Is it possible that this nation today has reaped in its foreign policy what earlier was sown by its materialistic, consumer economy?

That question is prompted by last week’s congressional endorsement of President Bush’s request to invade Iraq and overthrow its government. That approval was noteworthy for two things: the haste by which it was accomplished and the unilateral power taken to itself by the United States.

We must have this authority now. We must act before the November election. This country will act alone if it so wishes.

“You deserve a break today” ..... “Have it your way”...”All of the pleasure, none of the guilt” “No rules” “Because you’re you.”

To those familiar phrases used for two decades and more, to sell hamburgers, soft drinks and beer, add the “don’t wait” “instant credit” “take it home today” encouragements to instant gratification.

This is not to be facetious. A good percentage of the populace has known nothing but that line of thought. There are enough people now in their 40s and 50s who have been exposed to that to believe it and internalize it.

There has been concern for years among ethicists that such advertising was turning us into a nation of consumers, satisfied by having, holding, consuming. But when it is so inculcated that it clouds critical thinking, it is more serious.

So what does this have to do with religion?

Christianity imposes an obligation upon its believers, an imperative to have a preferential option for life.

It is safe to say that Christianity has bias toward sanctity of life, a respect for life and conversely, it has a prejudice toward ending it unnaturally - such as by war.

Thus, to make the case to interfere with and/or end life must overcome a large burden. This is not to be done by bumper stickers

The self centered, individualistic slogans dull the senses and soften the critical judgement. It is one thing when it refers to material goods substituting for the transcendental, another when it refers to the area of life and death.

Every Christian has an obligation to come to a reasoned, moral decision. The clarion call to battle resonates with the echoes of Madison Ave slogans. Will Big Mac cause war? No, but it produces a mind set of uncritical receptivity.

History is filled with tragedies of thoughtless adventures.

A decision to pre-emptively attack another country is a moral one and it is an individual one which can’t be delegated. Is “I want it now,” “I want it my way” sufficient reasons for such a grave act?

We can not escape the responsibility that moral decision-making is done by hard thinking, not by slogans and spin.

--- SMK