Pilate and Barabbas Haiku

The Emperor's man
high fived the insurrectionist
when he set him free.

The rebel partnered
with the Emperor's guy
to get the job done.

Pilate and Barabbas
had a bonding moment that day,
but they died alone.

Pilate and Barabbas:
One has it, the other wants it.
until they're dead.

Pilate and Barabbas:
one king of the crap hill, the
other climbing up.

Barabbas and his Twin, Pilate

As recorded in the Gospels in the New Testament Bible, Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect in Judea, gave the crowd the option of freeing Barabbas, a bandit and criminal, or Jesus.  The crowd demanded release of Barabbas, and Pilate acquiesced in the crowd's judgment and set Barabbas free.

But who was Barabbas? His name means "Son of the Father," which was the appellation that Jesus had given for himself.  This is a huge hint that readers and listeners are supposed to contrast the two. Jesus, who was blameless, was condemned, and the other "Son of the Father" was shown undeserving mercy.

Pilate is also an obvious foil to Jesus.  One is the representative of an earthly kingdom, the other a representative of God's kingdom.  One can and does kill to get his way, the other turns the other cheek.  One is justice incarnate, the other the perpetrator of gross injustice.

But do the Gospels also tell us something about the relationship between these two foils of Jesus, Barabbas and Pilate?  Some more detail on Barabbas is in order.  He was not any ordinary criminal.  He was involved in a riot, or rebellion, and was an insurrectionary, one who likely killed Romans and their collaborators.  So the unjust prefect of Rome set free the violent revolutionary, and played their roles in the execution of Jesus.  I wonder if the two shook hands, or perhaps winked at each other.  As John Crossan, a very smart biblical scholar, has asked, "What was a bandit but an emperor on the make, what was an emperor but a bandit on the throne?"   Yes, the bandit is the emperor.

Once this insight sunk in, these two started showing up everywhere.  He's the drug kingpin in Mexico who battles the federal army and tries to control streets in Chicago.  He is the bloody dictator of the Soviet Union who started out robbing banks to finance the revolution.  He is the signer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence who was wanted by the British for smuggling.  He is the police anti-gang squad that under color of law participated in unprovoked shootings and beatings, planting of false evidence, framing of suspects, stealing, dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury and covering up of evidence.

I don't know whether all the sinners are saints, but it seems to me that all the Pilates were Barabbases.

Letter to Congress Member Judy Chu on Syria

Dear Congressmember Chu:

I am a long term resident of Pasadena and your constituent.  President Obama will be seeking authorization for a military response to the chemical weapon attack in Syria.  I am writing to express my view on this subject as your constituent.

Syria is embroiled in a civil war, with the Assad regime and allies Hezbollah and Iran pitted against rebel groups.  On August 21, 2013, the Government is alleged to have used chemical weapons, which resulted in the death of 1429 civilians, 429 of whom are children.  President Obama initially vowed retaliation for this outrage, but has now decided to seek authorization from Congress for military action.

I don't this country can or should use the military to punish another government, as President Obama initially suggested.  Punishment is tricky enough to get right with an individual.  It requires a trial to prove up a violation of law and then a judge to fashion an proportionate sentence.  I don't see how there can be a parallel in foreign relations.  We cannot try and convict the Assad regime and there is no way to ensure the punishment will be visited on the guilty parties and not bystanders.

There are some politicians who are against US involvement unless our national interest are at stake.  I think this standard is wrong.  It is both too narrow and too broad. I don't think all wars in the perceived national interest are justified.  The Mexican American war and various military actions against Native Americans in the 19th Century were in a sense in the national interest because they increased the geographical size of the US  or wealth of the US, but I don't think that makes the wars right.  The standard is also too narrow in the sense that what is the US national interest cannot be the sole determining factor for involvement with and in the affairs of foreign countries. Interests of people outside the US are important and should also be considered.  The "national interest" standard is wrong because it is just too selfish. 

I would instead agree that self-defense is way to justify to foreign involvement.  Is the US threatened by the chemical attack in Syria?  I don't think so.  There is no direct threat on Americans or American interests related to this chemical attack.  There are some who would say US credibility and prestige are at stake, and if the US does not respond than its position in the world will be diminished and its voice ignored.  I don't buy this.  It is the excuse used to continue or initiate bad wars historically, such as Vietnam. 

Then there is the humanitarian justification.  Wrongs anywhere in the world are the business of the United States.  I agree that the US should concern itself with the welfare of others.  People have the same value and dignity regardless of nationality.  However, dropping more bombs on Syria will not right the wrong, or make anyone safer.  Soldiers will die, but more children will die too.  It will just heap atrocity upon atrocity and injustice upon injustice and it will reinforce the perception in this part of the world that the US hates Muslims.

Syria has a population just north of 20 million.  Instead of contributing to the misery of the people in this country and possibly the creation of another failed state, perhaps the US can help those still in harm's way.   Why cannot the US simply provide shelter to some portion of the non-combatants in this country who can make it out safely, and encourage other nations to do the same?  Would Assad allies Russia and China oppose resolutions in the UN that all member countries pledge to take in refugees, or even to provide safe passage out of Syria?  The US will do this and take other similar measures if it truly wishes to help the people in this country and live up to its highest ideals.