This morning I was flipping through the channels and came across TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network). TBN has a special place in my heart, ever since two summers ago when I was living with Brian Schafer in a pre-cable tv apartment and one of the only over-the-air channels we got was TBN. It was so much fun to watch because it was always so incredibly bad. It was like watching The Colbert Report... for Christians. I highly recommend this by the way, watch TBN, but don't get all riled up and take it seriously. Instead, pretend it's religious satire (a la The Door) and you'll have a hoot.

Okay, back to my story. I come across TBN and pause just long enough to see that Ann Coulter is on "Behind the Scenes" talking about her new book. I've posted a section of the interview at the bottom of this post. At one point the interviewer asks about her own background in the church. She talks about growing up in a Presbyterian church in Connecticut and how her mom didn't like the "political" sermons her pastor would preach against Vietnam. They would later leave the church later in favor of one that wasn't "political." Coulter's critique of her "political" pastor was simply, "that's not what most Christians want." The way she talks about it her mother wanted a church that would offer some kind of benign emotional therapy and nice singing, but never denounce a war. Apparently Coulter has been critiqued by some bloggers for not actually going to church, she responded by saying that 1. She does go to church but that 2. liberals are so "biblically ignorant" that they don't realize that Christians don't have to go to church. We don't have to go to church, Coulter contends, because Christ died for our sins.

What I found so surprising was just how mainstream Coulter was for a few seconds there. Coulter's understanding of the Gospel is so shaped by an American Civil Religion (coming out of... liberalism!) that God's concern is just about him and you. God doesn't get involved in politics unless we invoke him for our own cause, and there really is no need for the church since it's all about you and God to begin with. These two theological commitments I think a great deal of American Christians share with Ann Coulter.

For all of Coulter's talk of "being biblically literate" she apparently doesn't pick up on the Missio Dei (Mission of God) to renew all of creation, to redeem the world (not just you). The redemption of the world being an incredibly political kind of thing, especially because God says this redemption will take place in the life, death and resurrection of his Son and not through the war on terrorism, state welfare, the United Nations or even "taking back our Country for God." Secondly, Coulter apparently misses large swaths of scripture where God calls a people (plural) into covenant to follow him, to be a blessing to the world, and to be the vehicle for God to come and dwell among us. As the church we are the body of Christ on earth, we live in continuity with Israel as we live out the mission of God in the world. Just one reason why it is important for Christians to be a part of the church. To be a part of the church means that people like Ann would have to take communion with "liberals." Church is the place where God destroys the walls we put up between each other and since Ann's primary goal in life seems to be building those walls, it's just more convenient for her to take the "just me and God" route.

Labels: Civil Religion, Politics, Theology

permalink

Now that I'm working in a church again I've started to think about this whole "tax exempt status" our churches have. Tax exemption doesn't really sit right with me. Here's why tax exemption makes me raise an eyebrow. I had a conversation with a pastor friend of mine several years ago about why he supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In the end, the constitutional ban on same sex marriage had to do with tax exemption. That was his last straw. "You see," he said, "if they legalize gay marriage, they can force the church to start marrying gay people. And if we say no... they'll take away our tax exempt status!"

There's a big difference between the Christian rite of marriage performed by the church and that legal thing you get at the county courthouse, so I don't care too much about what's in the constitution concerning marriage, because the constitution does not determine the sacred rites of the church. I wouldn't oppose a constitutional amendment against being resurrected from the dead either, because I think God (and not the constitution) gets to determine what will and will not be for his church.

Okay, so back to tax-exemption. Does it make anyone else feel slightly icky that the church is put in this position of "owing" something to the state? I sometimes feel like the tax-exemption thing is like the "favor" that a mafia don has done for a church, and our response naturally is to not make a fuss when the don does something that doesn't sit right with us, out of our gratitude for his favor. And this is exactly how it works, when a church starts getting "to political" there are always threats of taking away the all sacred tax-exempt status. Well so what?! Martin Luther King Jr. had some pretty political things to say once upon a time. The gospel is always reaching out into culture and stirring up trouble. What if we were to scared to follow the gospel into the world because we thought it might mean we have to start paying taxes?

