The Most Rev. Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, preached a sermon at the National Cathedral in Washington on the fifth anniversary of his taking on that job, with some meat in it. This church news release covers the gist of what he said. Some excerpts:
I’m extremely pleased with what he had to say, and want to put his comments forward for discussion. I’m confident there’s the meat for a couple of good debates in it. Please read the link and comment as you’re moved to do so.
I’m afraid I disagree with you, Polycarp. As I see it, Griswold’s comments display arrogance, ignorance, and ill logic.
Arrogance: How does he know what God wants? Does he have a cite?
Ignorance: African AIDS and Iraqi WMDs represent extremely difficult problems. Solving AIDS could involve current medicine, medical research, pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution, African culture, African sex practices, African politics, and international diplomacy. The Iraq problem involves military planning, military technology, nuclear physics, chemical weapons, biological weapons, Arab and Musoim cultures, the Baath Party, the Kurds and Shiites, and diplomacy. Griswold has no expertise in any of these areas.
Ill logic: The two problems are independent. Maybe the US ought to spend more fighting AIDS in Africa or less on arms, but a comparson of the two is not the right way to make that decision. Each situation needs to be judged on its own.
And of course, if God does exist, we are clearly under him. As he moves in mysterous ways, and to quote above, “we are truly a nation ‘under God,’ as we say we are, then God’s perspective rather than our own self-interest will animate both our national life and our being in the world”, then clearly what we are doing right now is guided by God.
It’s logical.
I don’t like this logic. It leads to bad things.
And this is why we are not a theocracy. So. Perhaps what he wants to say is that we should act in a way more similar to the way he feels Jesus would have us act unto each other.
It just doesn’t seem to work on a national level. Any thoughts?
Don’t be intentionally dense, dude. Speaking as a Christian minister in a freakin’ church, it’s understood that he means the christian God and its will, as represented in the documents and traditions of that faith. These things clearly support his conclusions about what (his) god wants. Pretending not to see that makes your position less attractive.
Why do you suppose he’s more ignorant of these issues than you are? Do you have a cite demonstrating his lack of understanding? I expect he’s thought them through fairly clearly, and feels that it is morally wrong to prefer to kill people than to save people’s lives. You seem to have made a different judgement.
Oops! Wrong again. The problems are directly linked through the administration’s choice to focus on one and not the other, and the public’s finite ability to pay attention.
Personally, though I’m an atheist, I find the comments inspiring, and I hope that they cause people who are gung ho for war to think it over again.
Cite. (Use the [>>] button to read the remainder of the cite.)
Hey, it’s His4Ever’s right and responsibility to say what she thinks God expects of us, as a laywoman in the Church of God. It’s mine to do likewise, as a lay Episcopalian.
Frank Griswold was chosen to be the spokesbishop for 2.5 million Episcopalians, to teach authoritatively as bishops have since the First Century. Me, I’d define “arrogance” as finding outré examples at the fringes of situations in an effort to cast doubt on what one knows in one’s heart to be true. But YMMV.
Regarding ignorance and ill logic, I understand what he’s saying is that writing a blank check for preparations for the probable war on Iraq while throwing a relative pittance at ameliorating the conditions under which over 30 million people are dying of an endemic plague is immoral use of money. I can see a case of the sort that might be built by Lib that defense against force and coercion may be an appropriate government action while charitable work should be voluntary individual action. But I hardly think you’re advocating a Libertarian view. And even the Hon. Jesse Helms, retired Senator, says that we’re doing far too little to help the African nations being ravaged by AIDS. (And I never thought I’d see the day when I’d be able to quote Jesse Helms in support of my position as against yours! :))
But thank you very much for your response, and I mean that sincerely. For the first time, I’ve been able to get a grasp of how a troll must feel when a polemic post of his garners hostile responses. And that is indeed an unusual sensation.
One issue with this is that he does not speak for all Americans. As an agnostic, I’ve never said that I was ‘under God’ and I greatly appreciate the fact that the government allows people of all beliefs to be equal in the state’s eyes. Furthermore, the part about abandoning that claim altogether sounds like needless hyperbole threatening that if we are not one nation under God, then there is no God in our nation. If people want to draw power and inspiration from their God, then they should be encouraged to do so. If others wish to base their actions on their own personal ethics, then that too is all good.
