Tribute to Nutty

So the last few days here at here at the Casa de Backus have been rather melancholy.  Ever since we returned back to the house here in Northern Virginia, we noted that our pet cat, Nutty (formally named "Chestnut" but never referred to that way) had an apparent increased respiratory rate.  Concerned, we took her to the Vet for an initial look, and, after a couple X-rays showing something ominous in her lungs, we were back the next day for some more of those, an ultrasound, and a quick snippet of the mass in that region of her torso.  So since Friday we have been awaiting the results of these final tests and we can only pray for the best, make her comfortable, and give her some antibiotics with the hope it enables a cure.

But the sense of sadness here is based on a reality that Nut is 13 years old, and while cats can have long lives, this may be more than we can facilitate financially, never mind emotionally, or otherwise.  So we are facing the distinct reality that Nutty may be at the end of her journey.

Now anyone who has had a pet knows that they can become very attached to you, and more often than not, you to them.  And these animals can often have a lasting impression on you well into your future, one that is forming as much as some human relationships, and sometimes more.  Let me start with that I have always considered myself to be a "dog person", but this cat has had probably as much impact on me as some of my pet dogs in childhood, part of that is in our joint service together.

That service part is really the beginning of our joint story as Nutty became a part of our lives.  You see back in late 2000, I had made a rather fateful decision that changed things that made having a pet like Nut possible.  After just over 3 years in the Army, living near and on Fort Leonard Wood, MO, Jackie and I had decided to move up the highway to Rolla, MO (some 45 min away) as part of a longer plan to transition from Active Duty to the Reserves and launch into a civilian career tract.  After surprising my superiors (who equated this with forever "leaving the Army", surprising how after 17 years and 2 combat deployments I am still very much a part of that esteemed organization), we settled into a very nice 3 bedroom duplex, that for the first time in our renting experience allowed for pets beyond fish and gerbils.  We had really wanted to get a pet at some point, but this finally presented us with a real opportunity to do so.

Timing wise, this was also good, as I was still in the midst of my gallivanting across the continental United States (mainly to the American Southwest) in conjunction with my Army unit's higher OPTEMPO (or at least what seemed to be higher OPTEMPO at the time).  So one day, someone at Brewer Science, where Jackie worked, got word we were in the market for a new furry friend at our residence and, having a newly minted litter of cats in his garage, arranged to bring one into work for Jackie to bring home.  So entered a cute cuddly kitten in a shoe box, complete with litter, that arrived that afternoon to the Backus' ranch in Rolla.  We were immediately smitten.  She was cute, and cuddly, and had beautiful rose colored chestnut tones to her otherwise primarily grey short haired coat.  Thankfully she was already litter trained and weened so we were able to proceed apace with just simply enjoying our new found furry friend.

It wasn't long that she got her name, and it really didn't relate to her fur colors.  Rather, it had to do with here rather insane nature, she would simply do the craziest things.  Whether this was chew on electric cords (luckily that didn't happen often) and her incessant need to "floss" using the drape cords, or climb into closets and places she couldn't get out of, or simply, and literally, chase her own tail for entertainment.  It was also her pretentious cleanliness and unabashed exposure of her lady parts (in a gesture I continue to see as a one legged salute) to make sure every part of her was prim and proper.  But it was clear she really loved us, especially when she wouldn't stop with grooming herself, but would often give our chins a lick or 20 as we lay in bed for the evening, after she had gotten all of her fur in just the right spot.  It was easy for her to snuggle right up under my chin, when she was that little and take a "cat nap" in the middle of the night, and in my haze of awaken-ment almost get crushed by my abrupt movements.  But what was always amazing to both of us was how much she was a companion for us to greet warmly at the end of the day and in our comings and goings.

So this brings us back to service, as I ran off to Pinion Canyon in Colorado and then out to the National Training Center in California, Nutty was quick to take on duty as Jackie's home-front service mate and comforter on the lonely nights it was and is to be a soldier's spouse.  But this was supposed to be kind of a short term deal as I was transitioning in the Spring of 2001 off of active duty to the rather docile life of Army Reserve Duty and weekend-warriordom.  Well I did mention the year was 2001 correct?  So come September (that is 9/11 to be exact) our little family was rocked and many things got changed, not the least of which was her services as comforter-in-chief.  And on Valentine's Day 2003, this task went into high gear as I got "the call" and was mobilized as part of the initial forces to go into Iraq.

Now I really can't write this chapter too well on my own, and Jackie will have to fill in the details, but I know from a distance that Nut had some serious duties to attend to.  While I had deployed CONUS for several training exercises and missions, I had never been "in harms way" or "off to war" before.  And for anyone who is a soldier with a significant other at home, you know that they serve just as much as we do, in different but just as compelling ways, while we sacrifice and do our duty for the country.  And while Jackie knew I was going to be a soldier when we met, she wasn't ever really thinking it would be for anything more than 4 years, and certainly she prayed it would never involve my getting shot at.  So I can only imagine that during the first three months of the invasion and occupation, when all Jackie knew was I was over there somewhere, and hearing about what was happening on the likes of CNN, it had to be nerve racking and simply frightening.  So Nutty had some serious duty to perform, and I know that she did as well as she could when Jackie was down, or tired, or simply beat from all of the work and emotional pain that she was in, even once I was able to get a weekly call home to Jackie from my spot in Baghdad.

