|
 espite
domestic support for America's war on terrorism, angry opposition
voices from liberal religious circles persist.
Last December,
an unofficial group of 68 Catholics denounced an earlier U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops statement for declaring that "the dreadful
deeds of September 11 cannot go unanswered" and that the war
against terrorism was a "legitimate use of force." The
bishops had also said that the U.S. military effort met the traditional
"just war" criteria — which, among other things,
insist that belligerents make serious efforts to protect innocent
civilians. Fortunately, smart weapons have enabled our forces to
minimize noncombatant fatalities.
Since September
11, liberal-left Protestant voices have been closer to the Catholic
dissidents than to the official Catholic position. The National
Council of Churches (NCC) has urged President George Bush to stop
bombing terrorist targets in Afghanistan and to "collaborate
with the international community" (meaning what, exactly?)
to find nonviolent means to combat terrorists. Its invocation of
the "international community" reflects the NCC's persistent
and touching confidence in U.N. majority votes, which are seen to
sanction U.S. behavior and blunt American arrogance.
The Episcopal
Church statement, like that of the Catholic bishops, did not condemn
the U.S. military response. Like the unofficial Catholic statement,
however, it urged the United States to increase its efforts to ease
the "crushing poverty" in "other parts of the world."
Though expressing
itself in more muted tones, the NCC echoed the antiwar Left, which
has suggested that American hubris and lack of compassion created
the very conditions that gave rise to our murderous adversaries.
World Council
of Churches General Secretary Konrad Raiser went further:
"The answer
to terrorism must be found in redressing the wrongs that breed violence."
Terrorism will not be overcome "as long as the cries of those
humiliated by unremitting injustice... and by the arrogance... of
those who possess unchallenged military might are ignored or neglected."
In the same vein, the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., seemed to excuse
the terrorists, and urged Americans to "understand the pain,
frustration, and sense of powerlessness" that had prompted
them to lash out against us.
Surely no grievance
— including poverty and allegations of American arrogance —
can justify the murder of innocents that was seen in New York or
Washington.
In a rambling
and little-remarked speech at Georgetown University on November
7, former president Bill Clinton, who has touted his Baptist credentials,
added yet another charge against America: the evil of slavery. We
are "paying the price today" as a "nation that practiced
slavery" and, moreover, frequently killed innocent slaves and
native Americans, whom we regarded as "less than fully human."
To reduce the terrorist threat, he urged America to do more to fight
global poverty, forgive billions in debt, improve health care, and
fund education in developing countries.
Clinton's recalling
of America's past imperfections to explain a present danger vaguely
reflects the self-loathing of the 1960s radicals, who blamed Amerika
for poverty and oppression in the Third World.
How different
from Clinton was an earlier American president who, incidentally,
was also a Baptist.
On April 26,
1948 — a few days after President Harry Truman authorized the
Marshall Plan and mounted a military airlift of food and other supplies
for Berlin to thwart a Soviet blockade of the city — the Federal
Council of Churches (predecessor to the NCC) issued a pronouncement,
dubbed "A Positive Program for Peace," condemning Truman's
firm moves in Europe.
Upon reading
the council statement, Truman wrote on the cover page: "This
is a perfectly asinine document — as full of sophistry as a
communist manifesto. Let's analyze it for what it is. HST."
The simple
Baptist from Missouri was right. The Federal Council, representing
a small clique of liberal-left Protestants, had been giving bad
advice on foreign policy since its founding in 1908. Alas, the NCC
has seldom wavered in this wrongheaded practice. If Truman and successive
presidents had heeded the NCC's dangerous bidding, there would have
been no NATO, Soviet nuclear arms would have prevailed, and America
would have lost the Cold War.
What a contrast
between these two Baptist presidents — Truman and Clinton.
Truman recognized evil when he saw it. He knew that America, though
less than perfect, was the greatest force for freedom in the world.
And he knew that we had an inescapable responsibility to fight aggression,
tyranny, and terrorism.
George W. Bush
is a worthy successor to Truman.
|
