On Clerics and International Relations

Religious Leaders Weigh in on Diplomacy and Politics————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

When religious leaders, including my own learned Catholic bishops, instruct their flocks on moral and religious issues, I do my best to listen and learn. But when they venture off into politics and international relations, I tend to view their utterances with skepticism because they are, with few exceptions, straying beyond their realm of competence and risk comingling religion and politics..

This seemed to be the case recently when Pope Francis, in his Easter message, urged acceptance of the framework agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program. That was followed by letters from Bishop Oscar Cantu to Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. congressional leaders supporting the framework as “advancing a peaceful resolution of the serious questions that have been raised regarding Iran’s nuclear program.” The bishop was speaking on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on International Justice and Peace. Beware of any organization or committee that has the words “international justice and peace” in its title because its primary mission, invariably, will be to promote peace at any price.

Having thus spoken out on the framework agreement, the exact details of which, are privy to few beyond the negotiators themselves who now cannot agree on what they supposedly agreed to, the bishops then waded further into American politics, criticizing members of Congress for “seek(ing) to undermine the negotiations process or make a responsible (italics mine) multi-party agreement more difficult to achieve and implement.”

Hold on, now. Bishop Cantu may be blessed with abundant moral and spiritual wisdom and insight but how did he or the bishops he speaks for acquire the experience and competence to determine that this is a “responsible” agreement or that it “advances a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue”?

Bishop Cantu wrote further that “(t)he alternative to an agreement leads toward armed conflict, an outcome of profound concern to the Church.” In the view of many experts who actually have training and background in these matters and can speak objectively and knowledgeably about them, it’s the agreement itself which is more likely to lead to armed conflict since it virtually guarantees that Iran will eventually acquire nuclear weapons and doesn’t even address Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program which provides the means to deliver them. This will lead to a nuclear arms race by Sunni Arab nations frantic to match Shiite Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, risking a nuclear holocaust which will require American intervention. It also puts Israel in mortal danger, perhaps prompting it to strike Iran preemptively. How, then, will this agreement promote peace and justice?

As to whether or not this agreement would be in the best interests of America, I prefer to rely on the judgment of our experts rather than that of the bishops who, I would think, are venturing far beyond their job description in this matter. If the risk of armed conflict is, as Bishop Cantu writes, “of profound concern to the Church”, then perhaps the bishops should spend more time and energy condemning radical Islam and especially Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. Perhaps they should urge action to stop the persecution of Christians in Islamic lands and condemn those who shout “Death to Americans” and “Death to Jews” instead of providing naïve advice on American foreign policy.

Condemning war and promoting peace is great but not a temporary peace earned by appeasement that just increases the chances of eventual war. We all hate war and love peace but avoiding the one and achieving the other is a lot more complicated than just urging peace. Rather than spending millions on university centers of peace and justice which do little to promote either except to talk endlessly about them under the impression that this represents academic activity, perhaps that money would be better spent actually helping Christians who are being driven from their ancestral homes in the Middle East or beheaded by radical Islamic fanatics who are determined to purge them from the area.

April 21, 2015

The Browning of the Golden State

The Golden State Turns Brown———————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

California’s severe drought is certainly not the fault of our political leaders. Lots of people just want to live in Southern California which is mostly desert and droughts happen here a lot. And these people insist on covering much of the surface with grass, gardens, swimming pools, golf courses and water-intensive activities. But these may soon be things of the past, says Gov. Jerry Brown, and we may soon be witnessing the browning of California (no pun intended).

Manicured lawns and expensive, thirsty landscaping may soon give way to rocks, gravel and your occasional desert bush. It won’t be pretty unless you think that succulents and cacti are attractive substitutes for a beautifully-manicured lawn and colorful garden. So take lots of photographs now so you’ll remember that blue ribbon front yard that you worked so hard on. I wonder what all those mow, blow and go gardeners are going to do when there’s nothing left to mow and blow? (Go, I guess.)

Our elected officials may not be to blame for the absence of precipitation, but they deserve plenty of blame for their failure to adequately plan for these recurring emergencies. It’s often been noted that the west coast has not so much a water supply problem as a water distribution problem. If we had adequately planned, funded and built pipelines and reservoirs to get water from where it’s plentiful to where it’s needed, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But that would require foresight and long-range planning, something that that is about as scarce as, uh, water.

We can also apportion some blame to the Green lobby which may never be satisfied until all the people are gone from the earth and only endangered species remain. With heavily-populated Southern California and Central California’s rich farmlands parched and facing severe water rationing, we are, nevertheless, pumping about three-fourths of the fresh water flowing  in from the Sierra Nevada Mountains into San Francisco Bay to help protect the Delta Smelt and other fish, thanks to the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act. According to the Wall Street Journal, environmental diversions consume 4.4 million acre-feet of water a year. That’s enough to sustain about 4.4 million families.

