MY VERSION - Commentary of August 15, 2006

The Religious Right as lackeys and toadies; No mission, no exit . . . and more . . .

Many of us who are not in the political camp of the pro-lifers once held enormous respect for those who diligently fought for what they believed to be the only moral position to take on the abortion issue. Such people appeared to be consistent in their view that all pre-born humans should have a chance at life. At least, that's what some of us thought the pro-lifers were advocating. As it turns out, we were not paying close attention.

Now, along come two conservative, traditionalist clergymen, who, for years, have been among the most resolute pro-life advocates, offering strong criticisms of the very people with whom they have worked long and hard for the pro-life cause.

Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy is a priest in the eastern Byzantine Rite Catholic Church near Boston. Rev. Chuck Baldwin is well known, not only for the religious positions he takes on current events, but as a staunch, and even fierce constitutionalist. He is pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He also writes a weekly column, hosts a regular radio program, and is the author of an annotated collection of America's founding chronicles -- the "Freedom Documents."

When members of the liberal media would refuse to use the "pro-life" designation, referring to the opposition only as "anti-abortion," as if to put a negative slant on the pro-lifers' convictions, I thought that was dishonest. If "life" is what these people claimed as their commitment, then why should that be challenged, or mocked? As it turns out, however, some fetuses are more equal than others, and some are certainly more important than others. This is one of the lamentable truths about his movement that Rev. McCarthy had to face.

Pro-lifers, and there are millions of them, happen to be among the largest group of supporters of the current rulers in Washington, DC. As faithful adherents to their leaders, pro-lifers are prominent defenders of almost every policy contrived by those who preside over the current central government, including the invasion-occupation of Iraq. Through this support of the military's actions against the people of the Middle East, pro-lifers have made it clear that they care nothing about the fetuses resting in the wombs of Iraqi women, or, most recently, Lebanese women. In the name of revenge against a people who were not even remotely responsible for the atrocious attacks in the U.S. on 9/11, this country's pro-lifers give their steadfast support to the random killing of pre-born life.

In "Military Abortions: Pro-life Christians at the Crossroads," Rev. McCarthy relates how, years ago, in the wee hours of a Christmas morning, a man crashed his car into a tree outside McCarthy's home. Due to the distress brought on by police, ambulance, and general mayhem, his wife, pregnant with their eighth child, suffered a miscarriage and lost the baby. The doctor called it a "natural abortion" due to tension and trauma.

Years later, in 1991, during the United States' first foray into Iraq, McCarthy was reminded of that earlier tragedy, upon watching an American pilot on TV tell of his experience in a recent bombing of Baghdad. The pilot gave a blow-by-blow account of the battle and concluded his verbal picture with a description of how, from the impact of the bombing campaign, Baghdad was "lit up like a Christmas tree."

McCarthy, who was appalled by the graphic analogy, wondered about the "natural abortions" that could very well have been the result of those air assaults. In the ensuing days, he saw film and newspaper photographs of missiles streaking into Iraq. He thought not only of the children in utero who had perished from "direct hits," but of the ones whose mothers would eventually lose them from malnourishment and the accompanying afflictions that are the result of war. He writes:

Yet the silence on this matter in Church pro-life circles was thunderous. It was as if abortion for saving a person's reputation was absolutely evil; abortion for saving a family's economic life was absolutely evil; abortion for saving a person's job was absolutely evil; abortion for saving a person from what he or she perceived to be an intolerable personal future was absolutely evil, but abortion to save oil fields for the present and future control of American and British oil interests and to preserve the political status quo was morally permissible. It was as if patriotic earplugs were discreetly employed by pro-lifers in order to not hear what they had been telling others to listen to for twenty years -- the silent screams.

McCarthy, who wrote his article on the eve of the most recent "mission" to Iraq, has no patience for those who claim that the purpose of that first incursion was not to destroy innocent civilians, but to "save" Kuwait or oil fields or our standard of living. He calls such justifications "nothing more than the pro-choice argument wrapped in a flag." After all, he writes, "This is what the pro-choice philosophy is all about -- abortion as the lesser evil. . . . How many abortions is a desert oil field worth in the eyes of God?"

