I have recently been boldly reminded of the words of Elder Russel M. Nelson who once declared, "Real joy awaits each of us - on the other side of sorrow." Indeed, my best friend Dane and I traveled through several experiences this past week which may well qualify as the ideal genesis of sorrow, but I feel inclined to speak of the "brightness of hope" and the reality of the joy that can be experienced as we look to the Lord who will not fail in guiding us through any vale of tears.
Rather than detailing the full import of the difficulties we faced during a greatly anticipated camping trip to the Southwest Uintas, I will briefly outline a few of the challenges which encompassed us. After both getting around 3 hours of sleep the night before embarking on our trip, Dane and I found ourselves stranded 5 miles up a steep and narrow mountain road, less than a mile below our final destination, the Grandview Trailhead. We were soon rescued by a group of middle aged guys who, in noticing our BYU hats were quick to let us know that they were University of Utah grads and fans. However, they were even quicker to help, and helped push and guide our car into a safe area by the side of the road. Though no one else could, I was able to get cell phone reception by some miracle and called my mother as well as the local ranger station. In doing so, I made the decision to continue but shorten our trip and return to the car the next day.
After an incredible day of fishing, I retired to our tent exhausted but struggled to fall asleep until 2 am as the hard and consistent rain beat upon our tent. I realized amidst my worrying that I had left the moon roof to the car open. Only a few weeks ago, I had left it open during a thunderstorm and returned to find a decent amount of water inside the car - and that was after about an hour. So as each pounding drop seemed to grow in frequency and intensity, so grew the intensity and frequency of my pleading with the Lord to provide a way that Dane and I, as well as my car could find a way safely to Provo the following day.
I awoke at 5:15 am after 3 hours of sleep, to the feeling of cold rainwater which had leaked and accumulated in a corner of the tent, soaking my feet. Dane was also awake and we decided to hike out of the Grandaddy Basin as quickly as possible. The rain miraculously stopped as we returned about 5 miles to the car. I was immediately reminded that I had left the moon roof open, but was surprised to discover that the interior of the car had miraculously remained dry. I then struggled to gain reception as I had found before. I paused to offer a silent prayer, and nearly immediately gained reception after multiple attempts. The first bit of news that I received came by text message from my mother informing me of Michael Jackson's death. I won't write a lot about that here, but that touched me more deeply than the state of my car. After talking to both my mother and father and struggling to find consistent reception, Dane and I decided to hike 5 more miles down the trail to a small camping area called Defa's Ranch, marked by its saloon and old western mentality. During this time, Dane realized that he had lost a very expensive pair of sunglasses during our journey. Toward the end of our descent, we also realized that we had just hiked about 20 miles in 24 hours.
We were distraught to discover in calling the few local towing companies that it would likely cost between $ 500 and $ 1000 to get our stranded car back to Provo. During our search for help, the workers at the Ranch were more hospitable and willing to help than perhaps any group of people I have yet known. Eventually, we met a cowboy, ruffian named Shay, who's language was consistently speckled with profanity and foulness. However, I have never met a man who was so willing to help while demanding nothing in return. Shay drove all the way up the mountain in his pick up truck, checked out our car, pulled it out of its ill fated spot, filled the leaking car with transmission fluid, and helped us to push and pull the car until it was possible to coast down the mountain to Defa's Ranch. Then, he offered to tow our car to Provo this coming Monday for merely the price of gas. But he didn't stop there. He personally arranged a ride for us from Defa's to Heber and then from Heber to Provo that evening. We received a ride from a group of kids our age who we later discovered were all high school dropouts. They smoked often during our trip, and the car was littered with beer cans, but they were among the kindest human beings that I have ever associated with. They were quick to allow us to use their phones, to give us drinks, and to help us feel comfortable. When we reached Heber, we were given a ride to Provo by a boy who recently graduated high school. He would later profess his sexual orientation as homosexual as he drove us to each of our apartments.