And this was a critical year and some, to do this.  As I mentioned it was a big "first" in all of our lives, and without question Jackie and I changed as a result.  Nutty had gotten used to two people in the bed, and now there was only one, and one for a long time.  Likewise, Jackie made a major change and rejoined (actively) the church through the local Catholic Parish, and I came home to a new fervor that I hadn't known in the same way before.  That, and for the cat, not only did this mean I was back and she couldn't stretch out in the bed as much, it meant that a good set of Catholic friends of ours had a litter of cats and this meant that in 2004 she had to contend with her soon be life partner in Kateri, an imprudent, not as well kept, long haired tabby colored kitten (who, ohh by the way liked to climb trees and generally cause Nut challenges).  Nutty was there for all of this and we were only 4 years into this life together!

With the turn of the year, I completed graduate school and we made our way back east to the Washington DC area.  Nutty, not exactly fond of travelling joined me on my leg of this cross country trip, and after day one where I had given her a mild sedative (which only resulted in her drunkenly trying to climb around the cab of my pick-up), she found a warm spot behind my neck for the rest of the ride.  She still doesn't like traveling much, but has found my lap or that spot a comfort as she does so and I know its from that trip that we probably best got re-acquainted.  Nut, almost as the leader, did a thorough inspection of our new rental home, and then of the townhouse we bought the next year.  She could always be counted on, in her small frame, to check out ever nook and cranny, and while not the hunter Kateri is, was critical in finding any lurking creature such as a bird, mouse or otherwise (that would typically run out and be caught by her partner in crime).

Well, it wasn't too long that I was recalled to serve in Iraq again, this time as a part of the Surge of 2007-2008.  Nutty, along with Kateri (but we know who was in charge), led the comfort party at home as Jackie, not quite as connected as she ended up being in Rolla, relied on these two fur-balls for hugs and a good cry now and again.  By now she had become a feature on our laps (Nut is the quintessential lap cat) and often on our shoulders/chest.  Jackie wisely brought these two along for our mid-tour leave where she caught me in a photo of Nutty stretched out, as she often is, in my lap while mutually dozing off.  And to this day, her soft, low toned purr is a perfect sleep aid even in my most insomnia laden moments.  Without question she has getting us to relax and be comfortable down to a science.

So at this point I need to turn to the point of this effort and pay tribute to her.  Thirteen isn't the luckiest number, I know, but there have been some hard years in there.  Chestnut, to be formal about it, has gone through three homes, two wars, and been forced into cohabitation with another feline she didn't ask for.  She was, and will always be, Jackie and my first joint pet.  She warmed us in body, heart and soul and became our leading lady in many ways.  And when you think about it, she was a serious part of who we are, reflected back at us, often the best part:  polite, a pleaser, neat a prim, warm, curious, inviting (even with claws), holding a gentle touch, and abounding in cuddly-ness that can't really ever be replaced.  Today, as Jackie sang her "Nutty Song" ("My Nutty has a first name, its n-u-t-t-y, my Nutty has a second name its n-u-t-t-y, and if I sing this song, maybe she'll come by, n-u-t, t-y, Nutty!") I'm going to miss her stopping by to lay down on my chest as I try to take a nap or simply fall asleep at night.  I am going to miss finding her catching some rays in her favorite sun spot or watching us come and go from her window sill ledge ("How much is that Nutty in the window, ...").  She is a special server, one that has been with us through a lot, and I am going to miss her greatly.  To you my Nut, I know that you are where you are supposed to be regardless of when and how this current medical thing ends.  Thank you for being a part of my life.  I love you.

Religion and Freedom

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  First Amendment of the United States Constitution (emphasis mine)[i]

“re·li·gion  [ri-lij-uhn] 

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.”[ii]

“If young people continue to be more interested in how we treat others and what we do to make the world a better place, rather than equating morality with religion, then we will finally realize an America that values freedom of and freedom from religion.”[iii]

Let me begin this essay with a direct refutation of the last quotation above.  Simply put, America never has and never should have a value of a “freedom from religion”; such a value runs directly contrary to the free exercise clause of the first amendment.  In stating this assertion and thesis for this exploration, let me be clear also in saying that no American should ever be forced to follow a particular religion, nor should it be an American value to do so.

In the last several weeks, the Washington Post has put forward numerous articles on the relationship of religion and the public sphere.  This is not solely to report the news, but also has been featured prominently over several months in its weekly column/section “On Faith”.  I, for one, am happy for the exchange of ideas and forthright positions put out by the authors of these articles, even though I question the apparent truncation of the spectrum of ideas that the Post has included in the weekly column in the past several months.

Two very recent articles are the catalyst for my writing at this juncture.  The first, “Is atheism winning the culture war?” written on 23 October 2013, is the source of final quote above and the second is “Supreme Court to hear new case on religion in public life”[iv], written on 1 November 2013, is certainly also a catalyst for this flurry of discussion on religion’s place in our public life.  It might be good for you to first read those two articles prior to continuing with this discussion.

Now that you are back from reading these articles and the case before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS, and perhaps taking off on a bit of a Wikipedia/web self-discovery based on the themes expressed in each), I come back to my above two statements about religion in American public life (or any freedom loving society).  As is done in a very concise way, the first amendment makes two very critical and poignant clauses about the place of religion in public life.  First it defines an “Establishment Clause” forbidding the establishment of “religion”, second it puts forward a “Free Exercise” clause regarding “religion” (actually using the phrase “thereof” but clearly the object is “religion” and clearly means “of religion”).  Now this seems rather elementary, one phrase, two clauses, and off we go.  But these two clauses have, from the time of their passing, been at utter odds with one another.  How is it that you can never make a law establishing “religion” without restraining one religions “free exercise”?  Likewise, how is it possible to stop any kind of law that protects religious expression (if you will, ensuring “free exercise”) without “establishing religion”?  Nowhere, however, is offered a “freedom from religion” as defined value in American public life.

