Daniel O'Rourke's columns

"It's More than the 4,000 Dead," column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on March 13, 2008 - 5:53pm.

CPJ member Daniel O'Rourke contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer.  The following, "It's More than the 4,000 Dead," was published on March 13, 2008. 

A recent meeting of a local peace group included an interesting discussion about sponsoring a demonstration against the Iraq War when the number of American military dead reached 4000.  (As I write this column, the number is 3987; twelve more were killed just this week.)

Not everyone was in favor of such a demonstration, which would both honor the fallen and protest the war. Some argued that spot-lighting the 4000 dead would distract us from the horrific number of our wounded. 

Better body armor, improved technology and speedier medical treatment mean that many soldiers survive wounds in Iraq that in past wars would have been fatal. Last year the Department of Defense using an especially narrow definition reported that 28,000 troops were wounded in Iraq. More realistically the number now is closer to 36,000.

According to government statistics, in the American Civil War there were 1.7 wounded for every soldier killed, in the Second World War 2.3 wounded for every death, in Vietnam 3.2 for every fatality.  Now In Iraq the wounded-to-killed ratio is about 9 to 1. Fortunately more of our wounded are surviving, but this has brought with it many unforeseen problems.  

These wounds are often horribly serious. Some are devastating. They include multiple amputations, facial disfiguration, brain damage and burns. The White House and Veteran Administration did not anticipate the severity of the wounds or the increase in the number of wounded, as the nation clearly saw last year in the shameful treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The VA has shown itself ill equipped to provide these veterans the medical care they deserve.

Others at the peace meeting remarked that we should also remember that the war’s mental scars are just as debilitating as its physical wounds.  Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has shown itself in an increase in veterans’ depression, suicides, domestic violence and divorces. Treating PTSD gets very complicated as the military tends to minimize it and veterans have been trained to view its symptoms as signs of weakness.  

Still others argued that focusing exclusively on the 4000 military dead would overlook the number of Iraqi civilians killed.  Here accurate numbers are more difficult to come by, but The Lancet, a respected British medical journal, in an October 2006 article, “The Human Cost of the War in Iraq,” reported 655,000 Iraqis have lost their lives through violence and health factors directly related to the war. More than a year later that number is significantly higher. According to other sources the number of Iraqi dead is in the millions.

One of the problems in determining the number of Iraqi dead is just when to start counting. Back in the mid-1990, sanctions after the Gulf War included the boycotting of medical supplies to Iraq. At that time CBS asked former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright on “60 Minutes” if the sanction-related deaths of an estimated half million Iraqi children were worth it. "We think the price is worth it,” she replied. (What boycott in God’s name is worth the death of a half million children? But I digress.) 

In the end the peace group decided not to focus on the 4000 fallen but instead to protest on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, a war for which after five years no end is yet in sight – a war that continues to kill our troops and devastate our economy.

Just last month Columbia University’s Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government an expert in public budgeting and finance, published a book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War – The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.”  They factored in the lifetime costs of veterans’ disabilities and health care for future decades as well as the war’s impact on the American economy. That’s how they arrived at the three trillion figure, but just how much is three trillion? If you can’t picture it, neither can I. Some concrete examples might help. 

Following an About.com:US Government Info example, if every American decided to pitch in to pay off the war’s eventual cost of three trillion dollars at the rate of one dollar per second (that’s right per second), it would take roughly 96,000 years!  A tightly packed stack of crisp new $1000 bills, totaling $3 trillion would be 189 miles tall. That’s about the distance from the Bronx to Baltimore.  No matter how you picture it, three trillion is a massive amount of money. Stiglitz and Bilmes tell us that it could solve the nation’s social security problem for the next fifty years.

 Enough mind-numbing statistics. The local peace group together with the State University of New York Students for Peace wisely decided to stand together for peace to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. That protest will include remembering the 36,000 wounded and the irreplaceable loss of our 3,987 military dead. Readers wherever you are may also want to protest. 

Daniel O'Rourke is a married Catholic priest. Retired from the Administration at SUNY Fredonia, he lives in Cassadaga, NY.  His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of his previous columns. It may be purchased or comments sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Nonviolent, Spiritual Peacemaking," column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on September 15, 2007 - 3:36pm.

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke is a regular contributor to the Dunkirk Observer.  The following, "Nonviolent, Spiritual Peacemaking" was published on September 13, 2007. 

Moveon.org recently ran a full-page ad in the New York Times calling General Petraeus,  “General Betray Us.” Emotionally at first, I was pleased.  I knew it was a cheap shot, but I thought, “they” deserve it.  It makes up for all “their” cheap shots about Saddam Hussein being behind 9/11 and on the brink of unleashing nuclear weapons on America. Emotionally I was pleased but deep in my soul I knew the ad was wrong -- and would in the long run be counter productive.
In Ron Rolheiser’s spiritually challenging book, “The Holy Longing,” he has a brief, one page section entitled “Nonviolent Peacemaking.” While acknowledging the stark lack of progress in making peace and admitting that it is also attributable to  “the world’s hardness of heart” and “the entrenched powers of privilege [not being] easily moved,” he also points to the naiveté, the self-righteousness, and lack of peace in the hearts of many peacemakers.
He argues, and I paraphrase him, that many think the urgency of the peace cause is so great that they can by-pass the normal laws of public discourse and be intolerant, disrespectful and arrogant to those with opposing views. The “General Betray Us” ad is a good example.
I’m reminded of Eckhart Tolle’s insight that there is always a “competing narration.” Our minds are finite and fallible.  Therefore, they are incapable of grasping, let alone expressing the whole truth -- on anything.  There is always another way to look at issues, another side, another approach.  Peace activists with fire in their bellies for what they perceive to be unquestionably just  (and I am one) are often tempted to dismiss the competing narrations.  We must, however, force ourselves to hear them respectfully.  We will convince no one with angry rhetoric and our anger will diminish our message -- and our souls.  We win others to peacemaking only through our example and calm, respectful dialogue.
I confess that I have succumbed to the temptation of anger in criticizing President Bush and the neo-cons that began and still control the ill conceived and disasterly managed War in Iraq. It is very difficult for me to listen to the arguments and accept the sincerity of those who agree with this President. Psychologically it is difficult; politically in the short run it probably will not be productive, but spiritually it is obligatory.
There are those who would say that this kind of tolerance concerning such an all-important issue betrays a lack of commitment and conviction.  I say in response that our intolerance betrays a pride and arrogance that our analysis is the only one possible.  Furthermore, as Rolheiser also says we should not judge our success and failure as peacemakers “on the basis of measurable political achievement.”  We should be more interested in the long-term prospects for peace in the world than in short-term gains in specific military operations. We will accomplish these long-term goals, if we accomplish them at all, only through nonviolence and respectful, persistent diplomacy.
This might not make sense politically, but it makes eminent sense spiritually. It is, however, also how Mahatma Gandhi succeeded in India, Nelson Mandela in South Africa and Lech Walesa in Poland.  Admittedly, their peace-making successes were not in military wars as such, but against formidable systemic oppression. The argument could be made that such institutionalized and widely accepted oppression was even more difficult to end than a hot war.  In any case their efforts were nonviolent, peaceful and ultimately enduring.  Of course, in these countries there were honest confrontations and in some instances violence by some of their followers, but these three modern peacemakers and justice workers are shining examples for us. Peace after all is the fruit of justice (Is. 32:17).
Gandhi, Mandela and Walesa had another attitude in common.  They had faith.  They possessed a deep spiritual belief in a just and loving God whose work on earth they saw to be their own.  Their nonviolent activism was coupled with prayer.  Instinctively, they knew they could not only work for peace and justice; they realized they must pray for it.  Theirs were spiritual quests.
In the present heated political atmosphere, it would be naïve to expect such an approach in congress.  Our representatives seem more intent on protecting their careers or favorably positioning their political parties than in a genuine, statesmen-like search for peace.  Where are the politicians who see the long view of history, seek the global good of world peace, and dare to follow the example of peacemakers like Gandhi or Mandela?  Many would dismiss their nonviolent, spiritual approach as mystical and unrealistic, but all of us especially we peace activists should try it. Ultimately -- I keep telling myself -- it is the only way.
Daniel O'Rourke is a married Catholic priest. Retired from the
Administration at State University of New York at Fredonia, he lives in
Cassadaga, NY.  His column appears the second and fourth Thursday
each month. He has published "Spirit at Your Back," a book of his previous columns. The book may be purchased or comments sent to
orourke@netsync.net.

"The War Dead and Those Who Grieve Them," column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on May 26, 2007 - 3:16pm.

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke is a regular contributor to the Dunkirk Observer.  The following, "The War Dead and Those Who Grieve Them," was published on May 24, 2007. 


George Bernard Shaw told us, “Nations are like bees: they cannot kill except at the cost of their own lives.” That stark, unpopular truth is evident not only in the over 3,400 American military dead, our 26,000 maimed and wounded, but also in the near fatal losses to our nation’s moral character –- not to mention the over 100,000 Iraqis killed.

A blood-chilling Pentagon survey earlier this month found that over a third of the military in Iraq supported torture to obtain information that might save the lives of American troops.  The Pentagon survey reported further that 40 percent of marines and 55 percent of soldiers in Iraq said they would not report a fellow serviceman for killing or injuring innocent Iraqis.

That report led General David Petreaus, upset but sensitive to frustrated troops caught in Iraq’s civil war to say that while seeing a "fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger and a desire for immediate revenge, our troops must observe the standards and values that dictate we treat non-combatants and detainees with dignity and respect."

The General went on to say, "This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground."  He then recommended the troops receive additional training in military ethics.