As I entered my apartment, my body was utterly wrecked and torn, but my faith and hope in humanity was elevated and bolstered as my heart was changed. I contemplated the many "Good Samaritans", mere strangers who had aided me amidst a sorrowful journey. Their fortuitous presence seemed more than a result of fortune. It was a miracle of God. I was reminded of the love that I have developed for others as I have sought to recognize the child of God deep inside each of us. I realized that behind every face, and behind every word or gesture, is a heart. And I renewed an invigorating hope and belief that people are indeed good at heart. Amidst the struggles which plague the world today, I am convinced that our greatest hope is not found in the intellect of our minds, but the love of our hearts. The world is so in need of love and the wings of hope upon which it flies. The good Samaritans who helped me home, by the view of the world, ranged from a few church going guys from a rival school, to a cursing cowboy, to a few high school dropouts, to a self proclaimed homosexual. Despite their various stations and behaviors in life, none rested or neglected the arduous task of getting me home without weariness. It has caused me to reflect on the central purpose of life - what it is really all about. We sometimes get caught up in a lot of the little things, and I am in no way suggesting that little things are not of value or not important, but I am not sure that my new cowboy friend Shay understands the Gospel of Jesus Christ less than a man who abides by all of the little things, but would pass a distraught wanderer. It seems to me that what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is really all about is becoming more like Jesus Christ, who's central mission and purpose revolved in doing that which we could not do for ourselves. God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. When all is said and done, I do not think that our Savior, the King of Kings and our final judge will reveal to us the number of times that we smoked a cigarette or said a curse word, but how many times we passed by a desperate hopeless wanderer, both in body and in spirit.
I bear my witness that Jesus Christ really lived and yet lives as being a perfect love whose life was one of unparalleled service to which we may look to as a beacon of happiness, regardless of our present sorrow. I further testify that as we strive to recognize the reality of His hand in all things, we will certainly do all that we can to act as his hands in guiding without weariness even the most distraught wanderers of life. In so doing, our hearts will learn to match our actions and we will find joy in our journey. I thank God for the blessing of a broken down car on the side of a mountain. The cost of the transmission which was shot cannot compare to the valuable lessons which I learned from a trying journey. As I struggled to find my way safely home, I found renewed faith in the Master whom I will seek to serve by serving others forevermore.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Torture and Agression: The New American Way
As President Obama is now fighting to keep detainee abuse photographs from being released, I have been alarmed by the widespread “American” support of both a lack of transparency in Government, and even the inhumane practices of torture and abuse of detainees. Some have sought to justify their position by referencing the atrocities of Iraqi insurgents, seemingly supporting the irrational conclusion that two wrongs may somehow make a right. Equally disturbing is the frequent defense of such disgusting displays of humanity as somehow “American.” Many cry that it is in the interest of our national security to cover our nation's sins, while I contend that every American has a right and even need to know of the atrocities which have been allowed and even condoned by our elected officials, both past and present. Perhaps through such actions, the American people may be awakened to the evils which we collectively have allowed and often times condoned. Preemptive war and torture of war criminals, though descriptive of the erroneous “New American Way”, are not in harmony with the philosophy of our nation's founders, nor the humanitarian principles once embodied by our great nation – a nation whose people once honored the rule of law of the land, namely the Constitution of the United States.
Some have mistakenly quoted the words of the Preamble of the Constitution as justification for our interventionist actions in Iraq and the undisclosed torture of Iraqi detainees. The words are familiar to all, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence ...”1 It is the term “common defense” that seems to be most frequently erroneously applied to justification of our nation's actions which are in opposition to the very Constitution which the Preamble introduces. I'd like to submit that the inspired men who penned those words would abhor torture of war criminals, and furthermore would view our presence in Iraq as a great detriment to our national security. Allow me to reference a few of their sentiments concerning the subject, and clearly explicate that our success in winning the Revolutionary War was bolstered by our principled, anti-torture philosophy.