I think much of this comes down to how one defines “religion”.  I offer one set of definitions in the above set of quotations, from Dictionary.com.  Note that for the noun “religion” there are 8 definitions offered, some of which are shades of difference from each other, others are altogether unrelated.  The question at the core of this discussion turns on what was the intended meaning of this term and what is the meaning now that applies to how we look at this today.  So, we thus need to explore two understandings, the one in context in which it was written and the one in the context of where things have evolved to our modern day.

When looking at the historical context, we must understand the religious landscape of the day.  From the early 17^th century through to the Revolution, people, as one of the primary reasons, had been making there way to the American colonies for religious freedom.  And this religious freedom that they sought was not to be free from religion (to escape or remove religion from their lives), but to believe in the manner that moved their conscious (to be able to practice or freely and openly express their faith without persecution).  The tale of the pilgrim’s Mayflower journey and the establishment of the Massachusetts Bay colony alone bespeaks this factual situation, never minding we have a state called “Maryland” originally as a refuge for Catholics and large enclaves of “Pennsylvania Dutch” which come from German extraction to this day.  The crux of the issue was that Europe, the ancestral home of the American Founding generation, had been ravaged by wars of religion since time immemorial, and especially since 1517 when the Protestant Reformation caused a tectonic shift in the religious landscape unleashing hellish pogroms and retributions that made all past strife seem passive in comparison.  Simply put, and to move forward apace, the Founder’s did not want to have the same strife characterize their new nation.  Thus, they didn’t want the foundation for public life centered on one creed, one way of believing, and knew that the already pluralistic society in the colonies wouldn’t tolerate such religious conformity in any event.  But they also recognized there needed to be a basis from which morality could derive and that a just society could exist; meaning they had to allow for each person to find that through their own manner.

So in looking at a late 18^th century definition of religion, in the context of a founding document for a new nation in their context, it is clear that the best definition of “religion” in the first amendment most closely hews to “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion” and “the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.”[v]  If you will, this is talking about “established religion”.  Thus, as it is classically understood, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses pertain to enabling groups and individuals to practice their commonly held beliefs openly in society without government endorsement or hindrance in doing so.  It recognizes as its core underlying principle, that people have beliefs (and such beliefs certainly included a belief that there is nothing to believe in), and these should be fully allowed to be broadcast in the public square.  It also says that the public square, being a place that government is in charge of maintaining and regulating, cannot become a camp site for one sect or another nor can government play referee on what group can or can’t be able to make an expression and exercise of its beliefs.  With this said, we must now turn to the fact that it has been a long time since we all gathered at a public square to hear the hourly update from the town crier.

If nothing else, it is clear that our phraseology and language has changed in the over two centuries of time since the ratification of the First Amendment.  So a word like “religion” has been reshaped by time and our context.  As seen in the spectrum of the definitions above (and beyond from other sources and references), this term, this word has expanded and often developed idioms of its own.[vi]  And, as we look to the First Amendment, its meaning has also been morphed and changed for how we think of “religion” in our public life.  None was or is more striking to me, in this discussion, than the change in understanding of “religion” than the SCOTUS decision in Engel v. Vitale where Justice Black wrote that “it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government.”[vii]  This strongly held decision (6-1) by the SCOTUS shows that the word “religion” no longer was simply defined as one sect or group but a body of expression made.  And no longer was the anti-establishment provision being used to protect from having the Catholic faith (or any other you can name) adopted as the creed all American’s were obligated to follow, but instead any measure that the state might take to define or otherwise introduce an expression or practice of religion was seen as an establishment of “religion”.  Now I must admit that I don’t disagree with the SCOTUS decision that teachers (agents of the state) leading a prayer or compelling the recitation of a prayer that was drawn up (even as innocuous as the prayer was in the case that is cited) is not appropriate, and while not “establishing religion”, in my mind, does create a state sponsorship of belief.  That said, what has now come to the fore as a meaning for “religion” is closer to “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”[viii]  This much wider definition of religion, is partially why I reject the notion of a “freedom from religion”.

While I must applaud the author of the article “Is atheism winning the culture war?” for his apologetics of atheism (and largely support his discussion of how atheism needs to get its message out freely), I can’t subscribe to a core belief that we as American’s have a right to push out of the public square any ideas, any discourse, because we don’t like it.  For my part, it is not about “winning” or “losing” a “culture war”.  What the core of our American freedoms are about, is that the battle of ideas about who we are, where we go, and how our society is shaped needs to be a raw, open, and frankly resolved debate that leaves out nothing in our deliberations.  I actually think that atheism (and its related isms of rationalism, humanism, and so forth) is getting quite a bit of its due in society today (in schools, the open willingness to hear such voices, and not to mention their place in a column like “On Faith” in a major media outlet).  I am glad for it, as those voices must be heard.  But so too with those that profess faith and religious based beliefs.  At its core, however, it matters not if Mr. Silverman wishes that young people divorce morality from “religion”, because if one asks “from where do morals derive?”, one circles back historically and philosophically that morals have their derivation in a sense of belief, the core of what the definition of religion is (and we don't get to choose the commonly held definitions of the words we choose).  And what concerns me with the notion of creating a “freedom from religion” is that what is being created is accepted ignorance of a whole body of thought that has much to say about morals, ethics, and social norms that have been at the foundation of societies and social structures since civilization began.