McCarthy also wants to know where the pro-life movement was in prior years during the embargo of Iraq by the United States and United Nations, when supplies and medicines could not reach the Iraqi people. How many "natural abortions" were the result of those actions? As for his fellow religionists, Rev. McCarthy claims that "the Church is now being called to pass through the fire of Her own teaching," and writes:

I hope and pray that I am dead wrong but, because of its witness up to this moment in time, I am deeply concerned that the Christian pro-life movement will in the end turn a deaf ear to the silent screams of thousands of pre-born Iraqi children and instead see only Baghdad "lit up like a Christmas tree."

Rev. Chuck Baldwin is outraged by how his "conservative" comrades are eagerly granting omnipotent status to politicians, of all people -- the very breed whom the Founders warned the citizenry to watch with vigilance. In his many columns and sermons, he takes to task those who claim an attachment to traditional values, yet for whom the Constitution has been relegated to a minor status, if not completely ignored.

In his perspective, there is no question that conservatives must demand that "whoever we vote for is a constitutionalist." Baldwin will not suffer "meaningless clichés and marketing propaganda by the 'God-card' professionals." Only fidelity to constitutional government should be the "chief requirement for public service." And, in fact, writes this Christian pro-lifer, "It would be much better to have an unbeliever who obeys the Constitution in office than a believer who doesn't."

Baldwin maintains that, not only have the two major political parties "abandoned the Constitution" years ago, they both "have systematically and callously dismantled constitutional government with impunity." And because "our national Christian leaders" revel in their ability to engage in "political cronyism" with the powers in Washington, they are no longer useful watchmen. About his fellow conservatives, he writes, "Instead of being watchmen and heralds of truth, they have become political lackeys and toadies."

He does not understand how conservatives can stand silent as this nation's present leaders seek to rubber-stamp policies with foreign countries that are certain to weaken U.S. national sovereignty. These adherents are silent, Baldwin believes, only because of their indiscriminate attachment to the current power elite. Were such policies being carried out by the political opposition, namely the Democratic party, there would be no free ride for the rulers.

The real battlefield, insists Baldwin, "is not abortion. It is not homosexual marriage. It is not electing conservatives. It is not posting the Ten Commandments." The real battlefield is preventing the Founders' nation from ending up, or being terminated as a part of some kind of regional or hemispheric government. "The surrender of our national sovereignty and independence is where the battle currently rages." Baldwin writes:

When America loses its sovereignty and independence, we will lose all of our fundamental liberties. The Constitution will be meaningless and irrelevant. The Bill of Rights will be moot. The principles of religious liberty, the right to life, and the Christian foundation of our country will be passé.

There has been no fiercer critic of the Patriot Act and all its ramifications than Rev. Chuck Baldwin. He derides today's conservatives by comparing their spirit to that of Patrick Henry, of "Give me liberty or give me death" fame. Baldwin claims that the battle cry (or "surrender-cry," as he calls it) of the typical conservative is: "Give me security, anything but death." They are eager and willing "to accept abridgements and usurpations of our constitutional liberties," he says of these so-called patriots.

He denounces what he calls the "lies and deceptions" surrounding the secret activities of people who have appropriated to themselves greater powers than those granted under our laws. "The Patriot Act puts America at greater risk of being terrorized by our own government," he proclaims, especially since "this administration seems obsessed with trampling America's basic liberties under the rubric of national security." Baldwin warns:

It is incumbent upon all Americans to remember that any government that is unwilling to conduct itself according to the enumerated principles contained within the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution is a rogue government deserving neither our submission nor support.

During the early decades of the Republic, "even the slightest incursion upon freedom was met with swift and stubborn resistance." This was because Americans were still so close to those days when they were fettered to the British Crown. Keeping elected representatives' feet to the fire was considered a citizen's right and duty. Jefferson said, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." And Baldwin laments, "Unfortunately, it is exactly that spirit which has all but faded from the modern American landscape."

The Religious Right offers no protection against political tyrants, Baldwin insists. Instead, they have become people who "believe until federal Storm Troopers knock down the doors of their homes and drag them off to the gulags, they have lost no freedoms." If anything, the political Right is worthless in this cause, since "foolish loyalty to partisan politics, the desire to ingratiate themselves before the powers that be, and the love of invitations to sit at the king's table have made the Religious Right impotent, and even worse, complicit to America's demise." The Religious Right has "flinched and fled in the face of the battle."