With all due respect, General Petreaus, the brightest, most knowledgeable General we’ve had in Iraq stumbled in his practical recommendations to right this scandal. Ethical training may help at the margins. If the General, however, really intended to address adequately these horrific lapses in military ethics, he should have stated unequivocally that he would begin court martial proceeding against any member of the military accused of torturing or deliberately killing civilians. Furthermore, he should have said that he personally would initiate a court martial against any officer covering-up such war crimes.  That would get the military’s attention and would have rendered further corrosion of our national character as happened in Abu Ghraib and Hadithah less likely.

I guess it’s the approaching Memorial Day weekend, but what I write now will surprise many and be ridiculed by some. The Pentagon’s report and Petreaus’ response led me to prayer -- prayer for believers and non-believers. For believers the response in the petitions that follows is, “We pray to the Lord.” For non-believers the petitions’ contents are personal moral imperatives. After all it is more important that we hear these petitions than that God does. “He” already knows what’s needed. And it’s more significant that these sentiments reverberate in
our hearts and homes rather than in our churches -- where frankly too often they remain unspoken. Anyway, here’s a prayer for the dead in all the Mid-East wars.

For the war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, we pray to the Lord. 

For the war dead in Israel, Lebanon and Palestine, we pray…
For the American and coalition military killed in combat...
For the innocent civilians killed in these wars...
For grieving spouses, children and parents, that they might be comforted in their pain and supported in their loss...
That all peoples may find the grace to eradicate the vengeance lurking in their hearts...
For those whom war has wounded in body, mind and spirit that they might have the strength to recover without self-pity or bitterness...
For the Iraqi, Afghan and American peoples...
For the Israeli, Lebanese and Palestinian peoples...
For the churches, synagogues and mosques, that these sacred places may be prophetic voices for peace and justice...
For victims of terror, war and fanaticism everywhere….

O divine Mystery, we come before you to remember those killed by terrorism and war. We pray for these victims no matter what their religion, nationality or status.  We ask that you surround them with light and take them tenderly back into the mystery of your life.

We pray for the loved ones left behind to mourn their violent and untimely deaths.  Heal their souls and memories.  Give them the courage to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives.  Help us reach out to them in compassion.

May we in our varied communities have the courage to be advocates for peace and justice in our nation and our world.

Finally, we pray for world leaders that they might have the political courage, the diplomatic patience, and dogged persistence to lead us to peace.  We ask this in your all-caring name. Amen.

Daniel O’Rourke is a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia. He lives in Cassadaga, NY.  His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. “Spirit at Your Back,” a book of his previous columns has just been published. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Peace is Relationships, " Daniel O'Rourke's presentation to Unitarian Congregation, January 28, 2007

| Submitted by admin on January 28, 2007 - 2:37pm.

On Sunday January 28, Daniel O'Rourke was the main speaker at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Northern Chautauqua (http://www.uucnc.org/), located in Fredonia, NY.  His topic was "Peace is Relationships."  The title is a variation on Louise Diamond's insight that peace is connections.  Among others, Dan cites Eckhart Tolle, the author of The Power of Now, who said that if the present collective madness continues, it is unlikely that our planet will survive another hundred years.  The following is the text of his presentation:

Peace is Relationships
by Daniel O’Rourke

INTRODUCTION
Unlike many who write on peace, Louise Diamond in her little volume "The Peace Book" defines it. "Peace," she says, "is more than the absence of war, violence or conflict. Peace is a presence -- the presence of connection." Personalizing her insight I’ve called this talk “Peace is Relationships.”

What does Diamond mean when she says peace is connections?  What do I
mean when I say peace is relationships?  Both connections and relationships imply the need of an other. Both acknowledge incompleteness. Our incompleteness as a man or a woman.  Our incompleteness as creatures. Our need for support, for friends, for neighbors and coworkers. Both acknowledge the incompleteness of our societies and nation states.

I’m speaking of the human need to be fulfilled, to be completed, to be inter-dependent. A clear-headed realization of our need for the other -- whether that other is spouse, partner, family, neighbor -- or the Holy.

MEN AND WOMEN
That’s a heady introduction. Allow me now a stereotype that, I hope, will help make my point.

The stereotype unpacks something like this.  Among themselves men talk about five things: cars, sports, sex, money and politics.  Women, on the other hand, speak to each other of one thing -- relationships. Relationships with partners, with parents, with children, relationships with friends, in-laws and coworkers. Relationships.  Women, of course, in as much as the stereotype holds, are much closer than men to the truth of things. For relationships are closer to life itself.

ADOLESCENT MALES
Father Richard Rohr, the author of From Wild Man to Wise Man: Reflections on Male Spirituality has made the shrew observation that the trouble with the modern world is that it is run by adolescent boys.   Boys even more than men think in terms of weapons and tanks, win-lose games, the acquisition of turf and power.  That kind of thinking does not produce peace.

“I object to violence,” Gandhi told us of this male adolescent proclivity, “because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

TIME IS GROWING SHORT
Eckhart Tolle, the author of "The Power of Now” speaks of the need for a shift in collective consciousness.  Only this, he says, will transform humanity from its self-centered madness to the recognition of oneness. This collective consciousness is the sum of individual consciousness. I sneeze here in New York, the mystics tell us poetically, and a candle flickers in Tibet.  The physical and economic worlds are shrinking; the spiritual world is smaller and even more connected.

Time is growing short. Technology has greatly increased our capacity for human madness. Our primitive ancestors could kill a few tribal enemies with clubs.

In the trenches of World War I, machineguns, airplanes and poison gas slaughtered or maimed 22 million. That senseless bloodbath took five years. Today we have the ability to incinerate millions in minutes. For the first time in history, our survival as a race is threatened.

The 20th Century saw a hundred million people die in all its wars, persecutions and ethnic cleansings. And the 21st century is not beginning any differently. If this madness continues, it is unlikely, Tolle predicts, that our planet will survive another hundred years.

Is this a doomsday prediction?  Perhaps. It could be, but there’s no doubt that we now face a collective insanity that threatens the entire planet.  Many will scoff, but our chief weapons are not ballistic shields, preemptive strikes or troop deployments.  Our most powerful weapons are spiritual. They are justice and compassion, understanding and tolerance, charity and acceptance.  Essentially, these values are relational. We must cultivate these connections in our personal lives, our communities and between nations. If not, we will continue our relentless march toward Armageddon.

INNER PEACE
World peace begins with inner peace.  This peace arises from a relationship –- a connection -- with the Good, the Holy, the underlying Mystery that many call God. This connection with the Source, which sustains us, brings with it a serenity and calmness. It transcends our pettiness and selfishness. It is the stillness and tranquility -- the peace -- that the masters taught.

The Dalai Lama for example said that, “internal peace is an essential first step to achieving peace in the world. How do you cultivate it?" he asks, “By realizing clearly that all mankind (all humanity) is one.”

PEACE WITH OTHERS
This inner peace leads inevitably to peace with others. The two are intimately related; they flow from the same Source, they grow in the same Ground, they are gifts from the same Universe. Inner peace reaches out and touches others.

It overflows into our families, out to co-workers and neighbors. These
connections recognize our shared humanity; they build relationships and
peace. They manifest themselves in understanding, in tolerance, in a lack of judgments or condemnation. They are contagious and lead to forgiveness and reconciliation.

WORLD PEACE
In an upward spiral, these relationships expand to peace in the wider world in which nations respect other nations’ rights to justice, dignity and autonomy.  This leads to trust and cooperation. It can bring inter-national harmony. Again, peace is not just the absence of conflict; it is a presence. It is the presence of relationships, our inter-dependence and inter-connectedness with other nations.

NOT COMMON WISDOM
Is this idealistic?  Absolutely! Is this what the masters and mystics taught?  Certainly!  Would the military agree?  Definitely not! Neither do politicians preach this nor political scientists teach it. But Jesus warned us; the peace that he and other spiritual masters bring is not the peace the world offers. (John. 14:27)  Real peace is different. It is "the presence of connections" and too often we are disconnected. Peace is relationships. Selfishness, pettiness and tribalism needlessly fracture them.

BROKEN CONNECTIONS
There are, of course, connections that should be broken. There is an important difference between physical and spiritual connections.  A physical connection is not a relationship at all. Certainly sometimes we must dissolve legal bonds. Some divorces are for the peace of all involved.  But even then on a spiritual level civility and courtesy should characterize divorced spouses. If the spiritual connection continues, the divorce too can be peaceful. With mature people many divorces are.

Neither does peace mean we should be against all war. Pacifists would strongly disagree, but I believe war should be the very last option. Martin Luther King was right when he observed that "wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows." Wars are quick fixes and the fix doesn’t last. History certainly teaches that.

World War I solved nothing and the spiteful, vindictive treaty at Versailles prepared the ground for the Nazis and World War II.  World War II accomplished much, but at Yalta and Potsdam its promise evaporated into the cold war. And that war that was not always cold.  Just ask the Hungarians.  And what will this war in Iraq leave us?

GLORIFICATION OF WAR
Our societies have glorified war. We lionize our warriors.  We canonize our military. We make heroes of our veterans.  And some are heroes like Jason Dunham of Allegany County here in western New York who threw himself on a live grenade to save his comrades in the back of a troop truck in Iraq.  On the other hand, members of the 502nd Regiment in the 4th Infantry raped a 14-year-old girl in Mahmoudiya north of Baghdad and then murdered her and her family.  And some guards at Abu Ghraib were sadists. The military like any group (like Democrats and Republicans, like Christians and Muslims) have their saints and heroes and their sick and perverted. Yet all societies at war glorify their military.

As Chris Hedges, the author of the bestseller, “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning,” said sadly since the time of the Greeks and Romans, societies have sacrificed the lives of their young to the gods of war.

