After swearing at me (as only Tony can) for beating him to a couple of blog posts, Tony has a couple of beauts. Interesting that the average senior pastor makes over 80k, and 25% make 97k. Serving God is good business, evidently, and may explain why so many of those pastors vote Republican ("the poor should become pastors"). But my favorite, out of touch pastor for this week is Rick Warren, with this amazingly self-righteous defense of his own success:
"“Do you know why God blessed ‘The Purpose Driven Life’ book and made it the best-selling book in the world and the best-selling hardback in history?” he asked, referring to his 2002 devotional book which has sold over 25 million copies worldwide. “You know why I think it went? ’Cause God knew that He could trust me with the money. He knew that we weren’t going to spend it on ourselves.”"As Tony noted, the "next Billy Graham" seems to be pretty sure what God thinks (unlike the original). I never read the book, but is it possible that it is just another simplistic self-help book that took off? Or is the Da Vinci Code good history? I forget.
****
Speaking of Warren (and that Saddleback forum sure did raise his profile, not that that was his intent, of course), the discussion about Obama and McCain continues. Sully has a post that reminds me of one of my own regarding the two candidates view of evil.
McCain's vow to "defeat evil" at Saddleback was both asinine machismo - like we haven't had enough of that after eight years of Cheney - and deeply unChristian. There's no way a president of the United States or any country can "defeat evil." Evil is everywhere and always for Christians - until the Second Coming. Particular manifestations of evil can be defeated, but not evil itself. That endures, and is part of us too.McCain, Bush and evidently the Religious Right still think that evil is only what other people do.
In this, of course, Obama's theology is far more mainstream than McCain's bravado. And Christians are first reminded that we too are capable of evil - even as we try to do good. And so a genuine effort to spread democracy and human rights can even allow some leaders, divorced from real Christianity, to commit absolute evil in the name of good.
Like, say, torture.
****
Not sure if this qualifies as evil, but it still stinks. The fat idiot who still draws big Republican guests said that Obama's nomination occurred because "nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy". Sigh.
55 comments:
Tony, where did you get those statistics on the average pay of a pastor?
I surely must upset the average.
Should have posted that link. here it is
Wow...did I pick the wrong community or what :)
I would disagree that Obama's theology is more mainstream and you hinted at the very same thing in another post awhile back. Unfortunately many people only view terrorism as the great evil of our day. When in fact terrorism, gang violence, poverty, etc are all evil.
The quote wasn't mine, but the argument here is that on the concept of evil, Obama's is more mainstream and more theologically consistent than McCain's.
We are all capable of evil, but McCain only wants to frame it in projections on other people. Not only that, but as Sullivan notes, it is inconceivable from a theological sense that as President, McCain can eradicate evil. Where do people get that idea?
Well if their concept of evil is limited to radical Islam, then yes he could eliminate at least the participants, but not the ideology.
But that was exactly how McCain defined evil. Radical Islam. Which is, quite frankly, stupid pandering.
Agreed. But you asked how one could possibly think they could eliminate evil. Mccain and those that think like him, believe that Radical Islam is evil (and it is) but that isnt the only thing we should be concerned with.
Several things . . .
Does it help to distinguish what the teachings of a particular faith tradition are vs. one who would claim to know the mind of God? On the one hand, it can be said that Presbyterian teachings are thus and such (and then we fight over Cumberland, PCUSA, PC America, etc). On the other, I know God did thus and such because thus and so.
I find remarks like Warren's off-putting - who can claim to know the mind of God? I see Warren, Osteen, Hagee, etc, almost as 'cult of personality' figures (NOT cult leaders) because their ministry seems so focused on their own persona. In that sense, Warren's remarks appear as simple self-glorification rather than directed toward knowing God.
Second, on what basis might one reasonably claim that some theological tradition is within or outside the mainstream? This seems even more problematic when compared in relative terms -- eg, my uncle's theology is MORE mainstream that your auntie's theology. What is mainstream and how do we know?
Also on this point, might there a regional (likely formerly ethnic) aspect to this? For example, my state is heavily Catholic and Lutheran. We drink, thanks, and keep your blue laws to yourself. Whereas in OK, it's heavily Baptist, AoG, etc., there are blue laws, and lots of businesses are closed on Sunday.
