Full disclosure: I am a Universalist. THAT is my religion. I belong to the Unitarian Universalist Church, established over a hundred years ago. I could write a whole diary about my philosophy, but I will spare you. Suffice it to say that much of my belief system comes from a rational and intuitive understanding of scriptures and philosophical writings from many different traditions.
I do not pretend to speak for my church. I am not here to proselytize for my church. Nothing I say here should be considered an attack on anyone else's religion. Nothing I say should be considered the position of my church.
That said, this diary began on Sunday Morning, when, sitting in church, my minister, during his sermon, relayed an interesting fact which put an image in my mind.
My minister prefaced his comments by saying that each person should act with regard to his own conscience with regard to the war. He is opposed to the war himself, but he offered to pass along a message contained in an email he received from The Family Research Council.
In the email, FRC encouraged those who support the war to wear red on Fridays.
My immediate response to hearing this was an image in my mind, and words in my head to describe it: "spattered with blood."
After the service, I asked my minister to send me the email. I fully intended to write a diary on this subject for dailykos. And I waited for my minister to respond. He did not.
Now, my minister is a very busy guy. And I'm not a very active member of the church. Honestly, I don't attend church as often as I think I really should. Lately, I've been offering to volunteer and become more active, but I'm not as visible as some members. He probably forgot about it.
Then, this morning, my wife informed me that she had received a version of the same email, from my mother.
My apologies for posting this in a commentary under "Rum and Coke Friday" but it is just a device I used so that I wouldn't reveal my own email account and those of several members of my family.
After a heartstring story about a soldier returning the remains of his fallen comrade, the email continues with a proposed action for the recipient of the email:
Red Fridays.
Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing Red every Friday. The reason? Americans who support our troops used to be called the "silent majority." We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers. We are not organized, boisterous or overbearing.
The emphasis is mine. I know I heard that phrase "silent majority" somewhere before, but WHERE? Yup. It's Richard Nixon laying out his strategy to "win" the war in Vietnam in November 1969, and asserting that he had the support of a "silent majority."
In the speech, Nixon first assigns blame for the war to the Johnson and Kennedy Administrations, and then retreats from his promises during the 1968 presidential campaign to end the war quickly. To be fair, Nixon actually was reported to have a "secret plan for victory," a notion he never corrected because it helped him win the election.
You will note the the beginning of the article linked above mentions Nixon's secret plan for victory, but it is actually an article from October 2006 about the awaited recommendations of the Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. The article draws a comparison between the Republican's allusion to the awaited recommendations by this study group as a "secret plan for victory in Iraq" just ahead of the 2006 election. Political trickery, I think they call it.
Before I go on about "Red Fridays," I'd like to give a little more exposition to the "Silent Majority" speech by Nixon in 1969, because the email author brought it up!
In the speech, after assigning blame for the war, Nixon explains his reasons for rejecting immediate withdrawal:
The obstacle is the other side's absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.
Nixon explains that he didn't wait for inauguration to begin negotiations, and that this is his conclusion. All the enemy would have to do is wait us out. Sound familiar? How long did they wait us out fighting for control of their own country? Well, til the United States withdrew from the conflict some four years later!
I don't want to belabor this, because I have much more to say about "Red Fridays," but it would be remiss of me to neglect exposition of one of Nixon's key strategies to "win" the war, given in the Silent Majority speech:
The defense of freedom is everybody's business-not just America’s business. And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened. In the previous administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam. In this administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.
The policy of the previous administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significantly did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the South Vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.
The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird's visit to Vietnam in March. Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces.
In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams’ orders so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies. Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam.
As they stand up, we stand down.
Nixon proposes this policy after saying that keeping US forces in Vietnam was part of the wider struggle against Communism in Asia.
Nixon then gave an example of how this policy was already being applied:
Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 percent.
See it's already working! Does anyone who remembers Vietnam remember this policy of declining use of air operations? In fact, the opposite happened. I'm not even going to bother to document it.
If these policies seem familiar, they should!
The Iraqi Government Is Meeting Its Pledge To Boost Force Levels In Baghdad.
For every American combat soldier deployed to Baghdad, there are now about three members of the Iraqi Security Force.
American Troops Are Now Living And Working Side-By-Side With Iraqi Forces At Small Neighborhood Posts Called Joint Security Stations, And Cooperation And Tips Have Increased.
