers like to focus on the faults of the few,” Law declared. “We deplore that. By all means we call down God’s power on the media!” The rest of the representatives of the church were equally as sympathetic..."In Santa Fe, Archbishop Robert Sanchez maintained the tradition of denial, blaming lawsuits filed against the church on Jewish attorneys driven by hatred of Catholics." This was later, in 1996, explained by one of his colleagues..."with the strange assertion that Sanchez “was not fully aware that it was a crime to sexually abuse children until 1981.” "
How long does it take to figure out that this is a problem? What kind of "learning curve" is involved here? This is one of the most organized, well funded churches on the face of the planet. No one can say boo within the heirarchy of the church without permission from someone. And why now, after all these years, even now, today, are they still trying to give these priests the benefit of the doubt? What's up with this 2 strikes policy? Who wants to step up and offer up their child to be the first strike for some sick preditor? And why are they putting the structure, and body of the church ahead of the spirituality of the church and it's followers? How can someone feel strong in their faith if they are told that the person they are to have faith in is abusing them? How can you feel the love and security of the deity if you don't feel safe in your place of worship?
I think that perhaps the first step to retribution and healing for the people is for the Pope to come out and say the church screwed up. But as he is infallible that isn't likely to happen any time soon.
posted by Kimber
at 9:22 PM ::
~#~