And another thing! Are these salary figures for mega-churches with Starbucks inside or your average congregation of perhaps a couple hundred members where they shovel the parking lot themselves before services? I have a hunch...
I still like Andrew Bacevich's take on Islamic terrorism as a very violent criminal conspiracy. When we ascribe to it spiritual evil, we legitimize it in how they want to be seen. Perhaps we should just refer to them as criminals as we do the mob.
ubub, good ububian wisdom. I think you are correct that "mainstream" is not a very useful term here. In many ways, (and the theologians here can correct me) Obama's description of evil seems more within Orthodox or traditional Christian teachings about evil. McCain's, I would suggest, are not. At the heart of Christianity, however you slice it, seems to me humility and attention to our ability and willingness to "sin" (for lack of a better word). That internal awareness of our own weakness would not be consistent with projecting all evil outside us.
Or that is my opinion.
Good question on the congregations. I would like to see some other numbers. How big is the average congregation? Or what is the size of the church that the average church-goer attends. Or are those the same question?
Ubub, I think it does help to define what the tenets of a particular denomination or faith is if it is done to define terms. It is difficult to engage in a debate, examination, or conversation if terms are not defined. Once we have defined terms of the faith in question then we can ask the "right" question.
As far as the claim to know the mind of God. Well, I would suggest to a limited degree every single one of us on this blog has the ability to know the mind of God, if you dont already (in a limited degree). In regard to the comment by Warren. That is a totally subjective opinion that cant be verified or disproved. I do find it interesting the a lot of the money from that particular book was invested in the problem of Aids in Africa. So I would say that God could trust him with that money. Seems like a good thing to me.
I agree with you that the idea of mainstream has several applications and would be very difficult to determine what is mainstream. But there are theological mainstreams. These would be considered the major tenets of the Christian Faith. For example in Seminary they would often talk about mainstream Christianity like; the virgin birth, salvation through Jesus Christ alone, the Trinity, Scriptures inspired, etc.
There is a regional aspect to this as well. For example when I became a Christian I attended a church in the south where all langauge was forbidden. Even the word piss. When I attended seminary in Minneapolis, MN piss was not only used by the majority of people but was used by the professors.
More in a minute
I still like Andrew Bacevich's take on Islamic terrorism as a very violent criminal conspiracy. When we ascribe to it spiritual evil, we legitimize it in how they want to be seen. Perhaps we should just refer to them as criminals as we do the mob.
I haven't read Bacevich, but I think I should. This is absolutely right. When we put the Taliban in power in the 80s and gave them weapons to fight the USSR, we made sure that they would be self-sufficient, and the way CIA accomplished that was to put them in charge of Afghanistan's poppy fields. Opium was and is their chief export--most of it crosses the Iranian border and flows out of the Middle East through Turkey and into Europe. They are nothing more than gangsters who happen to have de facto control of a flag.
Thinking of extremists more generally, it's true that their goal is fear and destabilization of the West, rather than the profit that most mobsters tend to want. But they have to get their funding from somewhere, and we can cut that off using existing techniques for dealing with large groups of organized criminals like the Mafia, the Chinese triads, roving Vietnamese gangs and Colombian/El Salvadorian cartels.
The only downside to this approach is that it calls for patience and fortitude from the American people, rather than politicians trying to panic us to scare up votes.
What Bacevich writing(s) would you recommend?
I may buy his new book, but haven't read any of his so far. I think I linked to his PBS interview with Moyers that was where he articulated the idea of terrorism as a criminal conspiracy. But here are some links to a blog where he contributes
http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/2008/08/is-perpetual-wa.html
http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/2008/08/illusions-of-vi.html
If I could weigh in on the pastors' salary issue, I only provided the link there without any commentary.
The information is obviously skewed. The average church (without respect to denomination or affiliation) in America would be the small church--the ones that run less than 100 in attendance on any given Sunday.
A median salary would be hard to come by for these type churches for many different reasons.
I would like top point to a great read that I thought of while typing this; Dr. Joel Gregory's book, Too Great a Temptation: The Seductive Power of America's Superchurch not only chronicles a lot of the financial pitfalls of huge church ministry, but also alongside such notable conservative figures such as Paige Patterson and particularly WA Criswell.