In this regard we should ponder the words of an idealistic President Kennedy. “War will exist,” he said, “until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior receives today.”

WHAT CAN WE DO?
What can we do to achieve peace? Inner peace means we have to slow down. We have to center ourselves; we have to reflect and be silent. We have to push the mute button on the meaningless chatter that clutters and overwhelms our lives.  We have to heed the example of the masters who stepped aside to meditate, reflect and commune with the Holy.

Peace in our hearts, in our families, in our world does not arise spontaneously.  These connections do not just happen. We have to work at them.  We have to work at all relationships. We have to work at our
marriages.  We have to work for peace.

We must be unselfish, emphasizing what is good rather than carping and
complaining. Remember the prayer of Francis of Assisi? Make us instruments of Your peace. At their best, statesmen and diplomats do just that.

Such spiritual centeredness has even moved world leaders. Dag
Hammerskjold, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, wrote
that, “We die on the day when our lives cease to be illumined by the steady radiance … of a wonder, the source of which is beyond all reason.”  We need that spiritual power to enlighten our limited understanding, to solidify our relationships, to reach out to the other.

That steady radiance of which Hammarskjöld spoke will enable us to do what is just for our families, our neighbors and communities. It will also goad us to work for justice in our own way in the wider international arena.

Atheists and agnostics may disagree but the Mystery, the Holy, the Source of all is unavoidable. Over the door to his home, Carl Jung inscribed five Latin words, “Vocatus atque invocatus Deus aderit.”  Whether you acknowledge Him or not God will be present. Whether you call on Her or not, God will be there -- under a variety of names.

JUSTICE
Peace is relationships but it is also the fruit of justice. In the Sermon on the Mount, that most famous of Jewish rabbis not only said,  “Blessed are the peacemakers….” (Mt. 5:9). He also said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice….” (Mt. 5:6)

Five centuries before Jesus, students asked Thucidides, "When will justice come to Athens?" The Greek historian answered, "Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are."  Such an attitude demands great compassion.

Are you and I indignant today about AIDS in Africa, the genocide in Darfur, the war dead in the mid-East? Are we concerned about the victims of injustice even when they are not Caucasian, when they are not literate, when they are not American? When we are equally concerned for them, peace will come to Athens.  Then it will come to our war-weary world.

CONCLUSION
Peace? Who has the answers? Bush and Blair? Abbas and Olmert?  Al Maliki or al Sadar in Iraq?  Putin in Russia? President Jintao in China? I don’t think so. Politicians and generals are often adolescent boys more concerned with things and power than with connections and relationships.

I submit that the idealists and mystics such as Louise Diamond, Richard Rohr, Gandhi and Jesus, Martin Luther King, Chris Hedges, Dag Hammarskjöld and Eckhard Tolle have the answers. We must change our collective consciousness.

If we do what we have always done, we will get what we have always got.

If we do what we have always done, we will get what we have always got
-- needless war and senseless death.

Daniel O’Rourke
Cassadaga. NY 14718

"No More War -- Metaphors" - column by Dan O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on November 30, 2006 - 3:04pm.

Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "No More War -- Metaphors,"  was published on November 23, 2006.

Franklin Roosevelt once famously said, “I hate war.”  I do too, but I also hate war metaphors.  I hate the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on cancer.  Don’t misread me, I’m all for making sustained major efforts to mitigate the pain and suffering caused by drug misuse, poverty, terrorism and cancer. It’s the metaphor I hate.

“War” not only implies sustained effort, but violent effort. It connotes physical force, shock and awe, killing and death.  It is a bloody metaphor; moreover it’s simplistic and inaccurate. It’s inaccurate because it conjures up images of parades with grateful crowds welcoming victors in a snowstorm of confetti.  We will never have that kind of victory over cancer, drugs, poverty or terrorism.  Hopefully, humanity will make progress scientifically, politically and morally in all these areas, but at best it will mitigate these evils not obliterate them.

Jesus said, “The poor you have with you always.” (John 12:8) He was far wiser and more realistic than Lyndon Johnson who declared an all out war on poverty. Neither was Jesus cutting and running from helping the poor; he advocated feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and housing the homeless.  Today he’d want to increase the minimum wage, but he knew, and we should all acknowledge, that despite these valuable efforts the poor will always be with us. Certainly Johnson made significant gains in reducing poverty, but poverty will never be eradicated.  It will never surrender as the Japanese did on the
battleship Missouri.

Neither will there be a victory in the war on drugs. I write here not of legitimate pharmaceuticals but of recreational drugs. As Escohotado and Symington have pointed out in A Brief History of Drugs from the Stone Age to the Stoned Age, for thousands of years before modern history humans have been chewing betel, smoking opium and drinking wine.  They still do, although the drugs used vary by culture and age group. Trendy fashions in drug choice change, but there is always some drug to make us feel good—in the short run.  What it does to our bodies, minds and souls in the long run is something else altogether.

My point is that, like the poor, drug users whatever the drug of choice will always be with us. No war will conquer them. Societies, moreover, are selective and not always rational in their efforts to regulate recreational drugs.  Americans are very permissive with alcohol and tobacco, but spend billions to apprehend, arrest and imprison those involved with marijuana and heroin.  Whether we should do this is not the question here (although it’s a question worth pondering). My point is that a war on drugs no matter how militantly we wage it will never achieve a clear-cut victory.

What is true about the “wars” on poverty and drugs is true in spades of the so-called war on terrorism. Of course, we should oppose terrorism economically, diplomatically and use any surveillance allowable under the law. In that way we prevent many terrorist acts, but we will never completely wipe out terrorism. There will never be a World War II type
victory. Hopefully, we can keep acts of terrorism rare, minor and exceptional, but we will never eradicate them.  We will never win that war.

Politicians who publicly admit that, however, would cut their political throats. Opponents would label them traitors and defeatists.  And voters would believe the slander, for they have confused the metaphor with the reality. If there is a “war” on terrorism, they reason, there must be a victory.  They believe the illusion that the appropriate reaction to terrorism is a war like the one we waged against the Nazis and the Japanese.  It is not.  The war on terror is only metaphor and the metaphor misleads us.

We in the west are susceptible to this kind of militaristic language.  Our religions are full of it. Listen to King David in the psalms, “Blessed be the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.” (Ps. 144:1)  Or the book of Exodus: “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (15:3)

And Christians are no better. Many will remember this hymn.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

It’s not only the Muslims who have jihads. Sadly, the holy war concept is ecumenical and inter-faith.

Let me end on a lighter note with the story of the minister who gave a rousing sermon to an unusually large congregation at an Easter service.   He preached on enlisting in the army of the risen Lord.  After the service greeting these high-holyday Christians at the church door, he said to one whom he hadn’t seen since Christmas,  “Joe, I hope now you
will be a regular soldier in the army of the Lord.”  Joe leaned forward and whispered in the minister’s ear, “Reverend, I’m in the Secret Service!”

When it comes to military metaphors of armies, battles and wars--whether we hear them from pulpits, government podiums or television anchors—like Joe we should be skeptical. Such metaphors mislead and deceive us.

Daniel O’Rourke is a member of the Federation of Christian Ministries and CORPUS.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia.  A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY.  His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month.  Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Are Happy Days Here Again?" - column by Dan O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on November 10, 2006 - 6:32pm.

Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "Are Happy Days Here Again?" was published on November 9, 2006.

 

After one of the most negative, sleazy and expensive campaigns in political history, the Democratic Party has won control of the House of Representatives.  As I write this the control of the senate is undecided.

First a disclosure: I grew up a New Deal ethnic Catholic Democrat. I was thirteen when Franklin Roosevelt died.  As a boy he was the only president I had ever known.  The wags in my day said the precinct captain registered Italian, Irish and Polish babies for the Democratic Party at the church baptismal fount.  Those days of course are long gone. Education, upward mobility, inter-marriage and prosperity have led the children and grandchildren of that generation to the suburbs, the country club and sometimes to the Republican Party.  For me, however, the democratic brand remains seared in my soul.  Although I confess to voting occasionally for republican candidates, the results on Tuesday delighted me.  With friends I hoisted a glass or two of champagne and joined in singing FDR’s rousing campaign song.

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let's sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again!

The morning after, however, as I finish this column, I am more somber and reflective. I have second sober thoughts. I hope the Democrats would see their mandate not as a victory of party but an opportunity to
help guide this nation back on track.

Although there were certainly other issues, these congressional mid-term elections were in effect a national referendum on the Iraq war. The nation has spoken decisively against it and the manner in which it has been mismanaged. It was clearly a vote of no confidence on President Bush. I hope he and his administration acknowledge that, but I also hope the Democrats flush with political victory would not gloat but rather offer collaboration and cooperation to a chastened President. Hopefully the administration and congress together will be able to resolve the colossal blunder in Iraq even if it means allowing President Bush to save face. They owe that to our troops, to the Iraqis and to the nation.

This will happen, of course, only if the President changes his strategy, his tone and his Secretary of Defense.  If that does not occur, no matter how magnanimous the Democrats are in victory we face two more years of frustrating gridlock.

Hopefully the Republican congressional leadership will also pressure the President to change course. I am not optimistic that left alone he has the intelligence, imagination or inner security to change his tone or abandon his rigid ideology. Nor am I optimistic that the democratic majority will not be petty and vindictive in victory.  I hope for the sake of the nation that I’m wrong on both counts.

The Democrats in congress must be careful.  They now have power. Regardless of our political allegiances, all of us should hope they use it well.  The recent scandals of Republicans in congress should remind them that power corrupts. It has happened to the Democrats in the days of Wilbur Mills and Dan Rostenkowski.  It could happen again.  The election was a democratic revolution, but revolutions often throw out the czars only to empower the commissars.