In the year of 1776, the inception our nation's birth, American leaders believed that it was not enough to merely win the war fought on battlefields, but also the war which raged in the hearts and minds of men. Thus, they were deeply concerned with winning the war in such a way that was consistent with the ideals for which the young nation stood, principles which they believed had power to change the world in which they lived. Perhaps one of their greatest, yet largely unknown achievements was to successfully win the war while maintaining the humanitarian ideals for which their countrymen had been fighting. It is for this reason that they were wholly opposed to torture of war prisoners. This was more than fanciful idealism. It was the official policy of both the Continental Congress and the Continental Army.2
Despite the inhumane treatment of the British regulars and German mercenaries toward captured American soldiers, Washington refused to abrogate the ideals for which he was fighting. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered his men to treat their prisoners with the same decency and recognition of rights granted to the people living in the country for which they were fighting. In an order concerning prisoners which were taken during the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."2
John Adams believed that the humane treatment of prisoners was not only vitally consistent with the ideals of the American Revolution, but also of vital strategic value to winning the war as well. In a 1777 letter to his wife, Adams wrote: "I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this — Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won't prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed."2
British military leaders conversely recognized the counterproductive nature of their violent and inhumane treatment of American prisoners and felt that such atrocities stifled their military success. A 1778 letter from Col. Charles Stuart to his father, the Earl of Bute, reveals this sentiment,"Wherever our armies have marched, wherever they have encamped, every species of barbarity has been executed. We planted an irrevocable hatred wherever we went, which neither time nor measure will be able to eradicate."2
Furthermore, many modern Americans would be surprised to learn that the first code of conduct for the ethical and humane treatment of prisoners of war was created by President Abraham Lincoln, a personal hero of mine, in the year of 1863 and forbade any form of torture and cruelty. This official American code of conduct eventually became the model for the 1929 Geneva Convention.2
I do not believe in the current actions of our nation, but believe in the principles upon which it was founded. I do not believe in Bush or Obama, but in the principles of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, yet wholly disreagard. The "war" in Iraq is wholly unconsitutional - it was never declared by Congress. It was also pre-emptive, violating the non-interventionist policy and wisdom of our founders (try looking up their thoughts on foreign involvement and you may be surprised at how much we have strayed). I have yet to understand how firing a few bullets into a hornets nest somehow increases our nation security. I have yet to understand from a logical perspective how bombing the cities of a nation who performed no acts of aggression toward our people prior to invasion will somehow cause them to like us. What would you do if China was bombing your city out of mere suspicion?
We don't increase our national security by stationing and delocalizing our soldiers internationally in needless wars which have conveniently changed their meaning and justification. Terrorism membership has risen at an alarming rate, and so has our federal deficit. We are spending a trillion dollars a year to finance our oversees interventionist empire, and yet we wonder why the value of the dollar is depreciating and our economy is collapsing.
I pray for our soldiers - I pray that they will come home as quickly as possible. I pray that we might be transparent in our efforts to stand for liberty by encouraging freedom by example rather than campaigning a paradoxical effort to force others to be free. I pray that we might be awakened to the erosion of our civil liberties as we fight a war supposedly aimed at granting such liberties to others. We find ourselves in a dangerous time and must hold to just and holy principles. If we bend for everything, in the end we will stand for nothing.
So if you are going to reference the words "We the people", you ought to familiarize yourself with the principles and ideals of those inspired men who wrote them. I believe if we hold these just and holy principles inviolate, we can become the kind of people they envisioned when they wrote those sacred words.