Now, to argue the other side for just a second... I certainly don't want a portion of my tithe money going to build fighter jets and bombs. But is this "innocence" worth the private and non-political box that the nation sticks the church in? There's got to be a better way.

What do you think? Are you for or against the tax-exempt status for churches?

Labels: Civil Religion, Politics, Theology

permalink

Labels: Books, Civil Religion, Theology

permalink

Labels: Christian Time, Civil Religion, Theology

permalink

The first part of Bush's speech tonight was centered around "national security." National security as an idea and most of the points contained within this portion of the speech depend on making we the people feel afraid of "them." "They" are no longer just al Queda but "terrorists" in general. This general and undefined threat works better when it is vague, because the threats are everywhere and so the primary (if not only) goal of the government is to "protect" your "security." That's about as specific as Bush wants to get. The problems start when we ask questions, when we demand specifics for his generalities. Who is a terrorist or dangerous threat? Well Quakers are a threat for starters. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a "Stop war" t-shirt while attending the State of the Union speech. See, "national security" is really a big job! National security is all about protecting "freedom." Freedom from seeing anti-war t-shirts included!

"Freedom," as Bush uses the word might as well be a filler word. When used so often and for God only knows how many purposes it completely looses its meaning. What does "freedom on the march" really refer to? An agressive unilateral neoconservative foriegn policy? That doesn't roll off the tounge like "freedum's on the march." What does "enemies of freedum" mean? Anyone who voted against Bush's social security policy? Al Queda? Unions? Ang Lee? The only thing we are supposed to know is that freedom=good and enemies of freedom=bad. It's really that simple, so please don't go asking any pesky questions that might force him to admit what he's really talking about.

Do you disagree with Bush's policy in Iraq? Then there is a new word that they have for you, Isolationist. Awesome! New talking-points. Bush's use of isolationism was perhaps one of best examples of a straw-man fallacy I've seen. If you find 28,000+ Iraqi and 2,000+ American dead in Iraq morally indefensible you must be for "cutting and running" and "isolationism." Using the language of isolationism Bush made it clear that there is only one way to deal with the Middle East: his way. To do it any other way is "without honor."

And of course there was the constant stream of nationalism and civil religion that I usually object to in these things. As a Christian I found the whole thing to be sad and lacking any of the comitment to truth, the passion for loving others and the pursuit of justice and reconciliation that constitutes the Kingdom of God.

Labels: Civil Religion, Non-Violence, Politics

permalink

As I sit here in my all too familiar spot at the crave cafe amidst piles of Barth, objections to Barth and commentary on Barth I need to take a break. I must say that Hans Frei was right when he said that reading Barth is far more interesting than reading restatements of Barth by others which just appear wooden next to his original work (although Hauerwas is doing a good job for me this evening). So in the midst of my hours of reading Barth this evening I want to take a break and reflect a bit on what happend this morning.
Congratulations to you if you clicked on the "read more" and wanted to know who the picture is of, if that's Karl Barth and what any of this has to do with Brian McLaren (who is actually the above pictured).
This morning through afternoon I was down in "O-town" or "Olathe, Kansas" or "Stepford" as some are want to call it, at Mid-America Nazarene University with about 350 others (along with Mike King, who posted about the seminar here) to listen to a series of lectures by Brian McLaren. It was a good general overview of the shift towards post-modernism/post-colonialism in our world and what this new context might mean for our modern models of ministry. If you'd read Generous Orthodoxy, or A New Kind of Christian or any other of Brian's works a lot of this was review, but very helpful for the throng of Mid-Westerners who showed up to see if this guy was a pluralist afterall, or who were getting some continuing education credit and had never thought of post-modernism in the first place. Anyway... great stuff. I think it was the first time that a lot of these pastors were confronted with the modern marriage of the nation to the church in Civil Religion or "sacramerica" as AKMA Adams likes to call it, as well as the value of habituating ourselves into obedience to Jesus. At one point Brian said, "it wasn't until I was reading the sermon on the mount as a young man that I realized that I'd read about loving my enemy, but I'd never been taught how to do it!" He went on to talk about the value of fasting and how it taught him to not be a slave to his impluses and how after two years of fasting he was finally ready to turn the other cheek. He spoke about the intentionality of our liturgy being Christian spiritual and ethical formation. It was really just a very encouraging time, and I was so glad that so many of our pastors and seminary students were starting to think about following Jesus in ways that might challenge some of their modernist/colonial assumptions.