The one incidence that stands out was that Gregory was pastoring Travis Avenue BC in Fort Worth when he applied for the office of pastor at FBC Dallas, at the time the largest SBC church in America. His pay was "negotiated" at $125,000 per year, excluding benefits. The church also bought him a car. He was already making over six figures at TABC.
Wouldnt that be nice Tony? I am sure that you and I are the average. Barely making ends meat in order to pursue God's plan in our lives...every once and awhile it is nice to think...man what woudl it be like to make that much money.
Streak, I have seen you mention before about terrorist being considered criminals. How then would you prosecute a criminal that conducts crimes in a foreign land? For example how would you prosecute a criminal in a land where it is ruled by SHARIA?
How then would you prosecute a criminal that conducts crimes in a foreign land? For example how would you prosecute a criminal in a land where it is ruled by SHARIA?
The short answer for members of organized crime syndicates is that we don't. We act instead on the economic system they find themselves in. Who gives them money? We seize their assets, or if it's a country, embargo their goods. That gets people's attention really fast, and can often secure extradition of mid-level organization members.
Just to be clear, we use the word "criminal," but nobody is talking about flying a couple of beat cops to Islamabad with handcuffs ready to give a Miranda warning to a guy who probably sleeps with an AK under his bed. What we're talking about is the established procedures that federal agencies--FBI, DEA, ICE, CBP--have for dealing with large, international criminal organizations who make billions of dollars a year moving drugs and guns and selling sex slaves. These aren't small fry--these are organizations that individual states, even ones as populous and wealthy as California, just don't have the money or the manpower to deal with. These are tools we already have. The argument is that this is also the best way to respond to terrorist organizations.
The reasoning is that it's a question of how we respond to acts of terror. Do we act like bees whose hive has been crushed with a bat, and lose two thirds of the colony trying to sting the bat? Or do we go for the big dogs behind the little chihuahuas who actually set the bombs? In order to cut off the head, you have to use economic measures, and not get too distracted by the desire for individual acts of revenge.
Ok, I realize that we would not be flying LAPD out there. But how do you prosecute someone for lets murder (chopping a civilians head off) in a land ruled by Sharia?
Sad as it is to say, one murder is small fry. With 92% of Afghani opium making it past the 12-nation blockade on the Iranian border, it's not something you could convince very many people to take particular notice of.
If it's one of our citizens, that's something for the respective departments of State to decide, and if you don't get the result you want (as Colin Powell didn't when Nick Berg was beheaded), it's a good opportunity to explore whether the staffing in DOS is appropriate.
I understand the drug thing, but I am not aruging the value of one over the other. I am arguing the functionality of switching from terrorism being associated with war to terrorism being assocated with criminal activity.
So if a Suicide bomber kills 45 Americans...how do you prosecute that individual in a country that is ruled by Sharia.
Dude...if a suicide bomber kills 45 people, he or she is dead. That is what "suicide bomb" means. There is nothing left to prosecute.
Can you rephrase your question? What does Sharia have to do with anything?
Suicide bombers dont operate on their own. There are cells of terrorist who plan, execute, and promote such activities.
2nd Sharia is Islamic religious laws that govern countries. There is an attempt right now by Radical Muslims in the Netherlands to introduce Sharia in Europe.
This is an excerpt from Wiki...for example the lady who was beat in Saudi for being gang raped. That was Sharia, the men who were beheaded in Iraq in 2004-2006, that is Sharia, etc.