It’s all about the goal-oriented complex of the common geek, Poly. It is inspirational. But then we start poking at it and thinking, “Well… which god? Wait, does he mean that? Those two things aren’t connected…”
In short, yes, he’s right, the US isn’t as pure and noble as we like to think we are. We should strive to be better people, each and every one of us, and not just in our personal life, in our business and professional dealings as well.
But from a logical, non-inspirational point of view… horribly, horribly wrong.
I could defend Griswold’s use of “under God” by saying that his agenda would not lead to compulsory this-‘n’-that as would the fundamentalist one – but that’d be special pleading. I agree that it is somewhat inappropriate to say that in a context where he’s speaking to the general public, although he is entitled to believe it himself and to preach it to his coreligionists.
Other than that, my response to those posting would echo Nogginhead’s:
Griswold is calling for compassionate outreach by a relatively wealthy nation to a variety of other nations being hit hard by a pandemic and without the resources to afford providing the care that is available to most HIV+ Americans for their HIV+ nationals. And saying that morally that is a higher priority than combatting a possible threat by a dictator of a moderate-sized Middle Eastern nation. His stance is debateable, to be sure.
Leroy, would you expand on your views a bit? To be honest, I’m surprised to see you taking the stance you apparently are, and I’d welcome some explanation of your thinking.
Well, FWIW, I read the article and I heard yet another “We’re so rich and powerful and blessed, it’s our duty to help fix the world…” sermon. I actually heard the gist of this on Sunday morning, January 5, from my own pastor. “2003–Another Chance To Get It Right!” was his title, but it was basically the same idea…
…although he tactfully refrained from mentioning that Americans are loathed worldwide. It wouldn’t have gone over well out here in the Heartland.
Iraq doesn’t have a “war machine,” nor is it a “threat to our survival,” but that’s neither here nor there.
Isn’t it a contradiction to say that love is more important than fear, and then in the very next sentence to argue that we should spend money responding to fear (of Iraq) rather than showing love (to AIDS victims)?
FWIW, Poly, I agree with you on Griswold (though I am agnostic) and fortunately for me, I am not constrained by any libertarian or conservative values from listening to my conscience on whether it is better to spend money helping people or killing them.
Right, Lib; Diogenes promotes thievery! It’s not like he’s talking about using the power of an existing government with an existing political system in which several hundred millions participate in order to help several hundred million other people in a way which also makes things safer for the participants of that political system…
<checking again>
Oops. Turns out that’s exactly what he’s talking about doing.
Well, okay. I suppose if it’s always been that way, and it’s pretty thoroughly institutionalized, everybody’s doing it (voluntarily or not), and it’s for what you believe is a good cause — that should give you moral authority over the rights of others to decide for themselves.
Hey, Lib, see my second post in this thread – I acknowledge that it’s possible to argue against government action of that sort, no matter how charitably intended, from a libertarian perspective. But, sir, in the absence of the conversion of this nation into Libertaria, I reserve the right to insist that tax money collected lawfully if compulsively be spent for what I consider to be morally sound expenditures. In other words, if you can convince Congress not to tax me to support their pet projects and leave me free to put my money where I choose, then I’ll agree with your stance, but in the interim, while they are continuing to tax at the levels they are, I reserve the right to insist on their expending that government income for results I consider to be beneficial to the world and its peoples.
You lost your moral soundness when you seized a man’s property by threat of force. After that, you are merely fretting over what to do with the pillaged loot. Moreover, requiring me to bring down a tyrant before you will acknowledge a man’s rights is ethically Neanderthal.
Lib. I’ll offer you a deal. You’ll stop referring to our present government as “tyrannical” because it operates under an imperfect approximation of public consensus, and I’ll refrain from referring to libertarianism as an “uncaring and brutal” because its scope doesn’t include consideration of public good.
And I wonder if it’s entirely consistent to rebuke Poly’s “moral soundness” because you disagree with the way he expresses the same principle of love you so passionately promote.
I wish for you to refer to libertarianism in whatever way you perceive it so that I will know honestly your perceptions. Do you or do you not claim moral authority over the rights of other men to make their own decisions about charity?
I do not disagree with the way Poly expresses anything at all. I disagree with what he expresses in this instance. I may not “love” Peter by mugging Paul. Not even if a saint says otherwise.