Why do Californians stand for this madness? Human beings and agriculture, in America’s largest and most important agricultural state are being subordinated to environmental programs of questionable value and effectiveness. The power and affluence of the environment lobby is enormous and its influence on government policy has gotten entirely out of hand.

After all that water is diverted for environmental purposes, farmers use about 80% of what’s left which is actually under half the total amount that would be available if most of it wasn’t diverted. Industry and households get what’s left after the farmers but they seem to bear the brunt of the rationing and are constantly exhorted to stop wasting water. The state is pumping upwards to three-fourths of the fresh water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta into the San Francisco Bay but you won’t be served a glass of water at a restaurant unless you ask for it and don’t let the water police catch you watering your lawn at the wrong time. Don’t even think about washing your car. And get used to Navy showers.

The Carlsbad desalinization plant will come on line later this year. It’s estimated that it will provide from 7 to 10% of San Diego’s water needs. Why didn’t we build more of them? There’s plenty of salt water around and we have had plenty of time to plan for the droughts that we know will recur. One of the problems, of course, is the difficulty in getting anything built in this over-regulated state if it disturbs the habitat of some bug, bird or bait fish. Desalinization plants are expensive, but why are we even talking about building bullet trains that we don’t need and can’t afford when there are far more pressing needs like improvements to the water infrastructure?

Our water problems, to be sure, will not by solved by apportioning blame and we all need to face reality and conserve water. Let’s start by not dumping it into the San Francisco Bay. We can’t survive without water but we can probably muddle through without the Delta Smelt.

April 16, 2015

Framework for a Very Bad Deal

Framework for a Very Bad Deal———————————-

A commentary

By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

John Kerry and I served together in a guided missile frigate, later reclassified as a guided missile cruiser, during the Vietnam Conflict. John was a junior officer and our Deck Division Officer. I was a Commander and the ship’s Executive Officer or second in command. Though very junior, I considered him one of the top officers in that 30-officer wardroom which included many officers far senior to him and he was assigned duties commensurate with his exceptional talent and abilities, including duties as the ship’s Public Affairs Officer, a collateral duty I had filled in previous duty stations including an aircraft carrier. I drafted the concurring endorsement on his application for Swift Boat duty and still received some correspondence from him after he departed. That contact and friendship ended when he began to protest against the war while still in uniform, actions that later became issues that plagued him during his failed presidential campaign.

I recount this incidental piece of history only to emphasize my awareness, based on personal experience, of Mr. Kerry’s intelligence and ability. He was born to be a politician and a diplomat but I believe that, like his boss, he wears ideological blinders and that he shares his president’s view of the role of our country in the world as passive in nature. He is comfortable with the concept of leading from behind. I believe, moreover, that he is convinced that compromise is always the only proper choice when the alternative could lead to conflict. I believe, furthermore, that this mindset has led him to forge a faulty framework with Iran which will result in a very bad deal for the U.S. and its allies if approved.

It is a huge step backward from our starting position, enunciated by three presidents and other world leaders, that Iran must dismantle its nuclear program and never be allowed to acquire the ability to produce nuclear weapons. This framework essentially acknowledges that Iran will become a member of the nuclear weapons club. It simply delays, at best this eventuality. It does not even address Iran’s robust intercontinental ballistic missile program, the sole purpose of which is to deliver weapons on overseas targets. It is a classic case of attempting to achieve “peace in our time”, but it virtually ensures that there will not be peace in our children’s time. Indeed, it could set off a nuclear arms race that, given the religious and cultural passions in the Middle East, could result in a nuclear holocaust that would necessitate American intervention.

Our leaders have said repeatedly that we will never negotiate with tyrants or terrorists. We just did. Iran is a Shiite Islamic theocracy, sworn to the destruction of Israel. It funds and supports Hamas and Hezbollah. It is, in fact, the world’s largest supporter of terrorism against the West, including the U.S. Its leaders regularly chant “Death to America” the “Great Satan”, something our diplomats seem to shrug off as Iran just being Iran.

We have shut off Israel and our Arab allies from these negotiations and greeted Israeli concerns with contempt and irritation but they live in the shadow of this menace. They don’t have the luxury of ignoring Iranian threats to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea and purge the Middle East of Israel’s presence.

Messrs. Obama and Kerry respond to these concerns by assuring us that we will insist on verification. But we know how that has worked in the past. What has Iran ever done to suggest that that that will keep agreements like this in the future?  Will we never learn from history? We are also assured that if Iran cheats, we will “snap back” the sanctions. These sanctions, initiated by George W. Bush, took years to put in place. They will be twice as hard to re-impose if possible at all.

