A Christian view of war

[RandomGuy]

(Yahoo news opinion piece


A Christian view of war
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
Mon Sep 18, 6:52 AM ET

"Pray for our troops."
Millions of signs and bumper stickers carry the message, and part of me likes it. But part of me keeps waiting for another bumper sticker - the one I still haven't seen. Whether Jesus would drive an SUV, I'm still not sure. Truth is he'd probably ride the bus. Or the subway. But if he had money for a car and didn't give it all away to the hookers and the homeless before he got to the used-car lot, I'm pretty sure that his bumper sticker would say "pray for our enemies."


Before you write me off as a left-wing crackpot, consider what we know. During his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said three things relevant to the subject of war:


• Blessed are the peacemakers.


• Turn the other cheek.


• Pray for your enemies.


Here's something else we know. Three-quarters of the U.S. population consider themselves Christian. That translates into about 224 million Americans.


So why are so few of us taking the teachings of Jesus seriously when it comes to this latest war? Out here in the heartland, only a handful of churches are even talking about it.


Christian obligations


The most plausible explanation is that we're scared. Some things, it seems, may trump religion. Fear is one of them. If Christians are afraid (and who could blame them after 9/11?), it's not surprising that they're listening to other voices besides Jesus' when it comes to the war in Iraq. So what should the three-fourths of Americans who identify themselves as "Christian" make of the Iraq war?


We could spend a lot of time debating whether St. Augustine's "Just War Theory" can be stretched to accommodate our invasion of Iraq, but at this late date it really doesn't matter. We invaded. And, if the Just War Theory means anything, it means that we shouldn't leave Iraq in a bigger mess than we found it. Americans of faith, it would seem, are obligated to do at least the following:


• Express concern for all suffering, including that of our enemies. That means more than paying lip service. As James, the brother of Jesus, said, it does not suffice to tell a hungry man "God bless you!" or "We will pray for you!" We must address his hunger. The same can be said for the additional food, health care, police and countless other things the Iraqi people need. And, though an immediate withdrawal would be precipitous, we must work diligently to respond to the Iraqis' desire that our troops leave as quickly as possible.


• Recommit ourselves to the fundamental principles of justice and human rights that have been a hallmark of our faith, as well as of our nation. That means no more secret prisons, no more secret trials and no more torture. America cannot resort to the worst practices of the Gulag (where citizens were declared "enemies of the state" and whisked away to Siberian work camps without the benefit of a fair trial or the assistance of counsel) and expect to be an accepted member of the world community, much less a leader of it.[text bolded for emphasis--RG]

• Repudiate the statements of any religious or political leader who suggests that America has a special claim on God. He may have a special claim on us, but we do not have a special claim on him. Our beloved nation is a civil state, not a religious one. There are no references to God in our Constitution. The only reference to religion - other than in the First Amendment - is found in Article VI, which proclaims that there will be no religious test for public office in the USA. The Founding Fathers gave us a secular state in which all religions are free to flourish or flounder on their own initiative without interference by the government. Those running around claiming we are "in the army of God" or slapping up copies of the Ten Commandments on government buildings threaten to turn us into the very sort of society we are fighting against in this new war.


• Force our elected officials to address the conditions that have given rise to global terrorism in the first place. Terrorism exists for a reason. One of those reasons is that our society has been far too unconcerned about the plight of Muslim people around the world. Why, for example, have we not instituted a mini-Marshall Plan for the millions of Palestinians who have often gone without adequate land, roads, hospitals and schools since the 1967 war with Israel? Corruption among Palestinian leaders has squandered billions in the past, but responsible partners on the ground can and must be found. Private foundations with a long history of engagement might be a good place to start.


Tackling terrorism's roots


We need not and should not repudiate our long-standing alliance with Israel to accomplish this. It's simply that our religious traditions teach us that to whom much is given, much is required. The irony, of course, is that it's in our best interest to relieve Palestinian suffering. True, some terrorist leaders come from affluent families and cite Western worldliness and decadence as their motivation for jihad, but the economic factor cannot be ignored. There is no better recruiting ground for the troops of terror than the maddening monotony and grinding poverty of a refugee camp.


In ancient times, particular gods were associated with particular nations. "Tribal deities," we call them. Today we know better. God is not the mascot of Republicans, Democrats or, for that matter, Americans. God transcends all national and political affiliations. His precinct is the universe.

America is in the deep woods. Never have we been less popular in the eyes of the world. Never have we faced so unsettling an enemy. But before we circle the wagons, Christians should get serious about following the teachings of the one by whose name we are called. He might just know the way out.

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a minister in Tennessee and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).

Good op-ed piece.

[Phenomanul]

I could agree with about 95% of the content but the other 5% is not as simple as the author makes it out to be.....