I think another important aspect of the words found in the Preamble of the Constitution is the word "defense." Preemptive action and interventionism does not constitute defense, but offense. The war in Iraq is aggressive, not defensive. They never struck until we did. Therefore, I feel it is imperative to recognize that the founders were dedicated to maintaining domestic strength rather than a strong foreign presence. I'd much rather adhere to the founders' foreign policy of building our strength at home so that no nation would dare attack us, rather than spreading our troops in 700 bases across the world in interference of the sovereignty of others, at times through blatant nation building. Meanwhile, as we struggle to build our own bridges in America, we are blowing them up in Iraq, and using taxpayer money to build them again. No nation can continue to spend a trillion dollars a year in “national defense” while simultaneously expecting to remain prosperous and impervious to the constraints of reality. Iraq did not willingly choose to be our enemy in this conflict, we made them our enemy through preemptive attacks. How long will we point to our self created enemies until we recognize the enemy within? We are engaged in very real self destruction, a destruction which is being fueled by pride, arrogance, and ignorance.
Imagine how much stronger we could be at home in building our national defense if we were to eradicate our exorbitant overseas presence in nations that grow in hatred toward us as we grow in numbers in their countries. Substantial evidence points to the fact that extremist terrorist groups do not fuel their fire out of hatred toward democracy or American wealth. They hate us because we are meddling in their domestic affairs with no sovereign right or elected jurisdiction. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Therefore, we can't expect to have respect or power to govern a people that never gave us their consent. They have a right to retaliate. I am not a supporter of terrorism nor do I sympathize with evil of any form, but I wonder why we are so quick to disregard the illogical and unjust nature of our presence in Iraq. We are torturing individuals who are retaliating for their people being tortured. That isn't defense.
1.“Preamble to the United States Constitution.” Wikipedia.org.
2.Kennedy, Robert F. Jr. “America's Anti-Torture Tradition.” LA Times. December 17, 2005.
Some have mistakenly quoted the words of the Preamble of the Constitution as justification for our interventionist actions in Iraq and the undisclosed torture of Iraqi detainees. The words are familiar to all, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence ...”1 It is the term “common defense” that seems to be most frequently erroneously applied to justification of our nation's actions which are in opposition to the very Constitution which the Preamble introduces. I'd like to submit that the inspired men who penned those words would abhor torture of war criminals, and furthermore would view our presence in Iraq as a great detriment to our national security. Allow me to reference a few of their sentiments concerning the subject, and clearly explicate that our success in winning the Revolutionary War was bolstered by our principled, anti-torture philosophy.
In the year of 1776, the inception our nation's birth, American leaders believed that it was not enough to merely win the war fought on battlefields, but also the war which raged in the hearts and minds of men. Thus, they were deeply concerned with winning the war in such a way that was consistent with the ideals for which the young nation stood, principles which they believed had power to change the world in which they lived. Perhaps one of their greatest, yet largely unknown achievements was to successfully win the war while maintaining the humanitarian ideals for which their countrymen had been fighting. It is for this reason that they were wholly opposed to torture of war prisoners. This was more than fanciful idealism. It was the official policy of both the Continental Congress and the Continental Army.2
Despite the inhumane treatment of the British regulars and German mercenaries toward captured American soldiers, Washington refused to abrogate the ideals for which he was fighting. After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered his men to treat their prisoners with the same decency and recognition of rights granted to the people living in the country for which they were fighting. In an order concerning prisoners which were taken during the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."2
John Adams believed that the humane treatment of prisoners was not only vitally consistent with the ideals of the American Revolution, but also of vital strategic value to winning the war as well. In a 1777 letter to his wife, Adams wrote: "I know of no policy, God is my witness, but this — Piety, Humanity and Honesty are the best Policy. Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won't prevail against America, in this Contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed."2
British military leaders conversely recognized the counterproductive nature of their violent and inhumane treatment of American prisoners and felt that such atrocities stifled their military success. A 1778 letter from Col. Charles Stuart to his father, the Earl of Bute, reveals this sentiment,"Wherever our armies have marched, wherever they have encamped, every species of barbarity has been executed. We planted an irrevocable hatred wherever we went, which neither time nor measure will be able to eradicate."2
Furthermore, many modern Americans would be surprised to learn that the first code of conduct for the ethical and humane treatment of prisoners of war was created by President Abraham Lincoln, a personal hero of mine, in the year of 1863 and forbade any form of torture and cruelty. This official American code of conduct eventually became the model for the 1929 Geneva Convention.2
I do not believe in the current actions of our nation, but believe in the principles upon which it was founded. I do not believe in Bush or Obama, but in the principles of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold, yet wholly disreagard. The "war" in Iraq is wholly unconsitutional - it was never declared by Congress. It was also pre-emptive, violating the non-interventionist policy and wisdom of our founders (try looking up their thoughts on foreign involvement and you may be surprised at how much we have strayed). I have yet to understand how firing a few bullets into a hornets nest somehow increases our nation security. I have yet to understand from a logical perspective how bombing the cities of a nation who performed no acts of aggression toward our people prior to invasion will somehow cause them to like us. What would you do if China was bombing your city out of mere suspicion?