In the final analysis, this framework is a tentative agreement between ministers whose overriding concern is to forge a deal. Failure is off the table for diplomats. But now they can’t even agree on what they agreed to. And the framework is merely a prelude to further negotiation. The final decisions on the Iranian side will come from the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini who has said that Iran and the United States are in a “collision of evil ways on one side (that would be us) and…religious obedience and devotion on the other side (that would be them). Does anyone really believe that the ayatollahs will honor any effort that impedes three decades of effort to achieve the nukes that will provide Persian dominance in the Middle East? Hopefully, final approval on our side of any deal will come from Congress where at least some sense of reality still resides.

April 15, 2015

Intolerance in America

Growing Intolerance in America——————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

Dissent and partisanship are common to all democracies including, of course, ours. There’s nothing wrong with honest disagreement and healthy debate but for it to be productive there must be respect and tolerance for contrary views and beliefs, especially those based upon religious teachings so long as they aren’t clearly contrary to the national interest or public safety. Increasingly, though, dissent in America seems more and more characterized by a lack of respect for contrary opinions and beliefs or even a willingness to listen. Examples include debate over abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality and contraception.

The latest example is the nationwide uproar over Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). According to Indiana’s Gov. Mike Pence, its purpose is to help ensure that the religious beliefs of its citizens are respected by requiring the government entities in that state to apply the “highest level of scrutiny” to any of its actions that may infringe upon people’s religious beliefs. The law places the burden of proof on the citizen to show that those rights were violated and that there were other available alternatives to the action which allegedly infringed upon those rights.

The law also mirrors that already enacted by the federal government during the Clinton administration and similar laws in 20 other states, Arkansas being the most recent. They include such liberal bastions as Connecticut (my home state), Rhode Island and (gasp!) even President Obama’s ultra-liberal Illinois. Additionally, courts in a number of other states have ruled in favor of plaintiffs who claimed their religious rights were violated, notably, in the Hobby Lobby case. Yet, liberals suddenly have their underwear in a knot over Indiana’s law which they say will encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians. The furor has led assorted celebrities, moneyed elites, companies, municipal and state governments, even those with similar laws, to denounce Indiana’s law as hateful and discriminatory. Some organizations have forbidden their members to travel to the Hoosier State and there have been ominous threats to boycott its industries.

This is demagoguery at its worst and an obvious attempt to pander to gays as well as their votes and business by showing just how politically correct and inclusive they are. The threat by some corporations to cease doing business in Indiana is the height of hypocrisy because some of these same firms market to Islamic countries that not only persecute gays but also sometimes execute them. But hey, boycotting can be a double-edged sword. Perhaps it might lead to a boycott by religious conservatives against businesses that boycott Indiana.

Some critics point out that the situation in Indiana is different from that in other states because its law applies also to private disputes which they fear will enable businesses and individuals to discriminate against gays by refusing them services like lodgings, restaurant service or other products and services available to other customers. But denying service or refusing to sell on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual preference is illegal under a wide range of existing law and legal precedent. On the other hand, requiring, say, a physician who opposes abortion on religious or moral grounds to perform an abortion or a Catholic priest to preside at a same-sex wedding or a business to provide, or even facilitate, employee access to contraceptives or birth control services when to do so conflicts with their religious beliefs, is clearly a violation of their freedom to practice their religion where the national interest or public safety is not overriding.

Indiana’s law makes no mention of sexual orientation and the governor and members of the legislature insist that it will not be a license to discriminate against gays or anyone else. Moreover, they hastened to clarify the law to make that abundantly clear. They insist further that their law was overdue, given the 1993 Supreme Court decision that the First Amendment cannot be raised as a defense in a claim that a law infringed upon a party’s freedom to practice their religion. That led to the federal law and the 20 other state laws.

But that’s not enough for gay activists, their supporters and the politically-correct media. They want the law repealed. Emboldened by the enormous progress in achieving gay rights, no longer will they settle for just acceptance and tolerance. They want nothing less than total approval and unqualified endorsement of homosexuality as normal and wholesome and they view any reservations or personal disapproval of same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds as hateful, bigoted, discriminatory and, they hope, soon to be illegal. They achieved major objectives with the enactment of gay marriage laws and the right to serve openly in the military which constituted endorsement by the federal government. Changing church teachings and removing religious and moral objections is their next objective.

Here’s news. That’s not likely to happen. Deeply-held religious and moral beliefs and church teachings cannot just be decreed away. Pope Francis may have (properly, I believe) reached out to gays saying “Who am I to judge?” but that did not constitute an endorsement of homosexuality or same-sex marriage and there is little or no likelihood that church teachings will change. Tolerance, respect and love: yes, and rightly so. Christianity is about love. Christians are commanded to love all people, not just those they agree with. But endorsement and approval of acts that are contrary to church teachings? I’m afraid not, and it has nothing whatever to do with hate.  So how about a little tolerance, understanding and respect from the politically correct crowd and the gay activists for the deeply-held moral and religious beliefs of others? You’re not going to change their beliefs or the teachings of their religions no matter how many times you accuse them of bigotry and hate-mongering and you might even lose some sympathy and support in the process..

April 1, 2015-