"Most countries of the Middle East and North Africa maintain a dual system of secular courts and religious courts, in which the religious courts mainly regulate marriage and inheritance. Saudi Arabia and Iran maintain religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence, and religious police assert social compliance. Laws derived from sharia are also applied in Afghanistan, Libya and Sudan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts.[69] In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the re-introduction of harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony. The punishments include amputation of one/both hands for theft and stoning for adultery and apostasy.[citation needed]
Many, including the European Court of Human Rights, consider the punishments prescribed by Sharia as being barbaric and cruel. Islamic scholars argue that, if implemented properly, the punishments serve as a deterrent to crime.[70] In international media, practices by countries applying Islamic law have fallen under considerable criticism at times. This is particularly the case when the sentence carried out is seen to greatly tilt away from established standards of international human rights. This is true for the application of the death penalty for the crimes of adultery and homosexuality, amputations for the crime of theft, and flogging for fornication or public intoxication. [2]
A bill proposed by lawmakers in the Indonesian province of Aceh would impose Sharia law on all non-Muslims, the armed forces and law enforcement officers, a local police official has announced. The news comes two months after the Deutsche Presse-Agentur warned of "Taliban-style Islamic police terrorizing Indonesia's Aceh".[71][72][73]
The interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence varies in different modern nations. In the Anglosphere and in Islamic countries with a history of British rule, for example, Islamic finance has been relatively successful due to the common-law nature of Islamic jurisprudence being compatible with English common law. On the other hand, Islamic finance has been relatively unsuccessful in certain regimes such as Iran, Pakistan and Sudan which have diverged from the common-law nature of Islamic jurisprudence and instead interpret "a common-law variant as if it were a civil law system."[10] For example, modern Iranian law is based on an "Islamic civil code" influenced by the Napoleonic code and German civil code.[74] According to the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, "In some of the ways it has been codified and practised across the world, it has been appalling and applied to women in places like Saudi Arabia, it is grim."[75]"
About homosexuality from Sharia
"Gay rights
Homosexual activity is illicit under the sharia, however the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. For example these countries may allow the death penalty for sodomy though not for other homosexual activities: Iran, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia. Sharia does not recognize a human right of sexual self-determination. Human rights organizations focus on decriminalization, anti-discrimination laws, and incitement to hatred laws. Organizations are particularly concerned about the persecution of gays and lesbians in Iran and have helped some gay and lesbian Iranians gain asylum in Western countries."
What do you want us to do, FP? Invade every country that rules by Sharia law if they don't prosecute terrorists?
We better get that draft going.
Dude, seriously, make one post at a time. You're flooding the discussion.
If there are terrorist cells in the U.S., we treat them like the violent gangs who terrorized Chinatowns in the mid 90s. If they are abroad, we work with the country in which they are located to track and contain them as we would any violent group. Believe it or not, there is wide international consensus about containing criminal behavior, even between Western and Sharia law countries, concerning criminal activities. Drugs, sex trafficking and suicide bombings are three such areas of agreement. No power wants suicide bombings on its soil.
I get that you don't like Sharia, but your dislike is not something I find interesting enough to talk to you about.
These are all taken from wiki...the article is too long and Streak has still not shown me how to link it.
Sharia and NON-MUSLIMS
"Under Sharia law non-Muslims may be subjected to Sharia Laws however it codifies the treatment of dhimmis in relation to the Muslim state and in cases of over-lapping jurisdiction. The jizya or tax is enforced on those who broke a treaty or attacked Muslim with no right (as a punishment) or required from those who ask for protection without enrolling in the army. The rules include privilege to practice their own religion, except for public demonstration of non-Muslim religious practices and the right to convert Muslims.
The core component of treatment is the jizya, or tax specifically upon non-Muslims. The jizya originates in the Qur'an which says “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of the truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”[Qur'an 9:29] The "Book" refers to the People of the Book, Jews and Christians,but the jizya was extended to all conquered non-Muslims. The jizya is less than the Zakah (money given to the poor and needy) which is payable to non-Muslims in need.[citation needed]"
Sorry leighton...just so much information available about Sharia.
Streak, no! I am asking how do we make the switch from one system to the other.
These are all taken from wiki...the article is too long and Streak has still not shown me how to link it.
Look it up your own fucking self. It's called a "hyperlink." This copy and paste shit is ridiculous.
And I never asked you what Sharia was. I don't care about these freaking text dumps.
I think I am not expressing myself properly.
Yes I dislike Sharia. Not really my point.
Let me try and reexplain this.
You and streak are making the point that we should prosecute terrorist as criminals and their actions being criminal not an attack of war.
So I am asking how do we prosecute them? How do we have authority in a country that is ruled by Sharia?
Streak has still not shown me how to link it.
So sorry. Didn't realize I was responsible for that.
The point of Sharia law is what now? No one here is interested in putting it in place here, if you are interested. If a terrorist operates out of a country with that system of laws, our options are only as Leighton has suggested--either we address their economic system or try to catch them and the people who fund them in those areas we have some authority with international law. Or we invade sovereign nations.