...well back to Barth!

Labels: Civil Religion, Emerging Church, Life

permalink

Okay, so this is something that's bugged me for a long time. I took this picture at my church's INTERNATIONAL headquarters. Why do Christian churches, and institutions insist on flying the Christian flag below the US flag? It's as if we readily accept our role as chaplain to the state, an unquestioning support system to a pagan nation. We as the church are all to happy to be the "yes man" for America. If we were in prison, I'd use another term for the role the church has resigned itself to. If we're really an outpost for the Kingdom of God on earth, why fly other flags at all? What's wrong with just flying the Christian flag? This is just as offensive to me as flying the Christian flag under the North Korean flag, as if the Church was not unlike a county, province or territory under the authority of the larger more important state. Arrrrrrgh, I hate the civil religion!

Labels: Civil Religion, Politics, Theology

permalink

Part III: Spiritual Values and International Relations
When Did Jesus Become Pro-War?
Chapter 9 - Dangerous Religion
The Theology of Empire

In this chapter Wallis takes on US imperialism, or as some put it our ambition for empire. Not since Rome has a nation Lorded it over others as America does today. Add to this ambition language about God and we have a problem.
The language about empire isn't even being hidden these days, Wallis quotes William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard; "If people want to say we're an impoerial power, fine." Kristol among others view the current situation as ripe for US empire, where their vision of "an American peace" is based on "unquestioned U.S. military preeminence" (p. 138).

Wallis says that it is "imperative, in their view, for the United States to 'accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles.' And, they warn, 'The failure to prepare for tomorrow's challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an end.' That, indeed is empire." Wallis quotes Kristol again who says, "Well, what's wrong with dominance, in the service of sound principles and high ideals?"

Well Kristol... there was this guy. He was from the Middle East, lived about 2000 years ago... was the son of the living God... you know, all that. Well one day he was talking to his followers (of whom there are a few billion today), and he said... "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared... You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Luke 10:39-45

So apparently the son of the living God doesn't see power in the same way Kristol does. But I suppose people disagree. I'm just glad that none of Jesus' followers are proposing that Kristol's views are Christian views...

...and then there was George W. Bush.

Bush apparently is blind (or indifferent) to the kind world that results from this America-centered peace, where what's good for the world is defined by what's good for us. So "US interests" become the higest authority in the world. And let's be totally honest... "US interests" often mean supporting dictatorships and facist regimes because they help suppress Unions and that helps Nike make some sneakers at a very very low cost. And that might just mean that this "American way of life" of buying Nikes cheaper than we might otherwise will continue... but I'll take more expensive gas and sneakers over raping the rest of the world any day.

And while my cynicism about Bush grows daily, Wallis is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, saying, "I don't doubt that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and deeply held. The real question is the content and meaning of that faith and how it impacts his administration's domestic and foriegn policies." While Bush talks about God a LOT, where does it effect his foriegn policy? Wallis conintues... "The real theological question about George W. Bush was whether he would make the pilgramage from being essentially a self-help Methodist to a social-reform Methodist... Would Bush's God of the twelve-step program also become the God who required social justice and challenged the status quo of the wealthy and powerful, the God of whom the biblical prophets spoke?"

Short answer... not yet, that's for sure.

Wallis says, "The self-help Methodist slowly became a messianic Calvinist, promoting America's mission to "rid the world of evil."

I think that Wallis' paragraph treatment of Bush's "God of the 12-step program" let him off way to easy. Folks... listen to the man. What has Bush ever said about God that couldn't be some generalized "higher power" that you'll find in any AA meeting? Where is the specific, peculiar faith of Christianity? And is it any surprise that the majority of conservative Christians don't pick up on this? Many if not most Christians in America today traded in the Christian faith for American Civil Religion a long time ago, so Bush's bland relgious rhetoric that never challenges the GOP status quo, and always pays homage to "America, Freedom and Liberty" never raises an eyebrow among the religious right.

