On the Clark/Service Kerfuffle
Mr Obama has denounced Mr Clark’s remarks on foreign policy and Mr McCain’s service, being shot down, tortured, and so on. The remark:
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
Well, no. But, Mr Obama is running for President. Is he doing that out of loyalty to his country and a sense of duty … or is it out of a personal drive for power or personal aggrandizement. That is a question that doesn’t need to be asked of Mr McCain. He put his life on the line for the country. Mr Obama has not. The distinction remains. Mr Obama, in theory, may be as patriotic as the next veteran like Mr McCain and thousands of others. But … unlike the veterans and those serving … and I might add like me, his (and my) claims of patriotism remain untested by fire.
No it does not qualify one for President, but it does give us some valuable information about the man and his character. Information which is lacking in the case of Mr Obama.
Filed under: Mark O. • Politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I would have to reject the notion that those who don’t serve in the military have not had their “patriotism tested by fire.”
There are multiple ways to prove one’s patriotism and love of country. There are more than one way to be under fire.
I’d suggest for a black man to be a serious candidate for president IS putting one’s self under fire.
No, we are not in the days of MLK, but we’re not that far removed from it, either.
Living and working in some of our more impoverished urban and rural settings can be putting one’s self (and family) under fire.
Working for justice and the environment in coal country (among other places) can be putting one’s self under fire.
Working for justice and peace in foreign nations can be putting one’s self under fire.
This is not at all to denigrate our sons and daughters who serve in harms way, just to reject the notion that they are the only ones whose patriotism has been tested under fire.
And it’s General Clark, not Mr Clark, if I’m not mistaken.
Dan,
Do you think Christian martyrs have had their faith tested in a way that you and I have not? If so, that’s my point. If not, then we’re never going to see eye to eye on this one.
And I refer to just about everyone, with few exceptions as Mr/Ms Patronym on blogs and comments. It’s a carryover from a discussion group rule/practice at the U of Chicago which I liked. I refer to the President as Mr Bush for example, not The Honorable, or President, or whatever. FWIW, I wouldn’t expect (or ask/insist) you call me Dr, either. And besides, Mr Clark is no longer in active service anyhow.
My only consistent exception is for those which our Church has named as Saint.
Fair enough, on the “Mr” issue.
On the Saint/soldier issue, though, I would still disagree with you. I don’t think comparisons of soldiers to martyrs is an especially helpful one.
Yes, I think martyrs have experienced more oppression for their faith than those of us who have not been tortured or killed.
And I think those who have lived in extreme poverty, who have done mission trips and extended stays in and among impoverished or oppressed lands and people have experienced more than those who have not. And those who have worked in mental hospitals and jails and with potentially dangerous folk have experienced something that those who don’t, haven’t.
And many soldiers have experienced more dangers in ways that those of us who haven’t been soldiers haven’t.
None of that means that a soldier’s experience means their patriotism outweighs other folks’ or that others’ patriotism have not been tested under fire.
No big deal, I just wouldn’t want to make some sort of suggestion that soldiers are some kind of special case that is not true for others. We all each have our own experiences – some more dangerous or threatening than others.
Many of my friends live in urban areas, have worked with and around – and gone to church with – potentially dangerous folk, etc, but I would not try to make the case that this “proves” their patriotism more than those who haven’t. It’s just that our experiences are different – and to be valued and treasured for what they each add to our Great Experiment.
Dan,
As martyr has been asked, under threat of death to witness (the word martyr comes from the Greek word witness btw). That isn’t to say your faith not greater or great enough … just that it has not been tested in such a demonstrable fashion. That is the point I’m making. Mr Obama’s patriotism may be just as pure and fervent as McCain’s (or mine or yours). It just hasn’t been demonstrated in as clear a fashion. And no, I don’t think “running for President as a Black man” is putting his life in danger in the same way as flying A-4s for his country over Vietnam, or is as clear a demonstration of patriotism.
And, I have not said, that a soldiers patriotism exceeds or is compared with another’s patriotism. I’m just saying it has been demonstrated. Mr Obama’s (and mine and yours) have not been shown. It is not clear that either of us would “regret that we have only one life to give for our country”, where Mr McCain has shown that he would.
I understand that is what you’re saying.
I’m saying that my patriotism, Obama’s patriotism, your patriotism HAS absolutely been demonstrated in our lives. As has the soldier’s.
I DO have one life to live and give for our country and my Lord and I have demonstrated – failures and all – that I have given and lived that life.
Our patriotism HAS been demonstrated. That is what I’m saying. There are multiple ways to demonstrate one’s love of country or God or humanity. Shooting and being shot at may possibly be one way, but it is not the only way, in my opinion.