Nancy Pelosi, an Italian Catholic mother of five, will be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. She is the first woman to hold that position and, as every political pundit will tell us, second in line for the presidency. Although she was vilified in the recent campaign, I have no doubts about her intelligence, competency or toughness, but she too must be careful.  Power not only corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I would like to remind her of a lesson from her religious tradition -- and from mine. The Vatican does not follow this ritual anymore; it’s too medieval and triumphalistic even for Rome. But for centuries the Swiss Guard carried the newly elected Pope on a raised throne through the admiring crowds.  Acolytes would burn a piece of flax before the procession. As others fanned the smoke away, a barefooted monk would chant: “Pater Sancte sic transit gloria mundi.”  Holy Father so passes the glory of the world.  It’s a good meditation for Speaker Pelosi.  The influence, power, prestige and perks of her high office will quickly pass.  What counts is the opportunity she has in this perilous time to do something not for her party but for the nation, for her grandchildren and for us all.

The democratic anthem, “Happy Days Are Here Again” has another verse.

So long sad times
So long bad times
We are rid of you at last.

We will see. Bipartisan cooperation will take humility, forgiveness and intellectual honesty in the Capitol on both sides of the aisle and in the White House. Few politicians are noted for these virtues.  Happy days are here again?  I hope so.

Daniel O’Rourke is a member of the Federation of Christian Ministries and CORPUS.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia.  A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY.  His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month.  Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Political Slogans" - column by Dan O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on October 12, 2006 - 1:51pm.

 Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "Political Slogans," was published on October 12, 2006.

 

I can understand the temptation of politicians to sum up policy or positions in short sound bites.  It plays well on TV.  I can even appreciate their desire to boil down complex issues further so they can fit on car bumpers and lapel buttons.  Politicians and political parties have done that long before we had automobile bumpers.

The nineteenth century gave us, “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” It was eerily prophetic.  Harrison, the hero of the battle with Native-Americans at Tippecanoe, died after one month in office and Harrison’s Whig party was stuck with the independent Tyler who ignored them.  “Fifty-Four Forty or Fight” was about the dispute over the northern boundary of Oregon with Canada. President Polk wisely did not stay the course and never fought.  He settled the boundary at forty-nine degrees latitude. He was a statesman not a cowboy.

In 1884 in one of the nastiest presidential campaigns in our history, Grover Cleveland accused his opponent, “Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the Continental Liar from the State of Maine.”  Blaine, alluding to Cleveland’s illegitimate child came back with, “Ma, Ma Where’s My Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha.”

Woodrow Wilson ran for president in 1916 on the slogan, “He Kept Us Out of War.” He didn’t. In 1928 the Republicans assailed the anti-prohibition, Roman Catholic Al Smith with the taunt “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.”  Religious prejudice defeated Smith, but the rebellion against the ill-fated, faith-based anti-alcohol initiative took place seven years later under President Franklin Roosevelt.

In 1920 Warren Harding promised “A Return to Normalcy.” What we got was cronyism, corruption and Teapot Dome. Ironically, Teapot Dome was another scandal with its roots in big oil, arrogance and greed. Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall went to prison; Harding died in disgrace.  Normalcy?

Hoover promised  “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” His administration gave us the great depression.

In the 1964 Goldwater-Johnson election, Republicans punning on Goldwater’s unabashed conservatism proclaimed, “In Your Heart You Know He’s Right.” He wasn’t. The Democrats shot back with, “In your guts you know he’s nuts.”  He wasn’t.

The slogans were haunting but unrealistic. They were catchy and memorable but simplistic and misleading. They certainly weren’t an accurate summary of the issues.  Only a few like Roosevelt’s “New Deal” had any substance. What that says about us whose votes are often swayed by such sloganeering is another column.

What mystifies me in the present war is the way President George W. Bush uses political slogans.  Even when the issues are horribly complex and the administration and nation have detailed evidence of its complexity; the President seems capable only of regurgitating shorthand sound bites.

In the controversy after the recent Inter Agency Intelligence report, which found post-war Iraq a breeding ground for terrorists, the President can still only repeat that we will never “cut and run.”  We will “stay the course.”  We will “stand down when the Iraqis stand up.”  Those might be snappy sound bites, but shallow, simplistic thinking.

Slogans like that could be effective marketing, but it’s a helluva way to govern a country or run a war.  It certainly doesn’t inform the public or enlighten the electorate.  In a democracy shouldn’t the President be a source of a more intelligent analysis and vision?  Sometimes President Bush sounds like he’s selling soap. I suspect he’s selling fear.

It’s worse than that.  I suspect the President really thinks in slogans.  He doesn’t seem to grasp the historical, cultural and political complexities and so his mental processes default to sloganeering. He doesn’t want the facts. Facts after all are messy and inconvenient.  They don’t fit a simplistic ideology.  So President Bush reverts to repetitive slogans.

We should learn from our history.  The slogans of the past should not only amuse us; they should warn us. Today they should prompt us to look more deeply into the political and presidential sloganeering about this god-awful war. They should urge us to read books not bumper stickers. Books like Michael Gordon’s and Bernard Trainer’s “Cobra II,” Thomas Ricks’ “Fiasco,” and Bob’s Woodruff’s “State of Denial” are the first draft of history.  They are filled with nuanced intelligence and insight.  The slogans aren’t.

If we must have a slogan here’s one: “Iraq:  Read Books Not Bumper Stickers.”

Daniel O’Rourke is a Member of the Federation of Christian Ministries and CORPUS.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net


 

"Mother's Day - Its History and Meaning," column by Dan O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on May 9, 2008 - 7:48pm.

The following article, "Mother's Day - Its History and Meaning," was published  on May 8, 2008 in Dan O'Rourke's regular column in the Dunkirk Observer.   While its title refers to Mother's Day, it profoundly addresses the unending struggle for peace.  

   

Funny isn’t it how celebrations stray from their original purpose. Christmas initially intended as the spiritual commemoration of the birth of Jesus has become a stressful, materialistic shopping frenzy. Labor Day originally meant to honor the unionized workforce, has evolved into a gigantic end of summer cookout – even at country clubs! Mother’s Day too has wandered far from its origins.

In the beginning, Mother’s Day was intended to be a Mother’s Day for Peace, but we have long ago forgotten its initial intent. We honor mothers – as indeed we should – with flowers and chocolate and breakfast in bed, but we seldom think about mothers and peace. Recently, "CODEPINK – Women for Peace" reminded us, "Instead of lavish brunch buffets, the mothers of Iraq are faced with malnourished babies and contaminated drinking water; breakfast in bed is not an option when there is no home to return to."

The story of the origin of Mother’s Day’s is intimately connected to three visionary women: Julia Ward Howe, Anna Maria Reeves Jarvis and her daughter Anna Jarvis. Julia Ward Howe is best known for her inspiring Civil War hymn, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." Its rousing words and music have stirred patriotic fervor for over a hundred years. We all remember it.

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,

He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword

His truth is marching on."

Julia Ward Howe, however, had seen the dehumanizing effects of that war. She saw the death, the physical and mental suffering of the soldiers, the grief and incomprehension of wives and mothers, the disruption of families and family life. It prompted her to move on from her patriotic hymn. In 1870 with America’s Civil War ended and the Franco-Prussian War between Germany and France raging in Europe, she called on mothers the world over to rise up and oppose all war. She issued a proclamation but failed in her effort to establish an official Mother’s Day for Peace.

Today her 1870 proclamation in the flowery prose of her day does not read easily. Allow me to paraphrase parts of it. "Women, unite to disarm and oppose war! The questions we raise are too important to leave to governments and politicians. We no longer want our husbands to return to us from combat reeking of carnage with their bodies and souls forever wounded. We will no longer allow our sons to be taken from us to be trained as killers and unlearn the charity, mercy and patience we have taught them. Let us meet in an international conference to mourn and commemorate our dead and then to work out ways so our great human family can live in peace."

Anna Maria Reeves Jarvis had influenced Howe’s idea for a Mother’s Day for Peace. Reeves Jarvis was a social activist who during the Civil War proposed Mothers’ Work Days to improve sanitary conditions in hospitals for both the Union and Confederate wounded. After the war she organized meetings of mothers from the North and South to promote peace-making and social justice. Historians consider her and her daughter Anna Marie Jarvis the founders of Mother’s Day in the United States. Like Julia Ward Howe, Reeves Jarvis wanted the holiday to emphasize the work for peace and justice.

After Reeves Jarvis' death, her daughter Anna Marie Jarvis began a campaign as a tribute to her mother to make Mother’s Day an official holiday. The politically popular idea was eventually enacted by forty-five states. Following a joint resolution of the Congress, in 1914 President Woodrow Wilson declared it a national holiday. Wilson called on the nation to display the flag "on the second Sunday in May as a public expression of our love and reverence for the mothers of our country."

Wilson’s proclamation was more about flags than flowers and chocolate. Furthermore, it was more a patriotic display than peace-making. So even from its official proclamation the holiday had strayed from the original vision of Julia Ward Howe and Anna Marie Jarvis’ mother. They had intended it as a day when mothers would unite to decry war and work for peace. By the 1920s, Anna Jarvis herself had soured on the commercialization of the holiday and spoke out repeatedly against it.

Certainly on Mother’s Day we should remember our mothers in loving ways, with candy, cards and flowers, with prayer and phone calls. After all our mothers gave us the gift of life, but neither should we forget the historical traditions of the holiday. Mother’s Day is a reminder for us all to affirm the preciousness of life itself and condemn the horror of war.

