baltimoresun.com

« Warren 'vigorously condemns' Ugandan law | Main | Vatican, physicists to study origin of universe »

December 11, 2009

Palin praises Obama comments on war, evil

President Barack Obama won praise from a surprising admirer with his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peeace Prize: Sarah Palin.

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee tells USA Today that Obama's defense of war to combat "evil" -- for the use of which his predecessor took criticism -- could have been taken from her own memoir.

"Wow, that really sounded familiar," Palin tells USA Today's Kathy Kiely. "I talked, too, in my book about the fallen nature of man and why war is necessary at times."

The 2009 Nobel peace laureate devoted much of his speech Thursday speaking about war -- which he said was sometimes appropriate:

We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

Obama spoke at length also of religion, both as a catalyst of conflict and a corrective:

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Posted by Matthew Hay Brown at 11:56 AM | | Comments (4)
        

Comments

The more I review this speech, the more impressive it seems to me. The very first time I saw Obama, I knew he was a great man. His speech was impressive, but there's something about him that has the mark of greatness. I have benn annoyed with him of late, because I think we should get out of the Middle East, but I still respect him and he would still have my vote.

IS there a war starting?
I'm waiting for the cold war to start ? and .

"But I wont mention that Jesus guy. He is nothing special to me. As a matter of fact, I told them to cover up the crucifix in Georgetown. Most people dont seem to mind anyway. People say God sent Him as His Son. I dont see anything about that in the Muslim religion, so why should I worry about it? I did have to mention being a Christian during the elections, but I dont think most people care anyway. I did mention Dr. King. And now I get accolades for bringing all people of all religions together, as one nation, one world, to live in peace. This is great. I hope Iran isnt laughing."

I want only obama and theri gov. to stop praying and novody else too.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About Matthew Hay Brown
Matthew Hay Brown writes and blogs about faith and values in public and private life for The Baltimore Sun. A former Washington correspondent for the newspaper, he has long written about the intersection of religion and politics. He has reported from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, traveling most recently to Syria and Jordan to write about the Iraqi refugee crisis.
-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Most Recent Comments
Baltimore Sun coverage
Religion in the news
Charm City Current
Stay connected