Comments on: Bush Library, Policy Center at SMU?

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:18:29 +0000

If you are a reasonable, thinking person with serious and objective concerns about the “Bush Library on SMU campus” issue (and I realize there are such people, but I think the vast majority of those who have concerns are simply politically-motivated), then the person you should talk to or email is our bishop, Scott Jones, whose blogroll is on here. He’s a reasonable, thinking person; he’s objective; and he’s absolutely brilliant. More importantly, unlike most people who talk about this issue, he actually knows and understands what’s going on, including the process undertaken. We should be very proud to have such fine leadership on this issue, whether you agree with the ultimate decision or not.

By: Wesleyite

Wesleyite — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:36:05 +0000

Another thing to consider is that SMU, while owned by the conference there, and obviously having “Methodist” in its name is not what you would call a “Christian” school anymore. The school has great academics but there are many kids who go there who have nothing of a personal faith in Jesus Christ. There is also plenty going on with students there that would be labeled “unchristian”. To start pulling the “Methodist card” now after letting SMU fall away as a true Methodist Christian school seems a bit hypocritical.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:09:04 +0000

Canopus, you are right about this. I’ve just picked up a new book called “unchristian” published by the Barna Group about the way young adults look at Christianity today and their reaction to the religious right. Both my sermons on Seeing Gray and an upcoming book I’ve written on this subject are in large part an attempt to articulate the gospel in a way that is unchained from the religious right - able to appreciate how they arose and why; but also able to offer an alternative to it (and to its opposite, the religious left). Thanks for the link!

By: Canopus

Canopus — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:59:39 +0000

I heard an interesting podcast the other day … it was Talk of the Nation from March 3. “The Religious Right Hits Soul-Searching Times.” It said that a new poll on Beliefnet has indicated that the association of Christianity with certain ideals held by the religious right (I am not talking about abortion here…but social issues concerning poverty and foreign policy issues) have caused people to turn “off” on Christianity and that many religious leaders were having second thoughts about where to go from here because of this. Here is the article the show referenced: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202383.html

By: Believer

Believer — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:10:43 +0000

Religion and politics is a bad mix. When the Christian Right agreed to be so closely identified with right wing Republicans, mainstream Christians became lost in the distinction.

Many people looking for God were turned off by the failed policies of the George W. Bush administration and others are leaving the church because of it. With the Bush Library/Think Tank at SMU, it is only logical for them to associate United Methodists with Bush policy.

Iraq War, Lies, Corruption, Torture, Tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. These are Bush policies. Both parties are guilty of many of the same mistakes. However, it is Bush that says the Religious community is his base supporters. I strongly feel Christians should distance ourselves from all politics. I am not saying we should not vote, but that we should not -as a group - endorse one politician/party over the other. Including the SMU/Bush partnership.

My son opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. Now, he no longer wants to be part of the Christian community and says he lost faith in God. You have no idea how many tears I have shed.

How many soldiers lost in Iraq?
How many souls lost here at home?

By: Northstar

Northstar — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:19:40 +0000

Thank you Pastor Hamilton for the level of detail in your response. You ask if I believed there was an imminent threat of attack by Iraq? I did not get that far. I did not feel qualified to judge CIA intelligence. I tried, but ultimately I had to throw in the towel. But, I did feel those in positions of authority were more than qualified and I had faith in their judgements, Bush, Powell, Congress ect. Much the same as I have faith in YOU as a pastor and a leader. I don’t always agree with you, but I trust you and that is more important. A lack of trust brings everything into question. So thank you again for clarifing your position.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:10:27 +0000