What would Julia Ward Howe and Anna Reeves Jarvis say today about this damnable war in Iraq? Is there any question what their reaction would be? They would cry out in anguish, "For the love of God’s stop this pointless bloodshed and return the troops to their families."

Daniel O'Rourke is a married Catholic priest. Retired from the Administration at SUNY Fredonia, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer in Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. He has published "The Spirit at Your Back," a book of previous columns. You may purchased it or send comments to orourke@netsync.net

"Iran -- the Next War?" column by Dan O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on March 10, 2007 - 4:25pm.

CPJ member Dan O'Rourke is a regular contributor to the Dunkirk Observer.  The following, "Iran -- the Next War?" is his lastest, published on March 8, 2007.  Dan's previous columns about the Iraq War can be found on this website in "Daniel O'Rourke's columns" under "CPJ News/Opinion." 

My recent columns on volunteering, adversity, and the god-word have been “spiritual.” It’s been a while since I wrote a “political” column, but the time has come.  Many would separate spirituality and politics, but such a division is unrealistic and ultimately impossible.  Our society is in love with labeling and compartmentalization.  That gives us easy answers and can remove responsibility. We simply label the problem instead of doing something about it.  Some preachers, professors and politicians do that all too often.

The distinction, however, between the spiritual and secular doesn’t exist. There is nothing spiritual which is only spiritual. There is nothing political which is only political. There is nothing of God that is not also of man -- and woman. Spirituality takes on flesh in the political and social. The environment, immigration, the medical care of wounded veterans have enormous spiritual implications. If human respect and insecurity mute our spiritual voice and values in face of these issues and war’s slaughter, what good are they?

I can't run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they've summoned,
they've summoned up a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me.
Leonard Cohen, “Anthem.”

I have ominous forebodings about the Bush administration’s growing obsession with Iran. I have nightmares even -- and I’m not alone.  Does the President intend to avert the exasperating spotlight from his unpopular troop escalation with a military air strike against Iran?  His appointment of Admiral William Fallon to oversee two deteriorating ground wars from an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf should have
made us suspicious.

The more recent deployment of the USS Stennis, a second carrier to the Sea of Oman off the southern coast of Iran should deepen our concern.  Possibly this is only high stakes saber-rattling to force Iran diplomatically to curtail its nuclear program. I hope so, but perhaps the carriers are there deliberately to provoke the Iranians. Is another Tonkin Bay hoax in the cards? Is Bush slickly stacking the deck as
Lyndon Johnson did in Vietnam?

The publication of recent intelligence linking Iran with improved armor piercing IEDs is another clue. The President and the embedded media
keep reminding us that these IEDs are killing American troops, although even the President has acknowledged that we don’t know whether the Iranian government or a black market is supplying them. Most of our casualties, moreover, have come from Sunni insurgents and not from the Shiites who are ideologically linked to their coreligionists in Iran.

A decision to bomb Iran would be yet another catastrophe for the mid-East.  It would unite the Muslin world even more fiercely against the United States and Israel. Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for the Associated Press in the 1980s, reports, “Attacking Iran could touch off a regional –- and possibly a global –- conflagration.” Iranians, moreover, have threatened retaliation by disrupting oil supplies and unleashing suicide bombers against us even here in the United States. We should not dismiss these threats
cavalierly as unrealistic or exaggerated.

Parry goes on to say, “There is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack” Iran. Seymour Hersh reports in a recent issue of the New Yorker that the Pentagon is continuing contingency planning for bombing Iran. The President could implement this plan, according to Hersh, within
twenty-four hours. According to Parry, the President is only waiting for a “propaganda blitz to stir up pro-war sentiment at home.”  That
propaganda campaign, appealing to unthinking nationalism and knee-jerk patriotism has already begun.

It’s hard to understand why anyone would believe this administration’s propaganda after the misinformation, exaggeration and manipulated intelligence it fed the nation before the Iraq War. But the administration may try one more time. What, however, would motivate President Bush and his team to try and deceive us again? Besides the political advantages of changing the war focus from Iraq to Iran and skapegoating Iran for their Iraq failure, there are other reasons. But they too are unpersuasive.

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad is irresponsible and outrageously provocative.  He calls for the destruction of Israel.  He sponsors conferences for Holocaust deniers. He flaunts the United Nations by refusing to freeze uranium  enrichment  -- a possible prelude to nuclear weapons. But patience not a military strike is America’s best policy. Ahmadinejad’s party has already lost support in Iran’s local elections. Students have jeered him publicly. Even Iran’s state-run television has reported this. The Iranian people recognize his fanaticism.  He will self-destruct.  We do not have to destroy him with bunker-busting bombs.

Why not direct negotiations with Iran as the Baker-Hamilton commission suggested? Iraq has recently called a multi-nation conference of its neighbors including Iran in which the United States will participate.  That could be a good omen.  Unless, however, Bush is merely using this conference for cover like his disingenuous dealings with the UN prior to launching his war against Iraq.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson described the stakes this way. “Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war—a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world.

“A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent
them from building nuclear weapons.

“This is no time for chest-beating and dangerous brinkmanship. It is time for alliance-building, direct engagement and tough face-to-face
negotiations.”

Amen, Governor, amen.

Daniel O’Rourke is a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia. He lives in
Cassadaga, NY.  His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month. “Spirit at Your Back,” a book of his previous columns will be published this spring. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"FUBAR - the President's War in Iraq" - column by Dan O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on September 14, 2006 - 6:23pm.

Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "FUBAR - the President's War in Iraq," was published on September 14, 2006.  


It’s 9-11 and I have just listened to President Bush speaking to the nation on television. He used the solemnity of the occasion and the prestige of the oval office to exploit the pain and sorrow of this tragedy for his party’s political purposes.  Once again the President has confused the war on terror with the war in Iraq.  For self-serving reasons he would have us confuse them also, but he is mixing apples with oranges.

Ironically, I’ve been reading Thomas Ricks’ bestseller on the Iraq War.  He called his book FIASCO.  That gives you an idea where he’s coming from, but Ricks is no radical peacenik.  He’s the Washington Posts’ senior Pentagon correspondent and has covered the military since 2000.  His scholarly book runs over four hundred pages even without its notes and index. Future historians attempting to understand the war in Iraq will be studying it. I sense he’s writing for them and not for the pundits pontificating on the up-coming congressional elections. The President would do well to read it.

FIASCO’s dedication jarred me.  It is simple and startling.  It reads, “For the war dead.”  No qualifications, no distinctions -- no divisions by nationality, gender or military status. “For the war dead” i.e. for Americans and Iraqis, for men and women, for soldiers and civilians.  I won’t cite statistics; we know them. They are the dreadful, horrific price of this military misadventure, which the President is urging us to continue at any cost.

Despite spins by generals safe in their Baghdad green zone, the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate. The soldiers and marines call it FUBAR: Fouled-Up-(the printable version)-Beyond-All-Recognition. There has been a litany of inept miscalculations and ham-fisted decisions, which the President is loath to acknowledge.  The list is long: the false claims of weapons of mass destruction, the unfounded pre-war linking of Iraq with Al Qaida, the deployment of insufficient troops, the disbanding of the Iraqi army, the absence of post-war planning, the torture of prisoners, the lack of armor and equipment for our military. Ricks dissects all this dispassionately without political bias. The President glosses over it.

The Bush administration barged into Iraq with little understanding of its culture, its mores or its religious differences. Basically that has been our undoing.  Ricks quotes Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese military strategist.
          “Know your enemy, know yourself,
           One hundred battles, one hundred victories.”
We did not know our “enemy” nor did we really know ourselves.  For that we have no “victory” and never will. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and pursued bin Laden. That’s the war on terror.

The administration shudders at using the words, but Iraq has devolved into a Shiite-Sunni civil war.  To admit that, of course, would be to acknowledge failure. When our troops leave Iraq, what will they leave behind?  A partitioned nation with a fascist theocracy in the Shiite
south, a ground base for Al Qaida in Sunni land and an even more independent Kurdistan?  No matter how it spins out, the last state will be worse than the first. The insight of Martin Luther King is prophetic. "Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows."

To the rest of the world this administration appears incompetent. It’s the gang who couldn’t shoot straight. Ricks wouldn’t put it that way.  He’s too scholarly, nuanced and restrained.  But the neocons and the President in his 9-11 talk continue to shoot wildly.  Ricks and the
President look at Iraq and see different landscapes. Ricks’ book is a reasoned and dispassionate study; the President’s view is an ideological fantasy.

I have great compassion for our troops bogged down in this tar pit. Yet the President is asking them to continue to die for his mistakes.  Their lives are being destroyed in various ways.  Death and physical injury are not the only weapons of human destruction. Psychological scars, nightmares, suicides, divorces also destroy life and its quality.  I wish this administration was as concerned about human life in Iraq as the life of frozen embryos in stem cell research.

Donald Rumsfeld recently compared critics of the Iraq war to World War II Nazi appeasers -- such as English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Even for political rhetoric that’s a low blow. As Mark Shields asked sarcastically on the PBS News Hour, what does that make Bush? Winston Churchill?  If so where are “the blood, sweat, toil and tears?”  Unlike Churchill Bush has not asked any painful sacrifices from ordinary citizens. He hasn’t in the past and he didn’t in his fifth anniversary 9-11 talk.

A more accurate World War II comparison would be the current administration and Joseph Goebbles’ propaganda ministry. It was the Nazi Goebbles who famously said, “If you tell the people a lie over and over again, they will eventually believe it.”  Essentially that’s what Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are doing. Implicitly and explicitly, again and again despite clear evidence to the contrary they link the war on terror to the war in Iraq. Shamefully, the President did it again in what should have been a compassionate talk to a still grieving nation.  Originally he confused Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein; now he confuses guerrilla terrorists and Sunni insurgents.