Dan,
As I said in #2,
I have no idea how you get your idea that there is no difference between the life you live and walking willingly into the lions den and accepting torture and death as a witness to Christ. You haven’t explained it in a way that makes any sense to me.
As I said, that isn’t to say that you haven’t the same faith as the martyr. But yours hasn’t been demonstrated to be that strong.
Look, we believe and profess that “death has been trampled by death” or “death has no sting” and that we posses through Christ via Baptism true ontological freedom. However saying it and living by dying for Christ is a different thing.
What you are saying doesn’t make sense to me.
Sorry.
Dan,
Don’t be sorry, it’s why we talk. 🙂
Why thank you, Brother Mark. I’ll talk some more then…
You said:
I have no idea how you get your idea that there is no difference between the life you live and walking willingly into the lions den and accepting torture and death as a witness to Christ. You haven’t explained it in a way that makes any sense to me.
I had already said:
Yes, I think martyrs have experienced more oppression for their faith than those of us who have not been tortured or killed.
I did not say there’s not a difference between martyrs and those who have not martyred. I agree.
And on the topic of patriotism, I noted that…
Many of my friends live in urban areas, have worked with and around – and gone to church with – potentially dangerous folk, etc, but I would not try to make the case that this “proves” their patriotism more than those who haven’t. It’s just that our experiences are different – and to be valued and treasured for what they each add to our Great Experiment.
What I am objecting to is the suggestion that the experiences of soldier’s has somehow proved their patriotism more than other citizen’s experiences. The soldier’s experiences show his love for country in that particular way, but is that evidence more compelling – more obvious – than the school teacher’s? Than the preacher’s? Than the news reporter’s or farmer’s or firefighter’s?
Is it not enough to allow that we each show love of country (some more than others) in how we live our daily life and that one’s work does not somehow “prove” their patriotism more than another’s work?
Dan,
You think the only difference between, you and me and a martyr is that they’ve experienced oppression. The martyr would not be oppressed if he recanted (even if later he “denounced his recanting”). It’s not the oppression, it’s the fact that he (or she) have demonstrated that their life is of less value to them than their faith.
Same for patriotism and the soldier. A school teacher has not demonstrated that their life is of less value to them than their country’s well being. It may be true, but isn’t demonstrated.
I disagree profoundly.
Dan,
You disagree that a teacher has not demonstrated his life is of less value to him than his country? How has he (or she) done so?
I understand you disagree, I don’t understand your point of view.
Because a teacher, for instance, IS giving of their time – of their LIFE – in teaching. At least the good ones are. I don’t see that offering of their life to be any less significant or patriotic than the soldier’s.
Dan,
Because in dying, you give all of your life for the cause, not just a piece.
Dan,
Additionally, it is the last or a final choice, there is no more “changing moving or going on after that.” A teacher can decide, after five years, to move on to other things. To go into business, to pursue family life, or whatever. There is not changing of one’s mind possible after that point.
There is certainly the potential for a vastly more dangerous lifestyle in the military. I just don’t think that “proves” their patriotism moreso than a teacher’s or farmer’s life (at a guess, although I don’t know this for sure, I’d suspect that vastly more farmers die fulfilling their role than soldiers).
Dan,
Are you contending a teacher’s life or a farmer’s has a higher rate of mortality than serving in Vietnam? You cannot be serious.
Furthermore, is a farmer farming for his country out of patriotism, or is his craft, his trade, and is he doing it for his family? A soldier in wartime is specifically serving his country, unlike a teacher or farmer.
Nathan Hale, famously remarked at the gallows, “I regret I have only one life to give for my country.” Do you understand that sentiment at all?
Dying for a cause is a statement which makes the definitive claim that this cause I die for is more important than my life. St. Stephen made that statement (first). Your faith (and mine) has not been demonstrated definitively to be more important than continued life. It may be, it may not.
Are you contending a teacher’s life or a farmer’s has a higher rate of mortality than serving in Vietnam? You cannot be serious.
I was suggesting that I recall vaguely reading a report on death rates by occupation and seeing that farmers have a fairly high morbidity rate from deaths on the job, perhaps more than soldiers, I don’t recall for sure.
I just did a little search and came up with this report:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/
That list logging and pilots as the most dangerous jobs. Soldiers aren’t on the list.
Now, I’m not claiming anything, I don’t have all the data. My guess is that, at least in peacetime, these other occupations have a much higher rate of job-related deaths. Perhaps in war time, too.
My hunch is that in most of our last few wars, if not all of them, the military mortality rate is probably not much worse, if at all, than some of our other dangerous jobs.