Thanks, Northstar, for a perceptive question. In some ways I consider this a matter of semantics and believe it is difficult to legitimately differentiate between these two terms. Some use them as you have suggested. Others do not. As you have noted, some define preemptive war as a legitimate use of force to pre-empt a real and imminent attack by an enemy. This requires a very high degree of certainty and supporting evidence if one will wage a preemptive war. To do so without this level of evidence and support opens the possibility of wrongly waging war. I am not suggesting that President Bush lied. I am suggesting that the level of evidence for an imminent attack was simply not present. In my opinion, nothing he claimed at the time before going to war indicated a clear danger of an imminent attack against the United States or our allies. Consequently, according to the use of the terms as commonly used, the Iraq War was a preventative (also called a preventive) war - a war waged to prevent a possible future threat. I believe President Bush has since acknowledged that there was no imminent danger of attack, only a danger that at some point in the future Iraq could have restarted their weapons program and, at that point, could have chosen to attack the United States (or give weapons to those who would). This possible threat does not meet the requirements of a justified preemptive war and thus the Iraq War would seem to better be characterized as a preventative or preventive war. Thanks for asking, Northstar. By the way, do you feel that there was a clear and imminent threat of attack by Iraq that justified our going to war?

By: Northstar

Northstar — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:35:34 +0000

Pastor Hamilton, did you mean to call Bush’s Iraq war policy preventative? Or did you mean preemptive? My understanding is that preventative war is considered aggression, which is against international law, whereas preemtive war is self-defense against a known future threat, which will render the enemy powerless to harm. So are you saying you do believe Bush lied, and didn’t really have the intelligence to prove a threat was eminent (ie WMD)? Making his Iraq war policy preventative and merely aggression against a “perceived” threat without evidence? I know that you don’t know for sure, but I do want to understand your point of view.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:19:15 +0000

I know Bush is not popular but he is the President. Like it or not he was elected twice. He has been at the helm over what will be very historic events. These events have had huge impacts on scores of people across the globe. There is lots of room about what kind of impact but that is for another column. These libraries are the focus of serious study of those events. If we as a country truly want to learn about these events we need to have this study. SMU is greatly facilitating this discussion by housing the library. Remember it is just a library, not an election headquarters. They all will get a stipend from the National Records Center. Those places will become Federal entities too.

I urge people to face the issues from the past eight years. Don’t try to silence discussion just because of your opinion of the past eight years. We all know how well sticking your head in the sand works for the ostriches of Africa.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:54:03 +0000

Great comments – thank you each for contributing to the discussion. Here are my thoughts as a United Methodist pastor, a graduate of SMU and someone who disagrees with President Bush’s policy regarding preventative war (the policy that gave justification of the Iraq War): 1. The library will be an asset to the university – whether you agree with President Bush’s politics or not. A presidential library represents an important archive of historical material which will draw scholars to the library, and to SMU. 2. I don’t believe the Board of Trustees at SMU will allow the “think tank” to negatively affect the university. To the degree that SMU hires outstanding political science, theology and ethics faculty, the presence of the think tank in geographic proximity to the university will likely promote vigorous debate and discussion of its policies, and it is just as likely to produce a reaction to them as it is to influence students to embrace these policies. In the market place of ideas the institute will have to demonstrate the superiority of its positions. 3. Looking at the Hoover Institute’s website (www.hoover.org), on which the Hoover Institute and Stanford University are clearly linked together, I think there is a danger that the policies of the “think tank” will be associated with SMU and it is important that SMU request that the name Southern Methodist University not be used in a way that would indicate that the actions or policies of the think tank are those of SMU. I think this can be done, but it would be helpful to see this spelled out. 4. I trust that President Turner, the Board of Trustees, and the Mission Council of the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church which includes several United Methodist bishops have all done their job. I don’t believe we want the General Conference nor the entire Jurisdictional Conference mircromanaging them. 5. I am probably more concerned about how some of the activities at the Greek houses might influence students at SMU as I am the think tank - we allow a host of groups to have access to our United Methodist college campuses whose values and activities might not be in keeping with our social principles. 6. Having said all of this, I believe it would have been wise to have had the “think tank” on property adjacent to the school, but not owned by the school. This would have avoided much of the controversy. That did not happen, and I trust that there were good reasons why it did not. In the end I think the presence of the library and think tank will promote serious reflection and healthy debate and response from both the seminary and the various other schools at SMU. I appreciate those of my colleagues and former professors who raised these questions - I think they are worth discussing. Thanks to all of you who offered your thoughts!