Sometimes, you want to tell the clergy--politely--to spend its time dealing with some of its more pressing problems as opposed to pontificating on things it obviously doesn't understand and cannot control.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.
Really? Worse than the way Britain treated its American colonies, for example? Worse than the abuses which led directly to our third amendment or the Boston Tea Party?
Oh, the Archbishop wasn't talking about the way the British treated us. He was talking about India.
He contrasted it unfavourably with how the British Empire governed India. “It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did — in India, for example.
“It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together — Iraq, for example.”
Oddly enough, I don't recall President Bush ever suggesting that we would use "a quick burst of violent action" and then "move on." I hardly think the trillions we've spent in rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure can be accurately characterized as "moving on" and letting "other people" put the country back together again.
Oddly enough, if the Archbishop had spent his time dealing with the impending split in his own church, he might not stand accused of waiting for "other people" to put it back together again.
|