Now, this is NOT AT ALL to downplay the sacrifice and risk they take. It is to ask that we not downplay the sacrifice and risk OTHERS take.
Again, my point is not that soldiers haven’t proven their patriotism. My point is that they are not unique in proving their patriotism.
Furthermore, is a farmer farming for his country out of patriotism, or is his craft, his trade, and is he doing it for his family?
Good farmers, like Good soldiers, would likely be doing it for all of the above, I’d suggest.
I simply disagree with your measure, for faith and for patriotism.
Dan,
Let’s try this. Examine the martyr a little closer. Compare St. Stephen to you or me. Can you not say, especially to an outsider, that the example of his death is a strikingly different demonstration of commitment than our life. That his willingness to die for his faith is a strong, striking demonstration (witness) of that faith, which you and I have not done?
Why do you think your life is as good or better demonstration of devotion to Christ than his?
How many times shall we go around on this, Mark? Yes, Stephen’s life and martyrdom was a striking commentary on his commitment to Christ.
My pastor’s life is a striking commentary on her commitment to Christ. My wife’s life is a striking commentary on her commitment to Christ.
Has Stephen gone where we have NOT gone? Absolutely. Have my pastor and wife gone where Stephen has not gone? Also absolutely.
You are free to think that those who have died have proven their faith in a way that others haven’t. I don’t necessarily disagree. But then, each of our lives demonstrate their faith in their own unique ways.
Do you know why Mennonites are named after Menno? Was he somehow a better preacher, Christian than other anabaptist leaders at the time? Not necessarily. The main reason, I’m told, is that he was one of the few anabaptist leaders who was NOT martyred for his faith (the average time from becoming an anabaptist preacher to their martyrdom by the Catholics or the Protestants was ~three years), and so he was able to preach and write more than some of these other sainted martyrs.
Does that “prove” the martyr’s faith was greater than Menno’s? Or that Menno’s faith was greater than the martyrs’?
Neither, I’d suggest.
You can believe as you wish. I disagree with your position, brother, but believe it all you want.
Dan,
Why do we remember the Resurrection? Why did Paul say, if Jesus was not resurrected our Faith is in vain? It is because, as St. John Chrysostom coined (or repeated in his Paschal homily that it is because the resurrection showed that “death has no sting.” This is the heart of the Gospel. That we are ontologically free. This means the death of a Christian is a thing which (should) matter little to him (or to the rest of us).
How do you or I (as compared to St. Stephen) demonstrate that for us, death has no sting? That it doesn’t matter, for we will rise to live again on his return? How does your preacher, you, or I, or your wife show that death has no sting? Few of us get any opportunity to do so, in such a dramatic definitive way as a martyr.
If you are not asked to make that demonstration, no I agree that doesn’t mean you have not learned that death has no dominion over you … but it doesn’t mean it does either. The martyr has shown that it does. That is the point.
And on Menno, yes, you’ll find that not all the heroes of the faith (we call them Saints) were martyrs. But … I think you’ll find that no martyrs are are not Saints. That is the point. Few of us are heroes of the Faith Catholic who are not martyrs. Why? That is the point I’m trying to make.
It seems to me what you’re trying to say is that ordinary preachers, you and I are just as worthy, just as Spirit filled as every other Christian. That’s very egalitarian of you … but what do you base your egalitarian belief on? Not Scripture surely.
I can’t fathom how you find the demonstration of your Christian life (or mine) is the same as St. Stephen’s.
I have not said they are the same. I have said:
Many of my friends live in urban areas, have worked with and around – and gone to church with – potentially dangerous folk, etc, but I would not try to make the case that this “proves” their patriotism more than those who haven’t. It’s just that our experiences are different – and to be valued and treasured for what they each add to our Great Experiment.
Three times at least now I have pointed out that our experiences are different and unique experiences and that the soldier’s different and unique experience certainly says something about them, but it does not say that their patriotism has been proven moreso than someone else’s.
Dan,
How do you understand Memorial Day? What is being celebrated on that day?
Dan,
Look, you’ve said three times that they are different. I’ve offered that the difference of giving up your life is a key point. You have not explained why it is not.
Look, you can say you’re a Christian and love Christ and do good works and all that, but not truly (in your heart) believe. However, I offer that on threat of torture and death, you cannot still continue to stand for that thing for which you (in your heart) do not believe. You can also, say today that you are Christian, but 10 years from now, have a change of heart, lose your faith and become agnostic or an atheist. A martyr has no more choices left. No life left. There is a difference. I don’t understand how you can suggest that difference is unimportant.