"Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?"
OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.
Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil. In the name of good, and I think, you know, one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good.
MCCAIN: Defeat it. A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done. No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American -- innocent American lives.
Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcended challenge of the 21st century -- radical Islamic extremism.
Not long ago in Baghdad, Al Qaida took two young women who were mentally disabled, and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is. And we're going to defeat this evil. And the central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden is the battle, is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Iraq and we are winning and succeeding and our troops will come home with honor and with victory and not in defeat. And that's what's happening.
And we have -- and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us Al Qaida continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge. And we must totally defeat it, and we're in a long struggle. But when I'm around, the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform, I have no doubt, none.
For some reason, I see so much in these answers I could dive in and spend 30 minutes (okay, I did spend 30 minutes discussing this with a patient friend). But I'll try to make the main 2 points quickly.
First, Obama cares as much about domestic evil as genocidal evil. When asked about evil, this country's children and the streets of our cities are as close to his mind (and heart) as the "usual" and politically safe paradigm of genocide or terrorism.
Second, and I think this is far more important, Obama recognizes his own (our own) depravity and when all political "sense" is saying "never equivocate on a question like this!" Obama is willing to say the hard thing yet again. I cannot overstate the importance of this quality to me.
In contrast, McCain exhibits callous disregard of the fact that evil will accompany HIM in his battle against evil. On a certain gut level there's a part of me that says, "Yeah, get 'em!" when McCain immediately launches a war in response to evil. But that quickly fades into the gut-wrenching reality that an American captain is going to be put into the situation of knowingly killing a woman and child to try to protect his men.
Kearney could see a woman and child in the house. "We saw people moving weapons around," Kearney told me. "I tried everything. I fired mortars to the back side to get the kids to run out the front. I shot to the left, to the right. The Apache got shot at and left... Finally, we shot a javelin and a tow. I ended up killing that woman and that kid."
Our cheer "follow him to the gates of hell, John!" should get stuck in our throats as we realize OUR desire for revenge and belief in the rightness of our cause has just sentenced 3 young American soldiers to a situation where they will eventually execute in cold blood four Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots to the head as the prisoners stood handcuffed and blindfolded beside a Baghdad canal.
Yes: us, we, the good guys. These were good people fighting for a good cause whose lives are ruined, yet John McCain is getting people pumped up for revenge without a thought of humility. Beware the righteous warrior. I find Obama's answer so much more seasoned, wise and (dare I say) more in line with how Jesus would answer.
7 comments:
After this statement (McCain has used it before), Daily Show said how it was funny how he would chase him to the gates of hell but not to a cave in Afganistan. This was based on McCain's previous statements that the war was in Iraq not Afganistan.
McCain's answer embodies my concerns with him. When it comes down to it, do I trust him with his hand on the red phone? I think the answer is no.
As for your more salient points, Obama's answer is more widespread and recognizes the evil that exists everywhere, not just Africa and the Middle East but right here in Columbia, Missouri.
I don't know what jesus would do, but think Obama's answer certainly shows a little more introspection that McCain's knee-jerk, crowd pleaser. Also interesting to note, Obama is saying that is possible for "evil" to be done under the american flag. McCain seems to think only other people are evil.
It is my personal belief that this is the biggest problem w/ the religious right. "god is on our side; therefore, we can do no wrong to defeat them." The bible is full of those stories. But I digress, that is different blog.
Now on to the anecdote portion (my least favorite portion of any political speech) of the blog. We celebrate Sherman for saying, "War is all hell" while burning the houses and livelihood of the innocent bystanders. Our culture celebrates people who are willing to pull that trigger. As long as we are willing to be railroaded into unjust(any) war, the blood of the innocent is on our hands.
It's just so easy to say "Defeat Evil" but hard to honestly admit what is evil and even harder to then confront that evil in humility. I believe there is legitimate value in evaluating answers like these against a model of love, peace and humility, Jesus. What I didn't mention in the initial post is that these responses were delivered in a church and McCain got big applause for his line about following bin laden to the gates of hell. Why christians are so damn bloodthirsty is beyond our topic here, but good grief.