[RandomGuy]

I could agree with about 95% of the content but the other 5% is not as simple as the author makes it out to be.....

In what way?

[boutons_]

"principles of justice and human rights"

ideas total alien to Repug leadership and the sheeple they depend for votes.

[RandomGuy]

"principles of justice and human rights"

ideas total alien to Repug leadership and the sheeple they depend for votes.


Are you SURE you're not a 'bot? :lol

I do think that the GOP is not as "moral" as they would like us to believe, but I don't think they are *that* bad.

[boutons_]

RG, you're naive about the Repugs. They're much worse than you imagine. Just watch the truth come out about them as their ship sinks lower and finally disappears. All kinds of insiders will step forward to document how bad they are.

[RandomGuy]

RG, you're naive about the Repugs. They're much worse than you imagine. Just watch the truth come out about them as their ship sinks lower and finally disappears. All kinds of insiders will step forward to document how bad they are.

"how bad they are"?

What will these insiders reveal to us?

[Phenomanul]

In what way?


That the principles quoted in the article... "blessed are the 'peacemakers' (on an offnote this word has no aramaic offshoot), turn the other cheek, pray for your enemies." Were principles that addressed interpersonal relationships... not relationships between nations.

Or in this case, between a group of people who hate the very essence of the others existence; one that cannot reason with the ideals of freedom... Does this justify war??? Perhaps not. It does justify a defense which tries to keep this war out of our backyard. There is, however, no easy solution.

[boutons_]

"What will these insiders reveal to us?"

confirmation of all the lies many of have suspected since before Iraq, plus others we haven't heard, yet.

cronyism and incompetence at criminal levels

subversion of government functions and regulations.

etc, etc, etc.

[Zunni]

Bah! God sent Dubyah to us, he wants to kick ass, and that's good enough for me![/evangelicalsheeple]

[RandomGuy]

That the principles quoted in the article... "blessed are the 'peacemakers' (on an offnote this word has no aramaic offshoot), turn the other cheek, pray for your enemies." Were principles that addressed interpersonal relationships... not relationships between nations.

Or in this case, between a group of people who hate the very essence of the others existence; one that cannot reason with the ideals of freedom... Does this justify war??? Perhaps not. It does justify a defense which tries to keep this war out of our backyard. There is, however, no easy solution.

How can you differentiate ethics between a nation and a person? I would think that is something of a false dichotomy.

It is just as wrong for me to club my neighbor over the head and take his wallet as it is for a nation to conquer and colonize.

[Phenomanul]

How can you differentiate ethics between a nation and a person? I would think that is something of a false dichotomy.

It is just as wrong for me to club my neighbor over the head and take his wallet as it is for a nation to conquer and colonize.


Easy....

That I don't run a nation... I only run my life. And that's the case for 99.99999% of Americans.


Nations are more complicated.

[Ozzman]

Easy....

That I don't run a nation... I only run my life. And that's the case for 99.99999% of Americans.


Nations are more complicated.

as boutons would say "the REPUGS run your life, (inject long-worded insult here) "

[RandomGuy]

Easy....

That I don't run a nation... I only run my life. And that's the case for 99.99999% of Americans.


Nations are more complicated.

Heh, people are complicated too.

But in the end setting separate codes of ethics leads to an "ends justify the means" somewhere along the line.

It is just as wrong for me to torture somebody as it is for a government to do so though my, or anyone's actions, is it not?

[101A]

confirmation of all the lies many of have suspected ....plus others we haven't heard, yet.

cronyism and incompetence at criminal levels

subversion of government functions and regulations.

etc, etc, etc.

Which administration, exactly would this quote NOT work for?

Well, Carter's (except the incompetence part), but besides his?

[101A]

It is just as wrong for me to torture somebody as it is for a government to do so though my, or anyone's actions, is it not?

Yes, but it is the administrations position that no one has been tortured. SS Rice reiterated that this morning on NBC, several times.

[Phenomanul]

Heh, people are complicated too.

But in the end setting separate codes of ethics leads to an "ends justify the means" somewhere along the line.

It is just as wrong for me to torture somebody as it is for a government to do so though my, or anyone's actions, is it not?


Read my original response... I don't think anything justifies a war... at least not explicitly. We are, however, justified in our defense of the ideals of this country. Our right to exist without fear.

That 'big business' wants military contracts... that American companies want oil... that's a shame, and not justified interference. But that's not why America is at war.

As a people though, we have a right to keep these unreasonable, fanatical terrorists away from the U.S.; and if giving them a platform to do it halfway around the globe against our trained forces -- I'm for it. As far as the torture goes... I don't believe I've condoned it anywhere.

[boutons_]

"differentiate ethics between a nation and a person"

this book from the 30s addresses that question;

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Man-Immoral-Society-Theological/dp/customer-reviews/0664224741

[boutons_]

"Which administration"

It's true for all govt. So your retort is that these Repugs are shit because all govt is shit?