No matter what the President reads to the nation from Carl Rove’s teleprompter, Thomas Ricks is correct; Iraq is a FIASCO.  Our soldiers and marines are also right: it’s FUBAR.

"A Lover's Quarrel with his Country" - column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on April 29, 2006 - 5:22pm.
Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "A lover's quarrel with his country," was published on April 27, 2006.  


Rev. William Sloane Coffin’s strong heart stopped beating at his Vermont home on April 12.  He was 81 and had been under hospice care.  His was a wide-ranging, courageous and powerfully influential life. A Presbyterian minister as chaplain at Yale University and senior minister of The Riverside Church in New York City, he was a prophetic leader in the civil rights, nuclear freeze and anti-war movements. His rich pulpit baritone and creative, concrete writings gave voice to our national conscience.  His words still nourish my soul. In the cliché beloved of eulogists he will be missed, but more importantly who will take his place?

Like many prophets Dr. Coffin did not come to his life’s work easily or directly.  He was born to privilege; he could trace his forebears back to the Pilgrims.   As a boy he lived in an eastside Manhattan penthouse, and later in California and Paris where he studied music and became fluent in French.  He graduated from Andover’s prestigious Phillips Academy and entered Yale before joining the army. Later he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency.  In 1947 he returned to Yale for a degree in government. Only later at the age of twenty-nine did he study for church ministry.

Little did he, his family or this nation know how these early military and CIA experiences would prepare him for his prophetic vocation. As a former insider he was well aware of the seamy side of government and its intelligence agencies.  In the truest sense of the words, however, he loved and served his country -- relentlessly admonishing her in the light of his biblical faith. He once said, “There are three kinds of patriots, two bad and one good.  The bad ones are the uncritical lovers and the loveless critics.  Good patriots,” on the other hand, “carry on a lover’s quarrel with their country.”

His lover’s quarrel was life-long and his arguments always intelligent, sensitive and eloquent.  Listen to him; his words still ring true.

“‘America, love it or leave it!’ I believe that. The trouble with that slogan, which found its way onto endless bumpers during the Vietnam War, was that it didn’t mean what it said.  It meant ‘America, OBEY it or leave it,’ as if national unity were more patriotic than national debate, especially when that unity seems to many to be based on folly.  If the American people are worth the salt I think they’re worth, they will never be politically united, for as Barbara Tuchman recently wrote, ‘A nation in consensus is a nation ready for the grave.’

“Love of country, like love of parents, is never to be equated with blind obedience …. Don’t say, ‘My country, right or wrong.’  That’s like saying, ‘My grandmother, drunk or sober’ ….  Don’t just salute the flag, and don’t burn it either.  Wash it.  Make it clean .… I am an American patriot who loves his country enough to address her flaws.”   In politics, in the media, and in our pulpits our nation still need lovers like William Sloane Coffin.

Even as his health failed Coffin raised his voice in protest against the Iraq War.  In May 2003 when Union Theological Seminary awarded him the prestigious Union Medal, he said, “When thinking of the war in Iraq and future preemptive attacks, let us remember Thomas Mann: ‘War is a coward’s escape from the problems of peace.’ Certainly peace requires more courage than war, especially when super-patriotism stirs the blood and narrows the mind, constricting the heart.”

Who will take Coffin’s place?  Who now will be our conscience?  Oh, I know there are national figures who more or less courageously have protested the present folly in Iraq.  Congressman John Murtha and the phalanx of retired generals who finally have spoken out come to mind.  So does Cindy Sheehan whose son was needlessly killed in this war and who raised the consciousness of the nation when she camped outside President Bush’s Texas ranch.  They speak from their military experience and from their grief, but where are those speaking from their scriptures and their faith?

Where are the voices from our churches and pulpits? There are some, of course, like Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun and Rev. Jim Wallis, the evangelical preacher, but most religious voices of opposition are timid and hesitant even as the obsessive madness of the Iraq War becomes more obvious.

No doubt, clergy like indecisive politicians and lackey journalists are fearful of missteps, apprehensive about offending the influential and affluent, and worried about enraged criticism. Criticism of prophets, however, is inevitable; it came to Coffin, as it came to Jesus and comes to all who speak out against society’s embedded evils.  Listen to Coffin again. “Truth is always in danger of being sacrificed on the altars of good taste and social stability.”

Bill Moyer said of Coffin’s 2004 book, “Credo” that it was “the voice of a prophet and wisdom for the ages.”  How many of us love our nation enough to quarrel with her over its ideological arrogance, its disregard for human life and human rights, and its wanton, cold-blooded foreign policy?

"Ireland and Iraq -- 'A fanatic heart' " - column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on March 24, 2006 - 5:01pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column,"Ireland and Iraq -- 'A fanatic heart,'" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on March 23, 2006.

Saint Patrick’s Day has come and gone, but it’s still with me.  I don’t mean those phony brogues, green beer and all that ersatz Irishness.  I mean “the Troubles,” as the Irish poetically name them.  I mean the diminishing conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.

Saint Patrick’s Day reminded me of another artificially divided land, of another suppression of one religious group by another.  It reminded me of the civil war now already begun between Iraq’s Sunnis and the Shiites.  Different groups divided by class and clout, prestige and power but whose overarching identification is religion.  In Iraq two sects of Islam, in Ireland two divisions of Christians fearing, hating and killing each other.

Listen to W. B. Yeats’ verse from his poem  “Remorse for Intemperate Speech.” It cries out from the heart of a tortured people.

Saint Patrick’s Day has come and gone, but it’s still with me.  I don’t mean those phony brogues, green beer and all that ersatz Irishness.  I mean “the Troubles,” as the Irish poetically name them.  I mean the diminishing conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.Saint Patrick’s Day reminded me of another artificially divided land, of another suppression of one religious group by another.  It reminded me of the civil war now already begun between Iraq’s Sunnis and the Shiites.  Different groups divided by class and clout, prestige and power but whose overarching identification is religion.  In Iraq two sects of Islam, in Ireland two divisions of Christians fearing, hating and killing each other.Listen to W. B. Yeats’ verse from his poem  “Remorse for Intemperate Speech.” It cries out from the heart of a tortured people.

Out of Ireland we come.
Great hatred, little room,
Maimed us at the start.
I carry from my mother’s womb
A fanatic heart.

When Yeats wrote that, he “had witnessed the birthing of a new Irish nation through insurgency and civil war.  He had served as a Free State senator, and after winning the Nobel Prize in Literature, was the country’s public man of letters.”

As Thomas Lynch, the poet and author of “Booking Passage: We Irish and Americans,” has also observed, Yeats’ poem admits that intelligence and good intentions are often overcome by hatred and enthusiasm for a cause.  “It is what links enemies, what makes terrorists “martyrs” and “patriots” among their own – the fanatic heart beating in the breast of every true believer.”

I inherited some of that hate. I heard those songs of rebellion from my grandparents as a boy. Experience, education, travel –- life itself have leached that hate from my heart. But even three generations removed from Ireland, I heard suspicion, distrust and hate for the
English Protestant landlords, who forced my famished ancestors onto “coffin ships” and into steerage for passage to a distant land.

Is such religious hatred destiny?  Can experience and education cure fanatic hearts?  They did mine; can they do so in Iraq? Only history will tell, but here’s a story that gives me hope.

Some years ago fundraisers from the Irish Republican Army stopped to see an American executive.  He was an Irish Catholic CEO of an international company.  They went to his office in his up-scale Manhattan headquarters.  They spoke of the prejudice, injustices,
killings and suppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland and requested money for arms.  He refused them.

“All right they said, but what then do you intend to do to help?”  The CEO did not answer, but long after the IRA terrorists left their question haunted him.

Weeks later he flew to Belfast and began making plans to build a plant in Northern Ireland.  Eventually, with instructions that his people hire both Catholics and Protestants as workers and managers, he built it.  The plant prospered and its non-discriminatory personnel policies were widely praised.

A few years later this same CEO was in London on business to meet with an English counterpart. Their work had brought them together and they had become friends. Their different religions and ethnic backgrounds were hardly noticed. Over lunch in an exclusive club they were discussing the Belfast plant and its hiring practices.

“What made you build it?” asked the Englishman.  The American told him of the IRA soliciting money for arms. “But why did you do it?” his English friend persisted.

“My grandparents were tenant farmers in Connemara.  Their landlord forced them to leave Ireland during the famine.”

Curious now the Englishman asked, “What part of Connemara?” When the American named the remote, mountainous village, the Englishman paled.

“What’s the matter?” asked his friend.

Shaking his head, the Englishman said quietly, “My grandfather owned that mountain.”

Generations from now will the descendents of today’s Shiites and Sunnis have similar conversations?  Will they meet as friends?  Will they sit at table to share a meal to discuss business? Or will that hatred, which today rips Iraq asunder, still maim them?  Will the grandchildren of today’s Sunnis and Shiites still carry fanatic hearts?

It can happen, if visionary statesmen like Senator George Mitchell who nurtured the historic Good Friday Irish agreement bring similar diplomatic skills to the Sunni-Shiite conflict.  (I must say, however, that I find the Bush administration’s Iraq policy is not long-term and
visionary but short-term and delusional.)

In Ireland economic prosperity, cultural cooperation and interdependence have drawn Catholics and Protestants closer.  Full peace has not yet come to Ulster, but most fanatic hearts are have been silenced. Iraq desperately needs such modernization.

The reformation of the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council helped greatly in Ireland. That council broke down many Catholic and Protestant prejudices.  Islam too needs a religious reformation. Eventually modernization and reformation will come to Iraq but it will not happen quickly.  As in Ireland, it could take generations perhaps centuries.