And going back to definitions for a moment, this concern comes rightly out of the fact that the understanding of the amendment at its beginning to now has changed.  No longer is it about avoiding the establishment of one creed on the part of the government, it is avoiding having to hear about or exposure to any belief in “personal, judging gods.”[ix]  We have to accept that our language has changed and been shaped by our present context, and as such arguing for a “freedom from religion” no longer means simply avoiding compulsion into becoming Episcopalian, it means expunging religion from our public life.  To me, such a premise goes well beyond the Establishment Clause and simply searches to undermine the Free Exercise clause (e.g. “its fine to practice your religion so long as you: never speak of it publicly, don’t have my children get exposed to it in any part of their education or public places, and you do it only in your own space, at your own time, and hide it from all of us through your own expense (even though you pay taxes into a government just like everyone else)).  At its core this takes aim to remove from us as a people any centering morality, any centering ethic for how our society is to run and operate.  I am clearly taking this a bit to an extreme, and I am not certain that this author is trying to achieve this total end.  That said, this is the inevitable conclusion of this line of thinking and goal of having a “freedom from religion”.  As a student of history I take the following words of Edward Gibbon as operative to this point as a word of warning in regards to morality, civic virtue and moderation:

"[T]he decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.”[x]

To conclude, I am not trying to say that I want atheism to be blocked from its pulpit in the public space, rather the opposite.  My thesis is that America never has and never should have a value of a “freedom from religion”.  Theists and Atheists alike should be and are entitled to their beliefs and the expression of them without endorsement or hindrance from the government.  Weakness is shown in either side’s intent and character when they choose to focus on eradicating the other’s right to speak and express themselves instead of enabling their counterpart the right to present their case nakedness of the public square and public criticism, writ large.  This means that we have to tolerate and accept that we cannot have freedom from religion, especially as we now define and understand religion, any more than we can have freedom from speech or from the press or from any positive right we have been given, not merely in the constitution, but in natural law.  Denial of the right of free expression, or free exercise that does not derive from the need to protect said exercise or expression for all/others, is against the core of our societal fabric.  Further, it is an American value that we honor and respect not only each other and our beliefs, but also the underlying construct of how we are able to work together as a society to protect these same freedoms for ourselves and our progeny.

---

[i] US Constitution, adopted 15 December 1791, retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment, on 2 November 2013

[ii] Definition as found on Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t retrieved on 2 November 2013

[iii] Silverman, Herb, “Is atheism winning the culture war?” Washington Post, On Faith, 23 October 2013

[iv] Barnes, Robert, “Supreme Court to hear new case on religion in public life”, Washington Post, 1 November 2013

[v] Definition number 2 as found on Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t retrieved on 2 November 2013

[vi] See the Dictionary.com website, “get religion” being one of many such idioms.

[vii] “Establishment Clause”, under the section called “School-sanctioned prayer in public schools”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause, retrieved on 2 November 2013

[viii] Definition number 1 as found on Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t retrieved on 2 November 2013

[ix] Silverman, Herb, “Is atheism winning the culture war?” Washington Post, On Faith, 23 October 2013

[x] Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 38.

The Makings of a Storybook Season

With the move-up of Ollie Kolzig as the Goal-tending coach this past week amongst the cadre of coaches for the Washington Capitals, a true fan's mind quickly goes to the best season to date.  Adam Oates now serves as head bench boss with Calle Johansson and Kolzig, members of the oh-so-close 1997-1998 season, that nearly got the Caps to the Holy Grail of Hockey, the Stanley Cup.

As a fan myself, over the last several seasons an ardent one, it would be great to finally see the Alexander Ovechkin Caps make it to the final dance, and get the Cup.  But this season is the first, that I can remember, that the story is so ripe, so full of narrative that it would simply be a bit of a fairy tale come true.  Hear it now:  a reunion of former players now coaches who almost got the Cup, mentoring and leading the talented team that just hasn’t gotten over the hump, breaking the curse, and bringing home Lord Stanley to the nation's capital.  It simply sounds capital, does it not?

Perhaps I wax poetic, but in essence a highly rated franchise that has made getting to the playoffs a standard practice, now has a harder road ahead with the reorganization of the league.  The challenge is great, the metal and fiber of everyone will be tested.  You have the same highly rated team of the past, in essence, now simply called an also-ran at the beginning of the season.  The “young guns” of a few seasons ago, now have experience.  And the one thing that both players and coaches long for, which has been and was denied them, is the thing all hockey fans, players and coaches chase year-in and year-out.  There has to be a longing, there has to be passion, there has to be an attitude that “we have to get there, and we will!”

While I can’t foresee the future and say that this is the season that it will happen for the Caps, I can offer that this is a story that is worth telling if it is so.  The greatest of sports tales starts with a common theme, the underdog, the spoiler, the guts it takes, and the ultimate victory; and its all done as a team from bottom to top, side to side.  I really long for these kinds of stories, lets just hope this season can deliver it again.

God isn't a Placebo nor is Rationalism the only Source of Truth

This post relates to an article/blog that was featured in "On Faith" in the Washington Post on 28AUG13:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/is-faith-the-worlds-most-effective-placebo/2013/08/28/b4e3958c-0ff1-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_blog.html?wpmk=MK0000205

Interesting. He states that, " I just happened to find that when I started talking to an imaginary friend, certain struggles began to evaporate. It became easier to act according to my conscience." Yet he doesn't believe in the supernatural (ironically things just mysteriously got easier?).