However, these Repugs, while still running for office, espouse an ideology that detests govt as illegitimate, fundamentally evil, and taxes as robbery. So why do the Repugs bother to run for govt office? To get their hands and the hands of their owners on those tax dollars.

The absence of policy, as distinct from politics, in dubya's administration is well known. The Repugs simply are not interested in governing, only in winning elections and holding power.

Career professionals have been driven to resign all across the govt as Repug political operatives and incompetent cronies fuck up every department.

An excellent Clinton FEMA buggered and neutered under the disaster known as DHS with the Katrina fuckup typifies the Repugs approach to anti-government.

The Repug's is a primitiive, cynical, murderous populism: "Governement is bad, and just watch us show had badly government can be (un)done and can be fucked up, proving our point".

One of the many hiddens motivations for the Iraq war was to run up 100s of $Bs in war expenses while cutting taxes with the objective being "to starve the (government) beast". The national debt is a poison pill for next (Democratic) govt to address, eg, by raising taxes, which of course will be pilloried by the Repugs.

All the while, the Repugs priority has been to enrich and protect the corps and super-rich.

The Social Security administation is run very efficiently (overhead as %age of funds managed) but the Repugs wanted to privatize, stuffing 100s of $Bs of fees into crooked finance industry, which is run to maximize their own revenues, rather than those of their clients.

The VA is another example of a huge govt success that is being starved by the Repugs.

etc, etc, etc.

[Extra Stout]

"differentiate ethics between a nation and a person"

this book from the 30s addresses that question;

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Man-Immoral-Society-Theological/dp/customer-reviews/0664224741
Thanks for the link. I just ordered that book and The Nature and Destiny of Man.

[clambake]

People believe Rice "just because she says so"?..................yikes.

[101A]

People believe Rice "just because she says so"?..................yikes.

Nobody said that; but also, nobody has any definitive evidence that torture has taken place. Anecdotal and presumed, and conventional wisdom now says it is so; but conventional wisdom 3 months ago had Karl Rove behind the Plame leak, and doing time...

[clambake]

Ask Pat Tillman if they try to supress the truth.

[101A]

Ask Pat Tillman if they try to supress the truth.

...and how did the Tillman case work out? Again, the assumption that the United States is torturing Al Queda, and other suspected terrorists is, at this time, still an assumption. I am merely pointing out the adminstration still denies it has, and no one has proven otherwise.

[clambake]

I don't have a problem with torture. I have a problem empty words barren of credibility.

[101A]

I don't have a problem with torture. I have a problem empty words barren of credibility.

Interesting. I have a problem with torture.

[Extra Stout]

Interesting. I have a problem with torture.
What, then, do you think about the tactics the military already admits to having used, such as

--Open-handed blows to the abdomen, meant to inflict severe pain without significant damage.

--Leaving prisoners naked for several hours in rooms kept at 50 degrees F.

-- Using the "waterboard" technique to induce a constant gag reflex (KSM only held up for 2 1/2 minutes under this technique).

The Administration says that none of these qualify as torture because they don't cause lasting physical harm. What do you think?

[clambake]

Do you believe that name, rank, and serial number are sufficient?

What do you suggest that might be affective?

[101A]

What, then, do you think about the tactics the military already admits to having used, such as

--Open-handed blows to the abdomen, meant to inflict severe pain without significant damage.

--Leaving prisoners naked for several hours in rooms kept at 50 degrees F.

-- Using the "waterboard" technique to induce a constant gag reflex (KSM only held up for 2 1/2 minutes under this technique).

The Administration says that none of these qualify as torture because they don't cause lasting physical harm. What do you think?

Honestly, I have a problem with our government utilizing any of those techniques, whether they be "torture" under the letter of the law or not. It would be good if we were above board on all questions of human's rights.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, but it is the administrations position that no one has been tortured. SS Rice reiterated that this morning on NBC, several times.

:lol

I guess if you can define torture in such a way as to exclude what common sense would call torture, then she is right.

Then there is the small matter of our government handing people over to governments that we KNOW will torture them.

Those cases make us just as culpable.

[Extra Stout]

Honestly, I have a problem with our government utilizing any of those techniques, whether they be "torture" under the letter of the law or not. It would be good if we were above board on all questions of human's rights.
What is the determining factor of what is torture? Is it what U.S. law defines to be torture?

[RandomGuy]

Read my original response... I don't think anything justifies a war... at least not explicitly. We are, however, justified in our defense of the ideals of this country. Our right to exist without fear.

That 'big business' wants military contracts... that American companies want oil... that's a shame, and not justified interference. But that's not why America is at war.

As a people though, we have a right to keep these unreasonable, fanatical terrorists away from the U.S.; and if giving them a platform to do it halfway around the globe against our trained forces -- I'm for it.