We don't increase our national security by stationing and delocalizing our soldiers internationally in needless wars which have conveniently changed their meaning and justification. Terrorism membership has risen at an alarming rate, and so has our federal deficit. We are spending a trillion dollars a year to finance our oversees interventionist empire, and yet we wonder why the value of the dollar is depreciating and our economy is collapsing.
I pray for our soldiers - I pray that they will come home as quickly as possible. I pray that we might be transparent in our efforts to stand for liberty by encouraging freedom by example rather than campaigning a paradoxical effort to force others to be free. I pray that we might be awakened to the erosion of our civil liberties as we fight a war supposedly aimed at granting such liberties to others. We find ourselves in a dangerous time and must hold to just and holy principles. If we bend for everything, in the end we will stand for nothing.
So if you are going to reference the words "We the people", you ought to familiarize yourself with the principles and ideals of those inspired men who wrote them. I believe if we hold these just and holy principles inviolate, we can become the kind of people they envisioned when they wrote those sacred words.
I think another important aspect of the words found in the Preamble of the Constitution is the word "defense." Preemptive action and interventionism does not constitute defense, but offense. The war in Iraq is aggressive, not defensive. They never struck until we did. Therefore, I feel it is imperative to recognize that the founders were dedicated to maintaining domestic strength rather than a strong foreign presence. I'd much rather adhere to the founders' foreign policy of building our strength at home so that no nation would dare attack us, rather than spreading our troops in 700 bases across the world in interference of the sovereignty of others, at times through blatant nation building. Meanwhile, as we struggle to build our own bridges in America, we are blowing them up in Iraq, and using taxpayer money to build them again. No nation can continue to spend a trillion dollars a year in “national defense” while simultaneously expecting to remain prosperous and impervious to the constraints of reality. Iraq did not willingly choose to be our enemy in this conflict, we made them our enemy through preemptive attacks. How long will we point to our self created enemies until we recognize the enemy within? We are engaged in very real self destruction, a destruction which is being fueled by pride, arrogance, and ignorance.
Imagine how much stronger we could be at home in building our national defense if we were to eradicate our exorbitant overseas presence in nations that grow in hatred toward us as we grow in numbers in their countries. Substantial evidence points to the fact that extremist terrorist groups do not fuel their fire out of hatred toward democracy or American wealth. They hate us because we are meddling in their domestic affairs with no sovereign right or elected jurisdiction. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Therefore, we can't expect to have respect or power to govern a people that never gave us their consent. They have a right to retaliate. I am not a supporter of terrorism nor do I sympathize with evil of any form, but I wonder why we are so quick to disregard the illogical and unjust nature of our presence in Iraq. We are torturing individuals who are retaliating for their people being tortured. That isn't defense.
1.“Preamble to the United States Constitution.” Wikipedia.org.
2.Kennedy, Robert F. Jr. “America's Anti-Torture Tradition.” LA Times. December 17, 2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