And how long will our troops be there?  God only knows President Bush doesn’t.  We should set a timetable and start bringing them home.   As the Quakers have told us “if our troops leave, then an independent Iraqi government, free of external control, could open the door to discussion and reconciliation between groups.”

We should again remind ourselves of Ireland and the transitional Irish Free State which was also born out of insurgency and civil war. It struggled from 1922 to 1937.  Americans must take the long view of history and not, as politicians instinctively do, think only of the next congressional election.

One more comparison: in Ireland women jump-started the struggle for peaceful cooperation.  In 1977 Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.  Iraq too needs to hear the voices of its women who have lost too many children, husbands and brothers. If the Iraqi constitution gives a real voice to women  --
and not only a nominal presence, the chances for peace between Sunni and Shiite will increase.

That’s what Ireland can teach America about Iraq.


Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga. His column appears the second and fourth Thursdays of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net


"The Iraq War and Jehran Omran" - column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on March 9, 2006 - 5:06pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column,“The Iraq War and Jehran Omran,” for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on March 9, 2006.   

The American Friends recently brought a traveling exhibit to Erie, Pennsylvania on the human cost of the Iraq War.  The exhibit displayed one hundred-eleven pairs of military boots in honor of the hundred and eleven Pennsylvania soldiers and marines killed in Iraq. The Quakers do not have a similar exhibit for New York State. Sadly, there are far too many pairs of empty boots to transport and display.

The boots were marked with the names, rank, age and hometowns of the dead.  In a few instances where families objected, the shoes were unlabeled.

In a cluster at the center of the exhibit were three sets of boots from the City of Erie.  One pair was marked for Donald Samuel Oaks, Jr. One of his boots held a bouquet of red roses his aunt had placed there together with a picture of the soldier as a mischievous five-year-old.  Oaks was only twenty when he was killed in Iraq.

Yet another boot held a crumpled, hand-written note from a grieving father to his dead son.  “I will love you, Johnny, and will never forget you….” That soldier was from Oil City.  He was 21.

Incongruously, amid the blackened, heavy military boots were sneakers, sandals and children’s shoes. Each pair labeled with the name and age of a dead Iraqi citizen.  What most touched me were four-year-old Jehan Omran’s tiny shoes. They were pink with Velcro straps.  The kind I help my granddaughter with when she visits our home.

The hushed visitors at the exhibit lingered over the footwear like mourners at a funeral parlor.  They moved reverently to the posters, which spelled out the growing financial cost of the war.  At the time of this writing it is two hundred and forty-five billion, but even that seems insignificant in the light of all these needless deaths.

So far there have been 2,302 American military deaths in Iraq. We number them meticulously  -- as we should.   Yet General Tommy Franks has said brusquely of the Iraqi dead, “We don’t do body counts.”  Some sources have estimated from 26,000 to 32,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. President Bush himself has cited that figure. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, however, in a now outdated report published in “The Lancet,” a prestigious British medical journal then estimated the Iraqi dead at 100,000.

Even that monstrous figure is just a statistic and doesn’t move me as much as Jehan Omran’s shoes with those Velcro straps. Too sentimental?  Perhaps, but more realistic than a military spokesman with a chest full of service ribbons dismissing the Iraqi dead as “collateral damage.”  Can the dead be dismissed that easily? Won’t they come back to haunt us?  Haven’t they already?

Rosie Musacchio of Dunkirk crafted a sculpture, "The Spirit Groaneth - A Response to the Grief of the Iraqi People."  She’ll display and interpret her work at a gathering grieving the third anniversary of the Iraq War. This event, sponsored by the Dunkirk Fredonia Center for Peace and Justice and the Fredonia Students for Peace, will take place on Saturday, March 18 at 1:00 PM in Fredonia’s Barker commons.

But back to those empty boots and shoes.  There has been much grief in this country about the mounting deaths from this damnable war.  Understandably, much of it focuses on our own military dead.  After all we knew these young men and women as family, friends and neighbors and we grieve them deeply and personally.  But what of the Iraqi dead? Why do we minimize them?  Thy too have loving families, friends and neighbors.

Aren’t we all one?  Isn’t John Dunn’s famous line pertinent? “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.”  Or as someone else has asked, doesn’t “our own pulse beat in every stranger’s throat?” Did our pulse beat in Jehan Omran’s throat before a piece of shrapnel silenced her laughter?

Of course it did.  We are one. Iraqi deaths diminish us Americans just as our casualties diminish them.   Listen to a few words from a Spanish song.

Somos el barco; somos el mar.
Yo navego en ti, tu navegas en mi.

We are the boat; we are the sea
I sail in you; you sail in me.

What these poets are saying is that we are all meshed, interwoven and braided together. Iraqi and American lives, whether we admit it or not, are interconnected. And I’m not speaking of the increasing reality of international economies and politics. “We are one” is the ancient insight of the mystics.

If we deny this, as much of our government and media continue to do, we can rationalize almost anything including killing, torture, and endless illegal detentions.  This debasement and degradation of Iraqis has also debased and degraded us and our nation’s ideals. The sea in which we sail together has been polluted by our arrogant, self-centered militarism.

Where is the outrage at all this death?  Where is it in the media?  In the political opposition? From our pulpits? Oh I know, it’s there occasionally and selectively, but too often it’s timid and muted.

Americans and Iraqis are in the same boat, on the same sea. Our languages, dress and religions may differ, but we share a common humanity, a common earth and a common God.

Jehan Omran was my granddaughter too –- and she was yours.

"Patriotism and Criticism" - column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on January 28, 2006 - 7:39pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "Patriotism and Criticism" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on September 8, 2005.

In struggling to find a topic for this column, two unrelated things happened.  Followers of Jung would call them synchronicity; the catechism of my youth might call them actual graces. The first was a bumper sticker I saw in a parking lot.  It read, “It is the soldier’s duty to obey; it is citizen’s duty to question.”

The second was a quote from President Theodore Roosevelt, which I spotted the next day in the news.  Roosevelt seemed to be bellowing out to the nation from Mount Rushmore.  He proclaimed bluntly, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”  A strong sticker – and stronger words.

Those sentiments are certainly timely given the debate about the Iraq war and the questioning of the patriotism of its critics, but the message is deeper than that – a lot deeper. A loyal, questioning opposition is essential for the functioning of any democracy.  Once we surrender the right to question and criticize our government, then the democratic process is fatally weakened. As the bumper sticker said, it is our duty as citizens to question. We’re not soldiers; indeed we can best support those bearing arms by questioning.

I only wish that citizen Colin Powell had questioned the flawed rationale for this war publicly. Instead as Secretary of State he reverted to the engrained habits of his military lifetime and obeyed as a soldier. He would have served the President, the nation and the troops much better if he had openly challenged the war and the shaky justifications offered for it.

The debate about that war is growing; it has been focused and galvanized by Cindy Sheehan’s forthright question, “For what did my son Casey die?” Of course Mrs. Sheehan does not speak for all gold star mothers; she never claimed she did. But she speaks for many. If we can believe the polls, she speaks for many of us.  An increasing majority of the public doubts the President’s changing explanations, his repetitive bromides and his lack of vision.

Despite the President’s cockiness, most of the nation knows that the war and the pacification of Iraq are going horribly. Is the President in denial? Or is he thoughtlessly mouthing the platitudes Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld print on his prompt cards? The record is now indisputable: from the beginning the highest sources in this administration have misinformed the country about this war. As more and more of our troops die, more and more Americans, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, the military and ordinary citizens are questioning. They should; it is their patriotic duty.

A Newsweek poll in August reported that only 34 percent of Americans approved of the president's Iraq policy and 61 percent disapproved. A Pew Center poll in July reported that only 27 percent thought Bush had a clear plan for success in Iraq, but the President’s response continues to be more calls to support our troops.

The nation does not need consensus to support our troops; it already has it. It needs debate on why the troops were sent to Iraq in the first place. Otherwise the observation of historian Barbara Tuchman would apply to us: “A nation in consensus is a nation ready for the grave.” The questioning and its implied criticisms prove that as a democratic nation we are very much alive.

Rev. William Sloan Coffin, a prophetic Christian and patriotic American who has often questioned governmental arrogance and power said, “Good patriots carry on a lovers’ quarrel with their country.” Cindy Sheehan and her colleagues are in such a quarrel.  They are good patriots.

Let the quarrel rage.  Let the questioning become persistent and insistent until we get some frank answers and a realistic plan for Iraq.  The political mantras and simplistic slogans are convincing fewer and fewer.

“Bring ‘em on,” our president boasted in his cowboy drawl when confronted with the Iraq insurgents. Those insurgents last month killed seventy-four more troops.  How long will this national nightmare continue?

As for such questions being unpatriotic, remember Mark Twain. "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." This government does not deserve it.

Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and
fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Civil Discourse or Hostile Argument?" - column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on January 28, 2006 - 7:30pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "Civil Discourse or Hostile Argument?" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on August 25, 2005.

We hear a lot about civil discourse, dialogue, and  discussion.  But whether it’s the selection of a Supreme Court justice, the pros and cons of the Iraq war, or spouses sorting out who washes the supper dishes, unfailingly polite exchanges are rare. Too often the conversations become intellectual wrestling matches rather than fruitful dialogues.

Discussions frequently devolve into arguments.  Parties don’t listen to each other. Instead they gather arguments point by point to refute the opposing position; they have already made up their minds.  Sometimes ideology or prejudice has solidified their positions.