Late last year, most American troops were at bases on the outskirts of the city. They would move into Baghdad to help Iraqi forces clear neighborhoods during the day and then return to their bases at night, allowing the insurgents and death squads to move back to the neighborhoods. Troops in Baghdad are changing their positions in the city, and today:
There are more than two dozen Joint Security Stations located throughout Baghdad, and more are planned.
Iraqi and American forces are working together to clear out and secure neighborhoods.
If a heavy fight breaks out, American forces step in and Iraqi forces learn valuable skills fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with our troops.
You are welcome to read the whole page from which this quote is taken, and compare it with Nixon's strategy in Vietnam given above.
Where is the part about the Silent Majority? Near the end of the speech, Nixon distinguishes between those who protest the war, and those who support his plan for victory:
In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."
Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.
For almost 200 years, the policy of this Nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all of the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.
Two hundred years ago this Nation was weak and poor. But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world. Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world. And the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free world leadership.
Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.
And so tonight-to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans-I ask for your support.
Though I've excerpted, the contrast can not be more plain. You're either with us, or against us. Those who want immediate withdrawal, are against the "silent majority."
Back to Red Fridays:
Many Americans,! like yo u, me and all our friends, simply want to recognize that the vast majority of America supports our troops. Our idea of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect starts this Friday -- and continues each and every Friday until the troops all come home, sending a deafening message that .. every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar, will wear something red.
Today, both Democrats and Republicans have used this "support the troops" theme, so a symbolic action "supporting the troops" can't be absolutely construed as support for a continuation of the war or as support for the policies of the president. That's why I went through the trouble of showing some context for the "silent majority" language in this email. No doubt, those who are circulating the email DO INTEND to use a "sea of red" as a symbol of support for the war, though, since they have invoked Nixon's language, given in a speech in which he lays out a strategy for Vietnam similar to Bush's strategy in Iraq.
And I intended to link the Family Research Council's original email, to show that connection. But I can't find it. It's not on their web page. It's not part of any campaign of theirs, as far as I can tell. I don't doubt that my minister actually did get an email from them. But this "wear red on Friday" doesn't seem to be something they are actively promoting on their website. Curious, eh?
So I decided to do a little research on the "wear red on Friday" theme.
First, I wanted to know what would come up if I googled the title of my diary "Bloody Friday," since that was my immediate image of this policy. As I emphasized in the excerpt of the email quoted above, it's an image being promoted by the sender.
Bloody Friday
Bloody Friday
A labor strike turned into a bloody riot in Scotland in 1919. A bombing campaign by the IRA in 1972. Violent shedding of blood. Sort of like war. And I do think that the sender of the email intended to associate the blood shed in the war with support for that bloodshed, and not, say, labor activism or the republican revolutionaries in Northern Ireland. The intent is to support the blood that has been shed, the sacrifice that has been made, and not the causes associated with blood shed on Fridays.
every red-blooded American who supports our men and women afar, will wear something red
Pretty clear, right? But since I don't have the direct email from Family Research Council, maybe I shouldn't assume what their views are with regard to war and bloodshed. They have a prayer page, and one of their recommended subjects for prayer has to do with the war in Iraq:
May God strengthen and protect our President, our military commanders and our troops. May He cause us to stand for right and not back down against petty tyrants anywhere in the world. May He give us leaders who love the Truth and who will neither deceive or be deceived. May we mount the war declared against us by Radical Islam and prevail, without wavering. And may God turn the tide among Americans to understand the threat we face and to stand together, to stand up to it until we have prevailed (Ex 23:13, 24-25; Josh 1:6-9; 2 Kg 6:16-18; 2 Th 2:7-11; Tim 3:8-17).
Nice of them to give biblical references. I'll get to that in a moment. Clearly, though, this is a recommendation to pray for success in war.
So, I guess folks recommend praying for the success in war might think that asking people to wear red to show support for blood sacrifice is a good policy. "Blood sacrifice? Wait a minute now, let's not get too wild and wooly in our description of this!" you might say. Well, our soldiers who die and are wounded in battle, they shed blood, do they not? This is a sacrifice, is it not? Will anyone say that it is not a sacrifice?
'There will be tough moments which test America's resolve,' the President told hundreds of troops at the Fort Bragg army base in North Carolina, which has 9,300 men in Iraq. 'But the sacrifice is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country.'
I called Family Research Council in Washington DC and spoke with a lady named Maria. Maria told me that FRC is not the originator of the email campaign, but according to Maria "several organizations are participating" and FRC is just "participating." I asked Maria what other organizations are participating, but she didn't know. Then she offered to send me the email.
