The Sanest Senator

Lugar, by a mile:

None of our witnesses last week claimed that the task in Iraq was simple or that the outcome would likely fulfill the ideal of a pluralist democratic nation closely aligned with the United States. All suggested that spoiling activities and the fissures in Iraqi society could undermine even the most well-designed efforts by the United States. Unless the United States is able to convert progress made thus far into a sustainable political accommodation that supports our long-term national security objectives in Iraq, this progress will have limited meaning. We cannot assume that sustaining some level of progress is enough to achieve success, especially when we know that current American troop levels in Iraq have to be reduced and spoiling forces will be at work in Iraq. We need a strategy that anticipates a political end game and employs every plausible means to achieve it.

Sadr’s Threat

The cease-fire is now very much in play, it seems:

"I call on the Iraqi government, if it exists, to work for the protection of the Iraqi people, stop the bloodshed and the abuse of its honor," said al-Sadr, who faces an ultimatum by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to either disband his Mahdi Army or give up politics.

"If the public interest dictates the lifting of the freeze to achieve our goals, beliefs, religion, principles and patriotism we shall do that later," he said…

Using typical rhetoric to refer to U.S. forces, al-Sadr said the government should "protect the Iraqi people from the booby traps and American militias" and "demand the withdrawal of the occupier or a schedule for its withdrawal from our holy land."

But he called off a "million-man march."

Casey, Christianism, Christianity

The senator from Pennsylvania:

I do think there’s a difference between what a religious leader says and does and what a public official or legislator does. But there’s no question that a lot of our legal underpinnings find a good bit of their foundations in the Scriptures. Sometimes I as a public official turn to Scripture or hymns—especially hymns, because sometimes we Catholics don’t have the Scriptures memorized like we should—to help me explain a public policy position or an idea or to be able to articulate it better when you’re talking about justice or mercy or compassion. I use it more as a way to explain public policy than to say that the literal teaching of the Scriptures tells me which positions to take, which I think takes it too far. But there are plenty of people who disagree with that.

I know I’m a broken record, but explaining the personal religious or spiritual inspiration behind a political act, and making an argument for it on explicitly religious grounds, are critically separate issues in a secular society. I think it’s great that we discuss faith in public. God knows I always have. But when advancing political positions, it’s also critical to make a case that can appeal to citizens qua citizens, regardless of religious faith or none. That may include some grappling with religiously-based arguments, but it also means transcending them.