Recently in Kentucky, an argument between friends over the war in Iraq ended with a fatal shooting. Douglas Moore shot Harold Smith once in the chest and Smith died at the scene. Police said that Moore acted in self-defense and did not arrest him at the Bull Creek Trade Center near
Prestonsburg where he and Smith each had booths. Admittedly, that’s an extreme example, but in most arguments there is more anger than reason, more heat than light.

Whether it’s friends, politicians or husbands and wives, arguers seem to have earplugs.  They don’t hear each other.  Having prejudged the issue as well as the “opponent,” their certitude is unwavering. Subtly and sometimes crudely they communicate to the other that not only her views, but she herself is unimportant.

Self-deprecating humor and attentive listening, even when we don't like what the other is saying, are much more productive.  In that way we show that our respect won't waver.  No matter how vehemently we disagree we can state our own position kindly.  There is nothing said that could not be said more gently.

There is a world of difference between, “# $ * &, you’re an imbecile to believe that.”  And, “I disagree, Joe. How about looking at it this way?” If the language is not respectful, the argument will teach us nothing; it will only create hostility.  There is wisdom in the ancient scripture, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger. (Pro. 15:1)

Who is wise? The Talmud asks. “One who learns from all,” it teaches.  Those in heated arguments have no possibility of such wisdom.  If we listen to the other carefully and with respect, we might learn something.

Eknath Easwaran, the Hindu spiritual writer and founder of a center for meditation in Berkeley, California said, “In many disagreements  … it is really not ideological differences that divide people. It is lack of respect, which is another way of saying a lack of love. Most disagreements do not even require dialogue; all that is necessary is a set of flash cards. If Romeo wants to make a point with Juliet, he may have elaborate intellectual arguments for buttressing his case, but while his mouth is talking away, his hand brings out a big card and shows it to Juliet: ‘I'm right.’ Then Juliet flashes one of hers: ‘You're wrong!’ You can use the same cards for all occasions, because that is all most quarrels amount to.

“What provokes people is not so much facts or opinions, but the arrogance of these flash cards. Kindness here means the generous admission -- not only with the tongue but with the heart -- that there is something in what you say, just as there is something in what I say. If I can listen to you with respect, it is usually only a short time before you listen with respect to me. Once this attitude is established, most differences can be made up. It may require a lot of hard work, but the problem is no longer insoluble.”

Eckard Tolle, author of “The Power of Now” said somewhere that we should embrace the competing narration. Instead of dismissing or ridiculing others' beliefs we should attempt to understand and ferret out the truth in them. Often we do not.  Instead we look for like-minded friends or fellow travelers who reinforce our pre-judgments. It’s easier to dismiss opposing views out of hand than to flush out their truth. We prefer to see things in black and white. Reality, however, is much more complicated and unfolds in high definition color.  We should be suspicious of bumper sticker clarity.

Some will say that respecting the competing narration implies a lack of conviction and passion for one’s position, but not necessarily.  We can calmly place our own beliefs in parentheses as we respectfully pay attention to the other point of view. Our convictions may or may not be modified by the discourse, but eventually after the discussion they can be re-concentrated with more focused energy. Civility does not mean emotional apathy or intellectual indifference.  No one has all the answers. A dose of humility might help refine our position.

When spouses have disagreements, familiarity makes it more complicated, but patience, respect and humility can work wonders. The poetic words of Saint Paul read at many a wedding are on target.  “Love is patient and kind…. It is not arrogant or rude…. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.” (I Cor. 13:  4-5)

Easwaran would have us replace the word  “love” in that text with “respect.” If we do that, the Senate Judicial Committee, the negotiators with Iran and North Korea, and John Bolton at the UN would have exceedingly wise advice.

Everyone: lawmakers and homemakers, politicians and voters, citizens and the military need to be respected. We all need more light than heat -- more civil discourse and less hostile argument.

Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga. His columns appear the second and fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

"Anger, Truth and the Iraq War" - column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on January 28, 2006 - 7:15pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "Anger, Truth and the Iraq War" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on July 28, 2005.

Last month my wife and I bought a Toyota Prius hybrid. It conserves and recaptures energy for a sophisticated electric battery providing excellent mileage per gallon of gasoline. One of the ways it reharnesses energy is by regenerative braking using the heat energy otherwise lost when slowing down or stopping.  Surprisingly, I thought of this new car recently when I read these words of Mahatma Gandhi - “I have learned through bitter experience the one supreme lesson is to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move the world.”

Commenting on Gandhi’s insight, Eknath Easwaran, the Hindu spiritual writer and founder of a center for meditation in Berkeley, California said that Gandhi’s life gives us an excellent example of how the heat of anger can be harnessed. “As a young, unknown, brown-skinned lawyer traveling in South Africa on business, he was roughly thrown from the train because he refused to surrender his first-class ticket and move to the third-class compartment.  He spent a cold, sleepless night on the railway platform.

“Later, he said this was the turning point of his life: for on that night, full of anger because of this personal injustice, as well as the countless injustices suffered by so many others everyday in South Africa, he resolved not to rest until he had set those injustices right. On that night he conquered his anger and vowed to resist injustice” through the power of nonviolent resistance.

Ghandi’s words and example are good advice for me because I’m angry. I am angry about the Iraq War. I’m angry with President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, the toadying generals and the glib neo-cons who naively got us into this bloody quagmire.  I’m angry at the senseless loss of
military and civilian life. Somehow those of us who are angry must harness that energy like Ghandi into a rational, peaceful, effective response.

I met someone recently in the supermarket who told me she liked my theological columns best. They made her think of her life and the Mystery of God in a fresher, deeper way.  Other readers impatient with “the spirituality stuff” want more about the environment, poverty and especially the war.

Sometimes sitting down at the word processor, I’m torn. I write different kinds of columns and readers have their preferences.  So be it, but it has dawned on me that a stark distinction between the spiritual and political is misleading. They are flip sides of the same coin. Nothing (e.g. honesty and candor) is purely spiritual and nothing (e.g. war and the environment) is completely political. Spiritual values are interwoven in all the great issues of the day.  Harnessing anger is one of them; honesty is another.

I won’t list the misinformation, the massaging of intelligence, and the false rationalizations for this God-awful war.  Several substantive reports including some from Bush’s own administration have concluded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no ties with Al Quaeda, and nothing to do with 9/11.  Now the Downing Street Memo, a secret British intelligence document, concludes that the Bush administration had decided to launch a preemptive war against Iraq no matter what the intelligence data.

Despite all those careful studies, the President in justifying his Iraq policy before a carefully screened military audience again co-mingled the war on terror with the war in Iraq and again and again invoked 9/11. Why does the President continue to make this link?  Sure, it’s political, but is it truthful?  Is it honest? Is it moral? I don’t think so.

Vice President Cheney said he thought the insurgency in Iraq was in its last throes.  Probably in the convoluted language of governments, he misspoke.  A few days later Rumsfeld said the insurgency could last as long as 12 years.  Currently, we’re averaging three Americans killed a day in Iraq.  Do your own math.  At that rate 13,140 more Americans and probably a hundred thousand more Iraqis will die.  Rumsfeld’s estimation might be militarily realistic, but is this carnage moral? Is it ethical? I hardly think so. Do you?

Of course we should be angry with our government, but we need to harness that energy and do something rational like urging Congressman Brian Higgins to support the investigation of the Downing Street Memo.  Or urge him to join others in congress in backing the “Homeward Bound”
resolution committing us to start withdrawing our troops by at least October 2006 without keeping control over Iraq’s oil or maintaining military bases there.

We can do more. Our Prius Hybrid conserves energy in another way.  It turns off the gas driven motor completely when the car stops in traffic or at a red light. It starts up again instantly at a touch of the accelerator.  We too should stop, reflect and do something.  We should reflect on this war, and get our thoughts together, then we might put them on papers for our representatives or the media.  It doesn’t have to be an elaborate op-ed piece. A sentence or two stating your position clearly could be just as effective.

In any case stop, harness your anger and do something peaceful to address this foreign policy disaster, which is killing our young, draining our resources -- and diminishing our souls.

Daniel O’Rourke is a former Observer Clergy Columnist.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University College, Fredonia. A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears the second and
fourth Thursday of each month. Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net

“War Isn’t Working but Support our Troops” - column by Daniel O'Rourke

| Submitted by admin on December 21, 2005 - 11:09pm.
CPJ member, Daniel O'Rourke, wrote the following column, "War Isn't Working but Support our Troops" for the Dunkirk Observer, which was published on January 13, 2005.

This column will appear around the celebration of Martin Luther King’s birthday.  It’s fitting to begin with his wisdom.  “Our scientific power,” he said, “has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”  Amen, Reverend, Amen.

Is there anyone reading this, whether they voted for President Bush, Senator Kerry, Ralph Nader or Michael Badnarik who honestly believes this war in Iraq is going well? Statements to the contrary from public relation press secretaries, self-serving politicians and career-motivated generals only remind me of journalist I. F. Stone, Editor of the Nation, who used to teach his young reporters, "All you have to remember are two words: GOVERNMENTS LIE."

All governments lie, not just this administration. Democrat and Republican, American and foreign, democratic and totalitarian governments lie. In their disinformation, obfuscation and spin essentially they lie. So no matter what the administration says about Iraqi sovereignty, freedom, democracy and elections being on track, the evidence on the ground is increasingly and persuasively to the contrary.

In fact, many believe that this war and its aftermath is a disaster: a disaster in the loss of military and civilian lives.  A disaster in our battle for “the hearts and minds” of the Iraqis and other Muslims.  A disaster for our economy.  A disaster for America’s leadership in the world.

The situation in Iraq is God-awful. It’s what the military calls FUBAR: Fouled (the polite, printable version)-Up-Beyond-All-Recognition. There has been an inept litany of misinformation, miscalculations and ham-fisted decisions: the false