I am no expert on Atheism. That said, at some point, perhaps we need to move beyond God, faith, and religion as being all about the boogie man and science is the only truth that has any real meaning. God isn't merely placebo any more than having an ethical conscious is merely a chemical action in the brain. Praying to a non-existent God is akin to doing a scientific experiment to measure the weight of the soul.

God exists, and the proof is that we believe he does. Does that mean that belief is merely a psychological condition that the human mind is geared to exhibit by default? That sounds reasonable. Likewise, should our exploration of how this universe works be ignorant of what human intuition has taught through the centuries, because its not "rational"? Perhaps we have to recognize that religion and faith has been a construct to explain phenomena that passes our understanding and is the key to opening the doors of deeper exploration.

I am a Christian, so I certainly have a faith bias. I am also an Engineer who depends on cold hard science, so I have a rationalism bias. So when I hear Christ say "I am the vine, you are the branches" I get that he is speaking in his religious context, but because I believe he is God, I can jump to the understanding that what he was also talking about is the immutable portion of the human mind that has been constructed to enable prayer to be an effective psychological tool. And when I do structural analysis and contend with gravitational, seismic, wind, and other forces and how, even after of millennia of human knowledge, experience, and experimentation, that there are point in which we still have to "approximate" because the precise and absolute performance of the structure to any scenario is still a mystery (a big enough mystery that "acts of God" still can knock down many a resistant building).

God isn't a placebo nor is rationalism/science the only source of truth, so lets get serious and stop with the non-sense that I see both in this article/post and the criticisms that he has received to his original article.

Being rational means believing. You believe in the power of science. Being faithful means questioning and exploring. You know that the power of faith is found in the crucible of facing hard realities. We can dispense with blind faith and ignorant rationalism, lets coalesce on the ultimate truism that both explain the world and neither completely so.

Recent Developments in Egypt (last post reprised)

Before I begin, I wish to offer a word of prayer and concern for someone that I know is in the midst of the strife in Egypt. Mohamad Elbardicy was an intern that worked for me (partially) at Facilities at George Mason University.  I ask that we all reflect and think about the real human of the situation in Egypt as well as several others in the world inclusive of Syria.

Offering this note, I want to put forward two posts that I recently made in response to a post by my good friend Brian Farenell on Facebook:

“El Baradei's being charged will get international attention and pressure. While I hate to admit agreeing with Chris Christie, being a voice yelling in the air isn't going to get you anywhere. The Egyptian liberals needed to tie their ship to one side or the other, and the Muslim Brotherhood was not the one to hitch on to. Sadly the military is turning from their normal moderating influence to one of autocratic rule. This indictment is a significant step that's going to get a lot of attention in the West, especially given El Baradai's notoriety and work in the IAEA."

“…, you propose that a third way was a practical option for the liberals in Egypt. Having spent some serious time in the Middle East, I can tell you that unless you have some strength of might, there is little chance that you can effect political outcomes. Simply put the liberals don't and didn't have a way to make a difference in the political situation of their own accord, so they needed to choose one side to latch onto. I too wish they were able to create a third center of gravity, but this is a very bi-polar situation.

As for the military, I did a post on this a few weeks ago on my blog. As I stated, so long as the military hewed to a course supporting the rule if law and just society, we needed to uphold our commitments. I stand by my comments, but the ElBaradei arrest and, now, the Mubarek release bespeak that the Military is not living up to its side of the bargain. It may now be time to re-evaluate our aide. So long as they act with impunity to the lessons we have taught them and the relationships we have built, we need to be serious about delaying if not cutting aide.

This all said, there is still the rub that there are scant possibilities we are going to see an Egypt that emerges as a liberal democracy in the near/long term. And beyond that there is probably little we can do to change that fact. If nothing else the great American neo-con experiment in Iraq proves that we can't wish our way to democracy in the Middle East.”

I post these to my blog as a footnote to my previous post. As I articulated before, I felt and still feel those that were critical of America’s continuance of foreign aide to Egypt during the Morsi era were misplaced in their criticism. Here I am putting forth that we now need to make a re-evaluation. I am not saying that we ought to cut off aide now, but I am saying we need to seriously consider options as it relates to that aide. As I articulate above, the point of our aide and relationship has been to enable the military to be an agent to push forward Egyptian rule of law and democratic institutions. To the extent that they are not following that objective, we need to think about our support of the military. In doing this however, it needs to be surgical, as we need to recognize the larger geopolitical implications, especially with our other allies in the region. As has been implied in several venues, it may be that it is better that the US hitch its support to an oppressive autocratic regime rather than one that seeks the destruction of the US itself (two really bad choices, but sadly ones we may have to choose between). This isn’t going to be clean, and we need to think through this carefully, lest we create a larger problem than already exists or will exist in the future (e.g. we don’t want to create a Mussolini). That said, choosing sides, much like I comment about the Egyptian liberals needing to do, is part of the challenge of this situation.

So in conclusion, we all need to soul search on this. Lets not jump to quick answers, and instead enable time and space to help us make better decisions and policies going forward.