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

What about those troops? Many, seeking a leg up from some disadvantaged place in society and others genuinely seeking to serve their country, were first duped at the recruiter's office. Promises of lifetime healthcare, educational benefits, special training and placement in preferred areas of service, enticed many to sign up for the military. The recruiter's non-revocable, less-than-full-disclosure contract begins to fall short at first muster. The duping pays dividends to the dupers upon full deployment in a hostile foreign land when the duped fight with no mission and no exit strategy. . . .

A policy of "friendly harm" has justified our troops being exposed to depleted uranium, forced vaccinations and decades of clandestine testing of chemical and biological agents -- and then we send our troops into harm's way without so much as adequate body armor?

Mandatory, multiple tours of duty; troops recalled or prevented from retirement and a National Guard that is now mostly out of the nation -- is this how we honor enlistment contracts and "support our troops?" . . .

After healing the open wounds, more than a few of our troops have found themselves kicked out of medical facilities, discharged with no benefits, support, transportation home or literally in some cases, no legs to stand on. Some are even billed for their medical treatment, made necessary by their "service to our country."

Support our troops? Government doesn't.

-- Hari Heath, excerpt from "Support Our Dupes," The Idaho Observer, February 16, 2006.

Of course, the callous chickenhawks tell us that these young men signed up to risk their lives and futures, so they are getting what they deserve. But didn't that two-way contract they signed specifically call for the protection of their native land and its Constitution, not for the protection of some foreign country, and certainly not for the protection of special private commercial interests?

Besides their dead bodies being invisible to us, since we are not allowed to view the returning coffins, many of the living who do make it back, irrevocably damaged, are treated by the federal government as little more than throwaways. Shocked and anguished Americans, no matter what their position on this unnecessary and outrageous military invasion and occupation, are coming to the rescue in droves. From those who give modest amounts of money to reconstruct and modify the inside of these soldiers' helmets (to make them better withstand shocks from bomb blasts), to those who are contributing thousands of dollars at a clip, to help build appropriate facilities to house their broken bodies, Americans are stepping up to the plate to help.

These disabled and wounded young men, many of whom will never be "rehabilitated," are indebted to the private donations that began pouring in when it was discovered that the government was giving the families of dead fathers and husbands a magnanimous $6,000, to compensate for their loss. After an organized campaign that raised $30 million, giving $11,000 to every spouse of a dead soldier and $5,000 to each of their children, the government was pressured into agreeing to give $250,000 to each family. Any chance it will keep this promise?

Audrey Fisher, of the Fisher family that is responsible for the building of dozens of special housing facilities for these catastrophically wounded men and their families, tells of a visit to the Brook Army Medical Center where she witnessed six soldiers on six beds, in a 24'x24' room, trying to exercise. She says there were "six arms and six legs total in the room."

Of course, the fanatics of today, who still have the nerve to call themselves "conservatives," believe that all things privatized are Holy, while anything the government has a hand in is the Devil's work. They are at peace with the initial treatment of these men. Although America is a land where private charity has always played an important role, wouldn't you think that helping to reconnect these soldiers to their "pursuit of happiness" might fall under the government's umbrella of obligations?

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

On September 10, 2001, that is, the day before the catastrophic 9/11, a coalition of organizations -- political conservatives and liberals -- thought they were on their way to challenging the "war on drugs." Needless to say, the events of the following day overshadowed and ultimately squelched, before it began, a nascent movement to "raise questions about the War on Drugs' impact on privacy and other civil liberties."

Click here to read the brief statement composed by the Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich, as reported on this site on September 10, 2001. How quaint his words now sound, in light of intensified surveillance, snooping without warrants, and holding citizens without charges -- in the cause of "national security." We hadn't seen anything yet, and we didn't know it.

Visit Issues & Views - The Blog, which has been updated with lots of new items.

We are grateful to our Subscribers whose contributions help to keep us on the net. If you would like to donate at this time, please follow this link to PayPal - or use our mailing address: P.O. Box 467, New York, NY 10025

Issues & Views is a 501(c)3 tax-deductible organization.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views