The fact that the "christian church" which choose to do the "evils" discussed, and to do them using God's name, in my mind only serves to show that all that goes under the name of "Christian" is not necessarily Christian. There is no reason that the "Christian church" and "Christianity" need have anything more than a name in common. But, AIB is right, that is another blog.
I find myself readily agreeing with your assessment of their answers. However, I still am bugged by one thing about Obama. This value of life which I believe he has, this impressive understanding of evil and the humility with which we must confront it - it just doesn't seem to match his stance on late-term abortions. In my mind, it doesn't match in the same way that John McCain's attitude toward using evil to fight evil doesn't align with his stance to protect the lives of children yet to born. It's just inconsistent on both their parts. I'm not picking on Obama, but I must look closely because I WANT to choose him because overall he represents more of my values and beliefs, yet I am troubled by what I see in regards to the unborn, and I have yet to read or hear any explanation that puts me more at ease. I mean, what is that? Why value the lives of pratically everyone else in the world but seem to show an inconsistency in how he legislates about unborn babies? Does he feel he has to choose? That in the situation of abortion, a greater value must be placed on one life (the mother) more than the other (the baby)? In the same way that we choose value when we go to war? But it seems to me that it doesn't have to be that way (in most cases)of late term abortion.
I have friends who have had abortions - some who live with enormous regret and painful consquences, one who is glad she made the decisions she made (mulitple times). All of these people believe in grace, truth, love and it's evidenced in their lives, I would say without hesitation that they each value life. I can empathize with each of them, those who feel the regret, and the one who does not. I tell that to say that it's not just a political issue with no frame of reference in my reality.
My belief in the value of life cannot let me in any way be ok with ending the lives of babies when they could be viable outside the womb. It's even a stretch for me to end early term pregnancies, but I don't know enough about the "when life begins" question to have a firm enough stance on that. All I have is personal experience, meaning, how I felt about the life growing inside of me, how I felt when the life of my niece was lost at the same time that some later term abortions are allowed. And I have my belief that ALL life is valuable - even the lives of those that perpetrate evil.
Before you accuse me of being a one-issue voter, please know it's not about that. Is it wishful thinking that I can cast a vote for a candidate without a significant hesitancy because of a disagreement with my own values? Right now, I feel that with both of them, and maybe I'm wanting the decision to be easier that it is.
One more thought:
I know that there may come a day for me when these seemingly huge values of mine might clash with my own reality. I say this because I want it to be understood that holding these values is not "simple". What if my next pregnancy becomes life threatening for me? What would my spouse and I choose? Would we find relief in the right to choose to end the life of our unborn child before it ends mine and significantly impacts the lives of the children already living in our home? I am not naive enough to say that I know now what I would choose then. Simlarly, what if my value of all life ever clashes with the value to protect those who can not protect themselves? ie: if someone enters my home with the intentions of harming someone I love, or I see it on the streets and have the capcity to "protect" one by doing harm to another?
This is what we are faced with in the issues of abortion and war. I find it incredibly complex and heartbreaking.
I think Anna has identified the rub for "one issue" voting (but that was a response to a previous blog post). I applaud her acknowledgment of the fact that life is complex and that her own ideals may clash with one another at some point in time. It is an acknowledgment that is many times lacking from people, both politicians and the common person.
A couple of random quotes for you on inconsistency/consistency:
There is nothing constant in this world but inconsistency. Jonathan Swift.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Also, (the follow up comment is popular) I'm not saying you are a one issue voter. By identifying an issue such as value of life (which I think is what you are doing) you have identified a number of issues: war; poverty; immigration; taxes; and obviously abortion.
These are all weighty topics and if you did not properly think on them, that would be the tragedy. The fact that they are causing you so much angst, is in reality, the beauty of being in a democracy and thinking for yourself.
Post a Comment