I agree we have, as any nation does, a right to self-defense. I think that right to self defense does not extend to immoral behavior. As long as we agree on the torture bit, and that our administration is unethical in attempting to do so, or condoning it when others do it, we can let that bit alone.

That said, Iraq has/had nothing to do with fighting terror. We aren't "fighting terror" by being there, we are helping it.

I am not one of the "oil conspiracy" crowd. I am of the "Iraq was a mistake compounded by incompetence" crowd.

You say that Iraq is a good "platform" for fighting those who despise us. Here is a question: If we end up creating more people who despise us by using this platform, are we not harming our cause of self-defense?

[RandomGuy]

Do you believe that name, rank, and serial number are sufficient?

What do you suggest that might be affective?

Interrogation does not equal torture. From what I am given to understand, the most effective techniques have little to do with physical pain. I would welcome anybody to correct this understanding with hard data to the contrary. Even were it the case, I still would not want it done to protect me or my family.

[101A]

What is the determining factor of what is torture? Is it what U.S. law defines to be torture?


How is the saying? "I can't define torture (sic.), but I know it when I see it".

[Phenomanul]

I agree we have, as any nation does, a right to self-defense. I think that right to self defense does not extend to immoral behavior. As long as we agree on the torture bit, and that our administration is unethical in attempting to do so, or condoning it when others do it, we can let that bit alone.

That said, Iraq has/had nothing to do with fighting terror. We aren't "fighting terror" by being there, we are helping it.

I am not one of the "oil conspiracy" crowd. I am of the "Iraq was a mistake compounded by incompetence" crowd.

You say that Iraq is a good "platform" for fighting those who despise us. Here is a question: If we end up creating more people who despise us by using this platform, are we not harming our cause of self-defense?

The verdict is yet to be out on that one... but Muslims hardly needed any other reason to hate America... they have been hating western culture for centuries....

[Extra Stout]

You say that Iraq is a good "platform" for fighting those who despise us. Here is a question: If we end up creating more people who despise us by using this platform, are we not harming our cause of self-defense?
In a generally good post, I have to take issue with this.

By doing anything whatsoever, the U.S. is going to cause more people to hate us, because the people who are prone to hate us do not evaluate things rationally.

[101A]

... because the people who are prone to hate us do not evaluate things rationally.

You're talking about Boutons now, right?

[Crookshanks]

You're talking about Boutons now, right?

:lol :lol :lol

[Sec24Row7]

Christians stopped taking pacificm seriously as soon as Constantine Converted. They stopped getting their asses kicked all over the place, crawled out of their catacombs and caves and started doing the ass kicking.

[RandomGuy]

In a generally good post, I have to take issue with this.

By doing anything whatsoever, the U.S. is going to cause more people to hate us, because the people who are prone to hate us do not evaluate things rationally.

I disagree. Those who are prone to hate us will do so regardless. The people we need to reach are the ones sitting closer to the border.

If we were to start doing things like things like funding schools, building roads, improving water supplies, etc. Those things are the kinds of things that make it much harder to believe bad publicity.

Argh. Gotta go, more on this later.

[Extra Stout]

I disagree. Those who are prone to hate us will do so regardless. The people we need to reach are the ones sitting closer to the border.

If we were to start doing things like things like funding schools, building roads, improving water supplies, etc. Those things are the kinds of things that make it much harder to believe bad publicity.

Argh. Gotta go, more on this later.
You make it sound as if we would just send over some more foreign aid, there would be more schools, roads, and other infrastructure, rather than the corrupt governments just stealing it.

[RandomGuy]

The verdict is yet to be out on that one... but Muslims hardly needed any other reason to hate America... they have been hating western culture for centuries....

"Muslims"

You say that as if the whole billion of them are one monolithic collective brain with one unified opinion. Is that what you think?

I would be willing to guess that you have said the following at some point:

"Islam is a violent religion"

Have you ever really gotten to know any muslims personally? or is this something you have soaked up without doing any critical thinking about?

[Phenomanul]

"Muslims"

You say that as if the whole billion of them are one monolithic collective brain with one unified opinion. Is that what you think?

I would be willing to guess that you have said the following at some point:

"Islam is a violent religion"

Have you ever really gotten to know any muslims personally? or is this something you have soaked up without doing any critical thinking about?


Forgive me for forgetting the 'radical' adjective....

You are a quick pouncer....

Anyway, my 3 best friends from MIT were all muslim. So much in fact that people thought I was muslim.....

[RandomGuy]

Forgive me for forgetting the 'radical' adjective....

You are a quick pouncer....

Anyway, my 3 best friends from MIT were all muslim. So much in fact that people thought I was muslim.....

You have my unreserved apologies then. I am sorry for having jumped to the wrong conclusion.