Reading the news today I was struck by a BBC report concerning the UN Food conference currently going on in Rome. Robert Mugabe, in a speech to the council, apparently attacked US President Bush and UK Prime Minister Blair concerning farm price subsidies and nation building, to name just a couple of things. What struck me most, however, was a quote from Mugabe concerning “nation building”:

“The voice of Mr Bush and the voice of Mr Blair can’t decide who shall rule in Zimbabwe, who shall rule in Africa, who shall rule in Asia, who shall rule in Venezuela, who shall rule in Iran, who shall rule in Iraq.”

This is a most interesting quote considering the current US policy. If the Downing Street memos are true, then Bush didn’t make the decision to go into Iraq because of WMDs, but perhaps for more “selfish” reasons (and by selfish, I mean something like securing the US against terrorist attacks sponsored by the Iraqi government). The same sort of policy was fostered towards Afghanistan. We continue to levy heavy embargos against North Korea and Iran because they do not accede to our demands. Is this diplomacy? Or is this economic imperialism?

I haven’t made up my mind about it. I see the pros and cons on both sides. If the US is committed to justice, then it would seem that we want to promote that justice all over the world. But is that our right? The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe doctrine comes to mind; but are we going to limit ourselves to the Americas anymore? Are we looking at the Bush Corollary to the Roosevelt Doctrine now?

And even if that is our right, are our intentions really that pure? I hate to bring the Rumsfeld “coincidence” into play here, but Halliburton has made a lot of money through uncontested government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilding (or just building) infrastructure. Are we still out for “filthy lucre” under the guise of “spreading democracy”? I hate to think that our foreign policy is really so twisted, but what of it?

But now I need to hear the conversation. Comments are highly coveted.

Personally, I am not usually one to write my Senators and Representatives. I have often thought that my voice was insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and that lobbyists hold significantly more sway than my one letter or e-mail. But there was one issue in the past year that I was moved to write about: defining the rights of detainees. I was horrified to learn that the US Government was refusing to grant the Guantanamo Bay detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq the rights of the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration said something like this, according to the Associate Press: “The administration has asserted that al Qaeda prisoners are not entitled to Geneva protections because they are not lawful combatants, although the White House has said such prisoners should be treated as if the Geneva Conventions apply.”

But today, it seems that my letter and the letters of others have actually made a difference in Washington. Senator John McCain and others have passed a Senate bill that clearly defines the treatment of prisoners, in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

I applaud them, and pray that the House will be able to muster the support that the bill needs.

The White House, however, is threatening to veto the bill. From the AP: White House spokesman Scott McClellan objected that the measure would “limit the president’s ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism.”

Just what exactly does “effectively” mean in this instance? Does the fact that some of these suspects may be terrorists give the Bush administration the right to commit human rights violations? I think not. If regular means of interrogation will not work, we cannot lower ourselves to torture. If we claim to be on the side of justice and liberation, we must stand for these things even in the midst of difficult times. It is not right for us to take out our national frustration on prisoners that have not been tried in a court of law. It is not right for us to blatantly disregard our fellow nations and the treaties we have negotiated with them. It is not right.

What is right? Treating our enemies with dignity. Striving for justice in all things, not simply vengeance. I pray that this may come about through the Senate proceedings, and I pray that the House and the White House will have the courage to act correctly.

I was recently watching one of those late-night televangelist broadcasts, featuring an attractive older man standing in front of what looked to be thousands of people, all desperately waiting on his every word. After a short introduction, he brought out a guest, namely, Jordan S. Rubin, creator of “The Maker’s Diet” (www.makersdiet.com). As Mr. Rubin would go on to explain, there are certain foods that are Biblically mandated for a healthy lifestyle, and others that are specifically forbidden. Things such as shellfish and pork, clearly outlined as off-limits in Leviticus, are only harmful to the body. Other foods like figs, olive oil, and wine are mentioned positively, and are thus beneficial to the body. Now, I have no desire to debate the differences between Israel and the Church, argue the particular relevancy of the Old Covenant within the New, or follow any of the other numerous possible tangents. And to be quite honest, I don’t particularly care if the diet works or not.

What really upsets me is the fact that God is being used to market a product. Christian beliefs about the Bible are being manipulated to sell copies of a diet plan.

It’s not like this is a wholly unknown phenomenon. Who profited from the WWJD phenomenon? I’m willing to bet it wasn’t the local churches. Who makes the popular car attachments shaped like fish? I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet they make out alright. This, however, is something slightly different, and something far worse. In fact, I think this is really insidious. The Maker’s Diet says, in effect, that God has created some food to be eaten, and eaten properly, and it is Christian duty to abide by these rules. If a person truly believes in the Bible, and believes that what the Bible says is true, then he or she should be following The Maker’s Diet. This goes far beyond bumper-sticker faith proclamation. This deals with moral responsibility, with pleasing God, and with interpreting the sacred texts of our tradition. Perhaps the plan works, perhaps is doesn’t. That’s not the point. The point is that Christians are being manipulated and guilt-tripped into buying this book. I, for one, am sickened.