Thoughts on American Foreign Policy regarding Egypt in the last 12 months

Some months ago, when Mohammad Morsi was elected President of Egypt, I saw post after post on Facebook and other social media sites, heavily criticizing the Obama administration for its continued support of the Egyptian military in accordance with the Camp David Accords signed and supported by Republicans and Democrats since the late 1970s, and then implimented during the Regan administration during the 1980s.  Statements such as "Obama is selling warplanes to terrorists!" were prevalent in those days.  These statements easily come from a overtly simplistic analysis of events as they had occured.  The Egyptian military, having wrested power from President Hosni Mubarak, had guided a path toward and including "free and fair elections" for a Parliment and President.  The result was that the Muslim Brotherhood, a historic terrorist organization, and one that tended to Islamic extremism, was seated in power.  So, the aforementioned critics, seeing this, saw that now Egypt was in the hands of the Brotherhood, ergo the military was under the control of "terrorists"; not so fast, say I.

Events of the past weeks, with the Egyptian military staging, essentially, a coup of the Morsi government, show that the earlier analysis of these critics is ignorant of several critical elements, and, thus, their calls to unseat a long standing peace agreement that has kept peace between Egypt and Israel, were simply wrong.  What is clear to me is that these critics know little of Middle Eastern culture, history, and politics.  It is also clear that their criticism belies the fact that they speak from what is essentially an ethnocentric American point of view, not recognizing that the world operates very differently outside of the confines of the borders of the US of A.

Let me start with a quote from Thomas Friedman from this past Sunday on Meet the Press: "We are freaks".  First and foremost, we have a distinct version of democracy here in the USA that is abnormal to the rest of the world's experience.  We have now successfully transitioned power between various poles of the political spectrum, without a shot being fired, for just under 150 years (the Civil War representing the last time we could not resolve our differences peacefully).  And in an even more amazing stripe, we have made these transitions without having the winner use power to decimate the losing party overtly (surely redistricting and targeted campaign funding has been used in some cases, but we have yet to see round-ups of Democrats after Republicans controlled the Legislature and the White House).  So we don't just allow the winner to take power, we also respect the rights of the minority to exist and, more than that, we continue to power broker between the various poles of thought and politics, such that "extremes" rarely can do more than have voice, and simply can't run roughshod on the whole of government/our country.  It is clear that in the Middle East, this level of sophisticated power sharing and ebb/tide process of power exchange is beyond foreign (and for much of the world it is clearly foreign as well, excepting where a monarch/sovereign was the catalyst for such a system to develop).  In a strong sense, this kind of secular government is antithetical and will require strong guiding hands to develop over years if not decades/generations in order to take hold.

Next, we are freaks in that the military is really controlled by our civilian government.  Nothing about this is more iconic than the oil painting in the Pentagon of George Washington returning his sword, the sign of his authority and power, to Congress at the end of the Revolution.  When the President orders us, and when Congress approves the action, we march.  When they say stop, when they say retrograde, they say come home, we do.  We don't act independently of the civilian authority and we certainly cannot realistically even contemplate unseating the institutions of our republic through unified force of arms.  Not only this, but as my good battle buddy Ryan McDavitt reminds me, the concept of soldier that we have as Americans (an honorable, disciplined, servant of the people, called to arms, but also benevolent in action where called to be), is often unheard of elsewhere in the world.  Most of the world hears that soldiers are coming, and they tremble in fear; we walk outside for the parade.  In most of the world, Lincoln's premise that "right makes might" is turned completely around.  The military in many places stands either behind or along side civilian government as a separate "branch" of government, if you will.  In some societies, there is a distinct military class that stands apart, has different rights, and acts above and often is the arbiter/enforcer of any laws that effect all other classes of citizens.  So, those that were quick to judge negatively our continuance of the support of the Egyptian military after the election of the Muslim Brotherhood to civilian leadership of Egypt, for instance, greatly misjudge how that military operates within Egyptian society.

Basically, it was and remains ignorant to think that Egypt's military is subservient to and directed by, the civilian government.  A more astute understanding is that the military is a partner organization to the civilian leadership.  The partnership formed is one of mutual support, in the sense of establishing stable political will and meeting mutually agreed upon foreign policy objectives.  When the relationship becomes such that one side or the other is out of kilter, the civilian government is changed or the military sees a leadership rehash.  This happened with Nasser post the 1967 war (with a major retooling of the military), it happened to install Sadat (remember he was an Army officer), it happened to remove Mubarak, and it has happened again, now, with Morsi.  American policy, through several administrations, has been to develop, wisely, a strong relationship with the Egyptian military, mainly to enable stability, restraint in extreme politics, and as a hedge against threats to our other regional allies, especially Israel.  And, I note, this relationship between our military forces isn't just about sharing how to use their aircraft and preferential sales and how to shoot your rifle better, its also about how a military operates in a civil society, what human rights are all about, and what a functioning democracy looks like.  Not being a pure expert in all of this, I will tell you this is partially why the situation in Egypt has yet to spiral out of control and go into utter chaos; it also is why the military has consistently worked to turn control of the civilian government back over to a group of civilians as fast as possible.  This has worked, partially because, if you look back in history, it has worked in Turkey.