While the neo-cons, Bush included, have some crooked post-modern symptoms (the truth is defined as what benefits their cause, they don't have to surpress dissent they just attack the foundation of anything that would criticise them), they show their modernist mindset in the absolute refusal to link any foriegn policy with the fundamentalist faith they proclaim. Bush can be against abortion because of his "deeply held faith," but the war in Iraq has nothing to do with God or Christianity, it's about bigger things, like "freedom, liberty and oil." And at least they're smart enough to know that this war could never be called anything remotely close to Christian... but they show that this private/public dichotomy is stronger than ever. Now this honestly probably has more to do with getting votes than anything else, as they see the so-called "private" issues as easy ways to turn out voters, while requiring very very little of them policy-wise.

Now... what the Bushies won't do (call this war an expression of their submission to Jesus Christ), all to many Christians will do for them (Jean Elshtain, Richard Land, etc.).

Language

A lot of people rightly point out the unfamiliarity with scripture that many Democrats like Gore and Dean seem to have when they stuck their feet in their mouths trying to look good for the evangelicals (ps-I think Kerry was very eloquent however), their error was just plain ignorance, whereas Bush's has been deliberate mutilation.

In his state of the union address "Bush said, 'The need is great. Yet there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.' But that's not what the song is about. The hymn says there is 'power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb.' The Evangelical hymn is about the power of Christ in salvation, not the power of the American people, or any people, or any country. (p. 142)"

Wallis continues, at Ellis Island Bush said, "This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind....That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it." Wallis points out that the "last two sentances are straight out of John's gospel....But again, the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God and the light of Christ. It's not about America and its values. Even his favorite hymn, 'A Charge to Keep,' speaks of that charge as 'a God to glorify,' not to 'do everything we can to protect the American homeland,' as Bush has named our charge to keep. Bush seems to make this mistake over and over again of confusing nation, church, and God. The resulting theology is more an American civil religion than Chrisitan faith."

oh there's more...

On page 143 Wallis says, "to fail to speak of evil in the world today is to engage in bad theology. But to speak of 'them' being evil and 'us' being good, that evil is all out there and that in the warfare between good and evil others are either with us or against us, is also bad theology. Unfortunately, it has become the Bush theology." For this alone, Christians in America should have been all over Bush. The idea that we are good and that good is on our side seems to me to fly in the face of all serious theology, and any denomonation... even the Southern Baptists are quick to tell you that you are not good, but are a sinner, evil and in need of redemption. This defining good as where we stand (and where we will stand tomorrow if we so choose to move) is quite idolatrous. Not to mention that it is GOD who rids the world of evil, not us (I'm guessing that even the Left Behind series, those books that most of you have seen fit only to use to clean up household spills... says that much).

And they call pacifists heretics! Pshaw!

Labels: Books, Civil Religion

permalink

I was emailed this today... it blew me away. After you read it ask yourself the question... what makes us so much different that we wouldn't also buy into such a thing?

Here’s the link: http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0403/et0403s7.html

And here’s the article itself:

When democracy failed: The warnings of history
by Thom Hartmann

This 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago: February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)


But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens. They claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.

His coarse use of language – reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state – and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.


Terrorism as a pretext

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion – “a sign from God,” he called it – to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation – in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it – that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.


“Patriotic” legislation

To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the antiterrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public – and there were many – quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a “racial pride” among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as “The Homeland,” a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie “Triumph Of The Will.” As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was “the” homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the “true people,” he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.


God is on our side

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a “New Christianity.” Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared “Gott Mit Uns” – God Is With Us – and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome “intellectuals” and “liberals.” He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.


Homeland secrity

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, “Radio and press are at out disposal.” Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people “denounced” were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out – a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.


Government and industry collusion

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.


War as a distraction

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man – a master at manipulating the media – he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe – at first – denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring “peace for our time.”

Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, “Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.”


Casting opposition as traitors

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only “one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief” (“Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled “anti-German” or “not good Germans,” and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the “intellectuals and liberals” who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the “small war” annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering. February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's “Man Of The Year.”

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named “lightning war” or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable “shock and awe” among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book Shock And Awe published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: “fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced antitrust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including “Unequal Protection” and “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight.” This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Labels: Civil Religion, Politics

permalink