I decide to do a little research on the "wearing red on Friday" campaign, to see if I could find out which organizations were participating. Of course, I did a search.
Snopes had this interesting entry on the "wear red" campaign. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this looks very much like the "several organizations participating" that Maria at FRC spoke about.
While there is no proof, this group may very well have been inspired by the QUAKERS, who had a similar campaign leading up to the 2004 election, but with a decidedly different message: PROTESTING the war.
I also found some concurrent competition for the campaign, the very first entry on the google search.
Whether for or against the war, the theme for the campaign seems to be blood sacrifice, either wearing it in shame (Quakers) or wearing it in pride. But wait you say! Couldn't there be OTHER interpretations?
Here are some examples I found:
Wearing red portrays confidence.
Red is the color of power, favored by neolithic hunters, devotees of the Germanic God Thor, sexuality, socialism, witches and whores. Interstingly enough, it is also associated with Catholic Cardinals, who demonized women wearing it as witches and whores.
My favorite "wearing red" reference is this one from Star Trek where it was used as a plot device to foreshadow which members of the away team were dead meat.
Finally, wearing red could just be the fashion statement of ladies over fifty who want to have a little fun.
Wearing red, despite the above applications, is recognized as a scientifically proven way to increase your personal power. No, really. I'm not exaggerating
It's a show of strength. So no wonder the folks participating in the email campaign want to use it to show their strength:
By word of mouth, press, TV -- let's make the United States on every Friday a sea of red much like a homecoming football game in the bleachers. If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances, coworkers, friends, and family, it will not be long before the USA is covered in RED and it will let our troops know the once "silent"
majority is on their side more than ever, certainly more than the media lets on.
Maybe they know about that "winning in sports while wearing red" research? After all, they are here comparing A WAR with a football game.
The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do to make things better for you?" is. "We need your support and your prayers." Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example, and wear something red every Friday.
Spattered in blood, let us pray. Here are the passages cited by FRC as justification to pray for success in war:
Ex 23:13, 24-25;
This is a scripture encouraging the Israelites to put aside IDOLS.
Josh 1:6-9;
This is a scripture encouraging the Israelites to practice THE RULE OF LAW.
2 Kg 6:16-18;
This passage relates a MIRACLE in which God struck the Syrian Army with blindness, so that they could not attack the Israelites. Elisha the Prophet is quoted asking God if the blind army should be smitten, and God says NO.
2 Th 2:7-11;
This passage says that GOD will destroy the works of Satan, and cautions that some will perish because instead of believing this, they believed delusions and LIES.
Tim 3:8-17
This passage warns against those who refuse to accept the TRUTH, and follow corrupt doctrines instead of the teachings of Jesus.
In other words, with regard to justifications for a prayer for success in war, NOTHING. I'll not go through the trouble of cutting and pasting the scriptures themselves. Let those who would refute me do that.
And now I come to the heart of this campaign to wear red on Fridays, in prayerful support of war, violence and bloodshed. Now I come to the heart of the reason why those who counsel BLOOD SACRIFICE should be turned aside.
For encouragement before I go on, let me say this. I live in a so-called "red state," and my wife is out and about today in some of the most conservative communiites in the nation. She tells me that she has not seen ONE PERSON wearing red today.
First, I will speak from my own experience. Several years ago, I undertook to read the entire Bible and study it in earnest and to pray for an understanding of it. That experience was the beginning of my transformation from being a Christian to being a universalist.
I won't go into detail about ALL of the Christian doctrines which led me to seek a wider understanding of divinity, but I'll focus on the one that really opened my eyes. BLOOD SACRIFICE. It is an article of faith among most Christians that Jesus is a human sacrifice for all sin. However, a close reading of the Bible refutes that article of faith. In fact, Jesus opposed blood sacrifice, which was the foundation of the economic system of Israel during his ministry. Jesus taught that other things were more important, like healing the sick, charity for the poor, and sharing with ones neighbors. All of Jesus' followers were COMMUNAL.
Was Jesus opposed to blood sacrifice? Indeed he was.
I assure you, I did not reach this conclusion from reading one website. Nor is the idea that Jesus message is more important than the crucifixion and resurrection confined to this group. I encourage everyone to read this article, though, and reflect upon it.
We are today being called to make enormous sacrifices in BLOOD.
Is this a Christian message? I would argue that it is NOT. In fact, some have called it Satanic. I challenge those who would ask us to symbolically wear blood-drenched clothes on Fridays and make prayers for the success of mass blood sacrifices to find among the Teachings of Jesus it's justification.