Bush chose that last one. The Rand corporation and others suggest that the best way to end terrorism is through economic and law enforcement methods.
later...
See streak it isnt just me.
Fp, it absolutely is. You just hijacked this comment thread on some bizarre rant about sharia law, insisted on dumping information not relevant to the subject, and then posting comment after comment.
It is you.
Of course it is all my fault. My point was this. Sharia law allows for activity that we would consider to be "criminal". So how to convict or prosecute someone in a country with that type of law?
The dump was to show you that Sharia allows for the beating of women and certain terrorist activities that would be reclassified as criminal.
But hey whatever
Streak, thanks for those links above. I remember you linking that Bill Moyers segment, but I had forgotten the guy's name. I'll check it out later when I catch a break from visa stuff.
My,my such an engaging discussion.
It seems a lot of the fireworks started with something that FP asked "How then would you prosecute a criminal that conducts crimes in a foreign land?"
Then the now infamous 'Sharia' conversation got started. Clearly there are ways of entering their system and using it to one's advantage as any legal system.
There are Sharia lawyers and if I wanted to sue or prosecute someone under that system, I would engage the services of one.
Arguing the relative merits of the systems seems to me, to be beside the point of the original question.
I am glad, FP that you explained why you did the dumps, it helped me understand your reason.
Under Sharia, non-muslims dont have the same rights.
In the context of the conversation I am trying to understand how we persecute people as criminals who are planning terrorist activities against us in a country who by Sharia are allowed to do so?
leighton, sorry for not understanding that dumping isnt "proper" in blogging. Streak has just corrected me.
FP,
You stated that "Under Sharia, non-muslims dont have the same rights"
Would you mind emailing me the citation for that? Also I suspect paying a lawyer of ANY type enough money would get you some rights! ;)
MIT, I will get you more than I have already posted.
We started with pastors salaries, Rick Warren's role as God's personal comptroller, theological definitions of evil, and Rush's comment about Obama, and then ended up with wiki-treatises about sharia law. Hmm, I knew I should have taken that turn at Albuquerque . . .
At one point, it appeared we were at risk of staying on topic, but that did not last. I am holding each of you personally responsible for my obvious inability to follow all these tangents about sharia and lawyers and blog ettiquette. Because, clearly, it is your fault and your responsibility.
MIT, I have ran a search and most are newspaper articles from around the world that verify that Non-Muslims are not afforded the same rights. If they are pagan (not people of the book) they receive next to no rights.
I have three websites I will email you.
Ubub, I am sure that is my fault as well...
So I will apologize for derailing the conversation from talking about Pastor's salaries...
FP, I saw your websites, Thanks. I might go by the Mosque, if I have the time, and talk to the Imam about it.
Thx again.
It's an ego thing, but I work with people who have done cases in countries with Sharia law, and I get pissy when I get see lots of text dumps about things I already know about, as though it's supposed to be something new. My question was why you were bringing Sharia up, and I'm still not seeing any connection to the claim that terror organizations ought to be treated like organized crime organizations.
You seem to be talking about human rights violations, not acts of terrorism. The idea is that we would handle those the same way we do now--through diplomacy and economic and cultural pressure. Though if I had my druthers, we would make it easier than the Republicans want it to be to apply for political asylum in cases of legitimate need, and find some way to stop ICE from detaining asylum seekers indefinitely and with no legal recourse.
So someone is beheaded. What do we do? If he's one of our citizens, Department of State handles it. If he is a citizen of a country foreign to us and the place he was beheaded, we work with that government to express our "disappointment." If he is a citizen of the country in which he was beheaded, we (meaning the government and the military) don't do anything. Maybe we as citizens could write angry letters to the government, on our own or through organizations like Amnesty International or Doctors Without Borders, or try to persuade a senator or two to write concerned letters in their capacity as officials. It's not great, but overthrowing a regime every time some kid gets beaten up is like curing a hangnail by amputating the arm. I don't want to minimize the problems with Sharia enforcement, especially as applied to women, but even as bad as that is, the alternative of using military force is much, much, much worse.
Sharia being enacted in Europe is not a risk, by the way. There is far too much entrenched money and power that is happy with Western-style capitalism.
