Cross-posted at
Clark Community Network
There's at least one point on which everyone, Christian or not, can agree. And that point is that Jesus was a pacifist. In fact, one of his many monikers is The Prince of Peace. So why would I have the nerve to assert that he would've been labeled a terrorist threat?
Simple. HE WAS A PACIFIST. That's all it takes. These days, in America, pacifism equates to terrorism. Want proof?
More...
According to
federal documents made public today, the FBI investigated at least one group in Pennsylvania solely because the group promoted pacifism in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Not because the group made threats or presented a threat in any way. On the contrary, the group simply handed out leaflets in the town's public square. The leaflets also were not threatening, unless you consider peace a threat. Apparently our government does.
Thanks to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the ACLU on behalf of more than 150 organizations in 20 states, these documents are among the first of many to come. In spite of privacy infringements, courtesy of the Patriot Act, and the President's own confessions about illegal, warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency, we're only now scratching the surface of the U.S. government's spying on innocent American citizens.
At a February Senate Judicial Committee hearing called to investigate the NSA spying program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to answer any questions about the operation of the NSA program, ducking a number of direct questions including one from Senator Patrick Leahy regarding the opening of citizen's mail. His theory that the President is allowed to break the law just because he is the President didn't hold water for Nixon, and it doesn't hold water today.
Even as this hearing unfolded, whistleblowers from the NSA warned that other, even more sweeping spying programs were targeting innocent American citizens.
And just last week, Gonzales wrote the Judiciary Committee a letter stating that he had not testified to the full scope of the NSA spying activities.
So what? That's the response du jour. Well, I'll tell you why we should all care. If the Pennsylvania group was labeled a terrorist threat simply because it opposed the Iraq War, here are some chilling numbers for you:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll (March 2-5, 2006)
"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"
Not Worth Fighting: 57%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll (Feb. 28-March 1, 2006)
"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"
Made a Mistake: 55%
CBS News Poll. March 9-12, 2006
"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"
Not Worth It: 70%
So, it's safe to estimate that, with a U.S. population of 298,282,424, we have quite a few terrorist threats (people who oppose the war) on our hands:
Poll #1:
170,020,982
Poll #2:
164,055,333
Poll #3:
208,797,697
Not enough for you? You're not opposed to the war? You say that you walk in lockstep with everything Bush does? And if you've never done anything wrong, there's no need for you to worry, right? You're not a terrorist. No one's going to spy on you unless you bring it on yourself, right? Well how about this?
Have you ever complained about anything the local, state or federal government did or failed to do? Have you ever found fault in anything they've done? Have you ever complained about a pothole not getting filled? A toilet seat that cost $100? Or a law that just doesn't make sense? If that's the case, how can you blindly trust the government to be right in the spying case? How do you know, without any oversight from Congress, that it's being applied in a fair, just and legal manner?
Doesn't something smell fishy when a program's supporters defensively argue its legality but won't discuss its operations even in classified, closed-door meetings with the committee that's supposed to oversee it? If it's legal, why won't the supporters lay out their case?
Because these programs are not legal, that's why. And because they target people other than those who wish to do us harm. Because, in fact, they target, at least in part, those who wish to do the world LESS harm. People like the pacifists in Pennsylvania.
It's all starting to make sense why Representative Dennis Kucinich's proposed Department of Peace is going nowhere. We have a government that apparently loves war. The perplexing questions, the ones that should trouble us all, but particularly every conservative Christian, are:
Why is the cause of peace only a cause for liberals, or as many would say "the loony left?" Was Jesus loony?
Why doesn't the GOP (aka the party of G-O-D) actively pursue a course of peace?
Why is the President, supposedly a man of Christ, looking more and more like Pontius Pilate? And our law enforcement and intelligence agencies like Judas?
Suspected are the peacemakers. In the Bible I've heard about, that's true. The Prince of Peace was suspected, betrayed and crucified. But, in this case, the "crucifixion" of the peacemakers won't wash away our sins.
It is our sin.