Turkey, what about Turkey?  Lets reflect on the last 100 years in Asia Minor.  If we look back to 1913, the Ottoman Empire was on its last legs, and 6 years and the end of the Great War brought its end.  With the rise of the Young Turks and Ataturk came the rise of a modern, secular Turkey (remember that the Ottoman Sultan's power derived from his holding and preserving the holy places of Islam and the titular role of Caliph), came a nascent democracy.  While America retrenched in many ways after WW I, there was a Turkish exception.  While it is probably overstating it, there developed some key relationships that developed before the German's swallowed Ankara into its sphere of influence (although Turkey remained officially neutral, it signed a non-agresion pact with Nazi Germany in 1941 and when Axis destruction was assured, then declared war on Germany in early 1945).  Once WW II was settled, and British and French influence sunk in the Middle East region, America made it a mission to reinvigorate our relationships with Turkey and made it a mission to join ourselves at the hip with the Turkish military (mainly as a hedge against Soviet influence in the Middle East).  When you look at, then how the government post Ataturk developed, was consistent democratic elections, then corrected by military coup when the parliament/civilian leadership went too far in one extreme or another, then returned to civilian leadership, and so on.  In the 1980s, this cycle more or less closed, and dedication to secular democratic government has been the hallmark of the rise of Turkey in the greater Middle East.  While the Turkish military still stands along side the civilian leadership (rather than under it), the relationship continues to grow closer to a western European/American model, even with the rise of some more Islamic parties in Turkey.

So in writing this entry, I am trying to point to the fact that when it comes to foreign affairs, especially the further you go from western European/American cultural backgrounds, one has to first understand the context, culture, history and societal make-up before commenting on how we approach going forward.  The current Egyptian example proves this point perfectly, in that if you live only in a fairly ignorant American construct of how a military and its government inter-relate, you will miss how we ought to pursue our national objectives in other countries, cultures, and regions.  I can't speak to the full rational of those critics that were so vocal about abruptly ending our military support to Egypt when Morsi and the Brotherhood rose to civilian leadership, but I can say that to have listened to them and acted as they desired, would have been a critical failure.  While I am not happy that a democratically elected government was overthrown, I can say that the Egyptian military keenly understood that the government that was going forward was not just and was not serving the interests of the people of Egypt, at least from their point of view.  Without question, democracy is a good thing as a government form, but it first requires a society that respects rule of law, plurality, and equal rights for those in power as well as out, in order for it to truly work.  Saying this another way, one has to ask is a good thing to have an elected government that terrorizes its own citizens (e.g. Charles Taylor of Liberia) or is it better to have an un-elected government that lives by the rule of law (e.g. King Abdullah II of Jordan)?  Really you want one that is elected and lives by the rule of law, but that is not always possible nor present in any given society.  That said, it requires a culture that has developed that can understand, and make sacred these values, and it may not work in all places at all times.  Clearly, the military in Egypt recognized that the civilian government was not getting them to this goal, but going the opposite direction.  It heard the people and acted.  If we didn't support the military, there wouldn't have been this agent to modulate and guide Egypt to its much brighter future.  When it no longer is that agent, I will concur with the earlier critics, but I will do so knowingly and aware of the context on the ground.  I only pray this helps us all take time to pause and think, before we spout off on the challenging task of guiding American foreign policy generally, but especially in Egypt.

Willful or Willing; Which should we be?

To open, the title of this blog post creates a false choice.  The dialectic device I am want to use is to build two cases (straw men) and then banter about to a conclusion on how I feel on this general topic.  Luckily, TED (Technology, Education and Design), has two preemminant scholars to do the task for me:

Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice.  http://t.co/Zp7PI3FTLH

Malcolm Gladwell: Choice, happiness and spaghetti sauce.  http://t.co/L5Xvww9SjE

For those that are not familiar, TED is an information and idea-sharing venue that is supported by the likes of Goldie Hawn, Bill Gates, and other “big thinkers” and “doers” in the world from all walks of society.  Since I have discovered the online posting of the talks, I am more or less addicted.

But, back to this topic of choice.  Listening to these two videos from back in 2006, I was struck by how closely they hewed to a debate between two giants of the 16^th Century:  Erasmus and Luther.  Desiderius Erasmus was a Dutch humanist and Catholic theologian who debated Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation.  In his De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collation (“Diatribe on free will or contribution”), Erasmus defends the doctrine of “free will” that was held by Roman Catholicism at the time; eschewing on both sides of the argument (at his core Erasmus was always trying to find a middle way).  Erasmus, for his part, was simply saying that humans have the freedom of choice.  This being a theological/religious debate, Luther responded with De servo arbitrio (“On the Bondage of the Will”) saying as humans we are unable to work our a way through to salvation, but are utterly dependent upon God and his grace to accomplish this goal.  Luther, somewhat missed Erasmus’ point, but was pointing out that, at its core, a power to choose, that can result in nothing more than the power to go counter to goodness, is not a good in itself.  He did his mighty best to show that in his religious context (and those in the Christian one) its about surrendering the will we do have, to that of God, the ultimate good; making us one with it.

After listening to the videos and then reading the above, I am struck in the similarities.  Schwartz convincingly says that a plethora of choices leads to paralysis, unhappiness, and depression.  Gladwell argues well that fixating on a singular ultimate perfection is wrongheaded and we need to embrace diversity and variation.  One is arguing that having the power of choice/variation is a good thing, the other that choice can result in the opposite (Schwartz allows that we need some choice, but the problem lies in having too much).  So, in secular terms, the argument/debate is the same as Luther and Erasmus (and even further back in history; Aristotle and Plato); is the will or choice a good or an ill (and do we really have it)?  Alternatively, as I have titled this, is it good to be willful (to have/use choice) or is it better to be willing (to not have/use choice)?