Several things come to mind:
Regarding pastor salaries- I think too much is made over it. If a church wants to pay their pastor six figures or nothing it lacks any more moral intrigue for me than any other professional position. We could have a similar discussion regarding what attorneys, veterinarians, college professors, or bartenders make. Churches have income and budgeted salaries like any other employer.
Regarding considering terrorists and other groups like the Taliban on a par with "organized crime" initially strikes me as way too simplistic and arbitrary. I'd have to read his stuff to follow that line of thought.
Regarding our future king's feelings on evil- I really don't give a shit how either of them feels about it other than I prefer not to be hearing about it. Their job description has nothing to do with good vs evil. They aren't the representative of good battling against the forces of darkness. They're running for the executive position in a constitutional republic. Painting themselves as being pitted against evil forces allows the justification of all kinds of means to achieve these ends. Their job description is there for anyone who want to to read it. Do a search- battling evil isn't mentioned.
I don't follow the question regarding the prosecution of someone who is a citizen of a country that has instituted sharia law. Why would that be any different than any other nation?
Later
BB
BB, I don't disagree about churches--as long as everyone admits that they are no different than any other employer. But I think people like to see their churches as something apart. Maybe I am wrong.
To be fair, Bacevich simply echoed what the Rand corp did recently when it recounted how terrorist threats are ended. Mostly, they said, with the use of better law enforcement. Bacevich also said that it was better to treat terrorism as a "violent criminal conspiracy". I added the mob part.
As for evil, no doubt that is not the issue for our next president. Thanks to Bush and Rove and now Warren, the church has become part of the vetting process and the American people evidently want some proof of theological understanding. It is not relevant to the presidency, but is relevant in this instance because the religious right's apparent candidate seems to have a very poor understanding of what Christians think of evil. Or at least, used to.
Good to see you back.
BB, good to see you again. Long time no see.
Responses to organized crime aren't limited to casino busts and the prosecutorial equivalents of things like RICO; surgical military strikes aren't off the table when we need to do that. Canada came close to deploying its national guard in the 90s during the Vietnamese gang wars in Toronto and Ontario.
Our toolkit certainly needs to be developed more to deal with terrorist organizations (just as it needs ongoing development to deal with large foreign and domestic drug-moving operations whose sole motive is profit), but the argument is that we should treat it like an international collaborative exercise in economics and law enforcement and use the military (ours and everyone else's) sparingly, rather than our current model of unilaterally overthrowing any government we decide isn't moving fast enough to handle our problems.
I still haven't gotten around to looking up Bacevich, but if he has any background in law enforcement, I'll bet you a good bottle of wine and a cheeseburger that his second, secret goal is to get people paying more attention to organized crime, whose activity historically and currently gives us at least two orders of magnitude more trouble on our soil than middle eastern terrorist organizations ever have.
Actually, his background is military. He retired as a Colonel after 20 years service. I think his emphasis is on protecting the military from people like Bush and Cheney.
One of his points in the interview was that the military victory in the Persian Gulf war taught them all the wrong lessons, and convinced both military and political leaders that they had created some new military paradigm. He thinks that Clinton had many of the same assumptions about military power as Bush--he just didn't use that power as recklessly.
Thanks, Leighton- good to be seen. The boxes are all under one roof. Hopefully they'll be opened or at least out of the garage by Christmas!
Streak: "But I think people like to see their churches as something apart." Herein lies the problem, in my opinion. The secular/sacred dichotomy gets us into a world of trouble. It's used to justify keeping church staff below the poverty level (She/he is "called"), keeping poor performers in place for way too long ("The committee prayed, the church voted, so she/he must be God's man/woman"), and a multitude of other poor practices that would never be tolerated in the church member's workplace but goes on all the time in their church. The pastor and church staff salary stuff is, as I'm sure you're not surprised, a sore spot for me as well as a topic that I've personally gone round and round about. I think where I am now is very much a business model. I (the church) hire a pastor to fulfill a job description. Both parties agree to it and go on. Having been paid within and without of "church work" I now see very little distinction between the two other than there being more wild cards to play in the church related work depending on what position you are in. Historically, my experience has been that pastors have been generally paid less that their local job market for their education level, responsibilities, job demands (e.g. on call 24/7), etc... It's been culturally acceptable for the "laity" to starve the church employee and look on them with suspicion if they do well financially while at the same time holding ourselves to a totally different standard. Expectations have been high regardless of pay rather than responsibilities being adjusted to what the church can pay. This is a great generalizaion full of all kinds of exceptions but I think it's been generally true in the circles I run in. I'm now rambling and should move on.....
I'll have to read some of Bacevich's stuff or at least watch the Moyer's feed. I can see the non-national network application to a degree but applying it to entire ethno-political groups that achieve national power, e.g. the Taliban, is more difficult for me to get my head around. My first reaction is that it smacks of a western attempt to dismiss what we don't understand as terrorists or criminals rather than look at true national interests (ours and theirs) in context. Before anyone starts flaming me I'm NOT saying that I'm supportive of Taliban, their attempt at theocratic rule, drug networking, etc... I am probably looking at the criminal or crime syndicate terminology too simplistically and need to do my homework.
Later
BB
Just to reiterate, neither Bacevich nor anyone else is arguing that there is no place for military force in fighting terrorism.
I agree with you mostly on the Pastor salaries. Perhaps I am really the wrong one to weigh in on this, since my own frustration with church. I agree, for example, that many people have been exploited in churches for cheap or free labor. Perhaps my real issue is with the large churches who can afford to pay their pastors 6 figures. Perhaps that is the disconnect.
Streak,
That makes a lot of sense. I liked the Bill Moyers interview enough that I put his first book on hold at the library.
BB,
Part and parcel of international police actions is continuous, omnipresent diplomacy with a clear-eyed view of all sides' legitimate self-interest. Nobody wants suicide bombings on their soil, and I think you can make the case that the majority in each country doesn't want radically violent or essentially criminal groups in charge of their country.
For more than ten years, Iran and Pakistan have had European troops and specially trained police in their countries specifically assisting in the combat of drug trafficking. (Possibly other middle eastern nations do as well, but I haven't had to read that part of the INCSR.) Intuition says that nobody wants foreign powers on their soil, but negotiations among law enforcement officers is often easier than negotiation between diplomats, and even the most nationalistic officials see the value of other countries using their budgets and resources to combat what would otherwise be purely domestic problems.
A core point in my argument (and I think Bacevich's too, so far as I understand him) is that it isn't about trying to draw a moral or ethical equivalence between criminal behavior and acts of terrorism; it's about the particular genre of response we should deploy to respond to acts of terror. Do we use exactly the right amount of force in cooperation with all other affected nations, or do we base our foreign policy on the Tarkin Doctrine and unilaterally crush a few select nations in order to keep the world in fear of our power?
I agree with you on the problem with church employment. It makes sense to me that when people act like everyone else, they should be treated like everyone else.
Streak:
"Perhaps my real issue is with the large churches who can afford to pay their pastors 6 figures. "- Perhaps you are suffering from figure envy?:-) It may be that huge pastor salaries are more prevalent in situations where the church is more of a corporate entity by nature rather than having more of a service non-profit type feel. It never goes over well when funds donated for service are tied up disproportionately for salaries. That's another tangient.....
Leighton- thanks for the explanation. I'm getting a better feel for what you mean and I like the idea.
Thanks
BB
BB, you're welcome. Just one more tidbit before I quit monologuing on the topic--another reason law enforcement is better suited to take on terror cells in particular is the amount of community involvement you need to smoke those kinds of things out.
Toronto and Ottowa (I said Ontario by mistake upthread, showing off my "not a Canadian" credentials) and New York were throwing more and more money and manpower at Kung Lok and On Leong in the late 80s/early 90s, but the tipping point where they were finally able to make some progress was when they started working with Chinatown cops and networking within the community, to persuade people to actually talk to the authorities. This was on our soil (and Canada's), in places where there was at least ostensibly a shared language and culture. If that was hard, imagine how hard it has to be to get community cooperation when you're foreigners on someone else's soil.
International law enforcement officers are better trained and more experienced in dealing with local cultures and languages, and tend to get a lot better results in community sweeps than groups of soldiers whom the Pentagon doesn't have the time or the money to train in diplomacy, and most of whom don't speak any more Arabic than "Come outside" and "Get up against the wall" and "Where are you hiding your munitions."
Anyway, time to go back to letting Streak's blog be Streak's blog. :)
Post a Comment