I opened this post with the statement that these are somewhat false choices, and I contend both perspectives are fully right and fully wrong.  I will say that at my theological/philosophical core, when it comes to the ultimate facts of life and death, I fully concur with Schwartz/Luther/Plato in that we are simply without choice and dependent on God's grace.  But because we can't choose the circumstances of our ultimate demise (and salvation), does not necessarily mean that we have no choice nor should it be seen as good to not engage in making choices in life.  Similar to Erasmus, I want and believe in a middle way.  There is merit to Gladwell’s/Aristotle’s thought frame within the world we live, so long as we recognize that getting the “golden mean” requires us to have boundaries, boundaries we are not willful about, but willing to accept.

Mainly because we see throughout history that the road to tyranny can easily be paved by the denial of any choice, one has to accept Gladwell’s argument that we need to embrace diversity, accept difference, and trust that enabling choice is a good thing.  But, I contend, diversity does not negate universality or unity.  I come at this from my life’s experience, especially that in the American military that I have now been a part of for over 16 years.

First and foremost, every single person in uniform today, is there by a choice.  No matter how incentivized, they made a decision to serve; and that point cannot be under emphasized, especially given the last 12 years have been in a state of constant readiness, combat, and war.  Many from the outside presume that the soldier-ization process (or creation of sailors, or marines, or airmen) is one that squelches all diversity, that seeks to make replicated robots out of men and women, and amounts to brainwashing into a singular mindset.  Having served at all ends of the process (Basic Training through to the Army Staff), I can tell you diversity is alive and well in the Army and Joint force, and the battle of ideas at the Pentagon and elsewhere rages from day in to day out.  What being a part of the military does do, is put a fence around this rage.  It centers the individual on the common purpose (defense of the nation) an enables a respectful process, while messy at times, to refine ideas to a useful and much more powerful purpose.  I will admit that this can have the effect, sometimes, of having such a tempering effect that good ideas do not rise to the top and are lost; but with persistence, drive and determination nearly any good idea eventually gets its day in the sunshine.  Being a soldier isn’t about giving up being willful and driving to be the best (actually is quite the opposite, we are encouraged to excel and drive hard), but it is also about being willing to obey orders, respect the chain of command, and knowing when to argue and when to salute and put your energy into the common good.

I have been in leadership environments that have fostered a great understanding of this and others that have failed.  In my first tour in Iraq, our Battalion Commander (for most of the tour, the first one was relieved for not respecting boundaries) simply acted as a deterministic bureaucrat less than a leader.  He did not respect Gladwell’s argument that there was more than one way, his way, to do things.  He did not assume operational risk and seek out those opportunities presented to him to step outside of the box and make those large impacts that were needed to build moral, empower subordinate leadership, and maximize our potential as an organization to have a dramatic effect on the battlefield.  Some of these things happened, but despite his command climate and not because of it.  During the surge, on my second tour, however, the commander of our Brigade clearly understood the balance, the middle way.  He knew he needed to encourage a command climate where the battle of ideas could rage and subordinate organizations and leaders could try other things.  He had boundaries, he employed coercion (oft times using his leading non-commissioned officer), but he also allowed people to get to those boundaries before he yanked on their collar and pulled them back.  Consequently, we did much, much more than we could have ever thought to have done; and we strove harder and harder to make the difference needed to win.  There were choices, but unlike in Schwartz’s presentation, these were not overwhelming.  It was about being willfully willing.

I think the best example of this has to be in one of my favorite fantasyland worlds, the world of Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek.  Again, the construct is that of a military culture, one that has a strong chain of command and a common purpose.  However, throughout the various episodes in all of the various series, there are examples of willfulness and willingness.  You see episodes where beings become mindless replicas willingly and blindly following for supposed good but mostly for ill.  You see strongly willful being and leaders that overstep and their hubris leads them counter to the boundaries of society, science, and the universe itself.  And then you see the protagonists that are willing to sacrifice, submissive to the will of leadership and something greater then themselves, with a strong understanding that their fate is not ultimately their choosing, willfully pressing to accomplish the mission, challenge the norms, and push beyond themselves and achieve something very much the echo of making the ultimate choice for good.*  Traditions are valued and innovation is encouraged.

Therefore, to sum up this short treatise, I think both Schwartz and Gladwell make really good point about choices; it is in paradox we find truth.  We need to understand that chaos and too many choices can be just as bad as no choice what so ever.  We need to be willing, to sacrifice and to be bound by norms and understandings, and these are good things.  Nevertheless, just as good and not taking exception, are the needs to assert your place, to challenge what has been, to invent for ourselves a new tomorrow.  It’s about willful willingness.  It’s about engaging the world as Aristotle tells us, but acknowledging that we live in Plato’s cave.  It’s about trying to work things out as Thomas Aquinas did in his Summa Theologica but recognizing that Augustine was right in the end, and calling it nothing more than a pile of straw.  It’s about acknowledging we have free will, so long as we understand that the will we have is ultimately a tool that can lead to ill, so we have to be bound by the ultimate realities of the universe.  It’s about being willing to be willful and engage the world without forgetting our purpose in it.  With that mantra, one can go about settling on, perhaps, a middle way.

*For a good look at this, watching the episodes “Chain of Command” in Star Trek the Next Generation, and comparing the leadership of Picard vice that of Jellico, you get a taste of my foregoing leadership experiences in Iraq.  Further, I recommend Make It So:  Leadership Lessons from Start Trek the Next Generation by Wess Roberts and Bill Ross, especially the chapter related to this episode entitled “Intellectual Honesty”.