During my vacation I have been trying to read a very disturbing book. I saw Ralph Peters on C-SPAN giving a speech to a military reservist organization and immediately ordered his latest book “Never Quit the Fight” (Stackpole Books). Usually I can work through a book like this in a couple of days, which includes doing a detailed underlining and note-taking process; however, after a couple of weeks, I’m still only 1/3rd of the way through. In fact, I was so disturbed by one of his chapters (“How to Defeat America”), that I had restless sleep and almost couldn’t continue. I have pressed on, though, and I am glad for it.
Peters is a brutally honest and straight-forward military historian and strategist who writes for the New York Post. His book is even-handed in its criticism of both the Left and Right in regard to the war on terror. He is particularly harsh in his criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of the post-Iraq war pacification process. The big insight, though, is Peters’ grand—almost philosophic—view of why we are even in a war with Islamic radicals. The chapter is titled “Simplification and Slaughter.” Speaking of simplification, I am going to attempt a simplification of his insights in order to ask a religious question.
Peters makes the point that, “Humankind has never before had to contend with the stubborn noncompetitiveness of a billion like-thinking people.” The problem as he sees it is that the central institutions of the Muslim faith virtually guarantee economic, cultural and military failure in the modern world. For instance, those many things that have allowed the developed states to succeed (i.e. laws minimizing corruption, scrupulous bookkeeping, rewarding by merit, tolerance for minorities, work as a virtue, painful self-criticism, greatly reduced nepotism, etc.) are absolutely “anathema” to the utopian belief of a re-established “Golden Age” of Islam which abandons secular forms of government in favor of Sharia theocracy.
The consequence of this is that there has been a fundamental shift in terrorism in the last 30 years. The liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s that used terrorism as a means to gain worldly, practical, political ends have been replaced by the new terrorism which is about “blood-soaked divinity” used by men who “claim that the finger of god has chosen them for vengeance” for which they will be rewarded in the next life. These new terrorists are apocalyptic and would rather destroy than build, “rather kill than redeem.” They are completely implacable. Therefore, “only ferocity works against such men,” so Peters believes.
Because Sharia Islam tends to guarantee economic, cultural and military failure in the modern world, there is a growing mass of disaffected Muslim men who are eagerly joining in the Jihadist mentality and methodology—apocalyptic terrorism. Consequently, Peters predicts that the struggle between Western civilization and Islamists will “endure beyond our lifetimes.”
If Peters is right; and, I think that each passing day tends to confirm his observations, then a serious question confronts Christian leaders. How do we respond? Does the fact that this world-wide threat presents itself as an aggressive anti-Christian religion cause us concern? If “only ferocity works against such men” how do Christians respond? Do we pray and hope for the best? Do we develop a just-war theory for postmodern apocalyptic terrorism? Do we hide-out and hope that Jesus returns---soon?
|
1ST) We pray that the HOLY SPIRIT in us will give us strength to fight all the evil around us and not to give into temptation of what is not of the LORD JESUS OUR SAVIOUR.
2ND) We spread the WORD of OUR LORD JESUS to the WHOLE WORLD, so everyone can know how to be ready when JESUS returns for the second time and takes us to the PROMISE LAND.
........Angel SA
That sounds nice in theory, but that won't solve the war on terror. The bible is not against war. And an evil such as the one we're dealing with MUST be stopped. I was listening to a radio program the other day, and they had a freshly retired Army captain on the program. After being over there since this thing started, serving in desert storm, and dealing with these terrorists while being stationed in the middle east in the 80's, the host asked him what he thought the solution was. This is what he said,... " There are only three kinds of people over there; terrorists, women who give birth to terrorists, and kids who grow up to be terrorists."
Now this was obviously an exaggeration. But not by much. I'm not saying we should blow up the whole middle east; but we definitely could take a harder stand than we have. During the Clinton administration when the U.S. embassies were bombed, Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility, and we sat back and did nothing. Then Bin Laden was quoted as saying," America does not have the stomach for another war." And they were right. It's time we realize that there is no reasoning with these fanatic ideologues.
Islamic Jihadists have carried out 5,512 terrorist attacks ( and counting ) since 9/11.
We are commanded to pray for our enemies. We are commanded to love our enemies. We are commanded to turn the other cheek.
I could go on and on, but the short version is, violence is just not acceptable for the Christian. Now, I think that things are different for political leaders, who must be internationally savvy. Does this mean that we should just le them run us down? Of course not. The Bible also tells us to be wise as serpents, and gentle as doves. Serpents don't just hang out during a stampede waiting to be trampled, and neither should we.
Look to the early church during open persecution by Rome. The gospel spread like wild fire during this persecution, but Christianity did not rise up in revolt. Even the stories in Acts show compassion for those who oppressed them. Wasn't it Peter who was freed from prison when the ground was shaken by the Lord, but he remained in his cell because of compassion for his guard.
If the politicians think ferocity is the only option, then let them persue it, but Christians should stick to what the Bible teaches, and what worked for the early church. There will be enough ferocity when the white rider comes bearing a sword.
This has been put other ways referring them the terrorist as "roaches" and the way to kill "roaches" is by "bug bombing." Always from people who have had complete knowledge and first hand fighting with the terrorists.
Christian wars have been bloody and cruel - I believe we are facing another in the near future. This is not only a war between Muslem terrorist and the world. It's a war between God and Satan and people better realize that fact. The is the real thing people - and whatever you need to be prepared - you better do it. No scare, just fact. - that is my opinion. It will only get worse.
Guns: actually, the new total of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 is…drum roll….5,652. The website: Islam: The Religion of Peace, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ keeps a daily total listing every attack and the number, place, gender, etc. of every single person who is killed by Jihadists. It is quite shocking.
On a positive note, it appears, according to an article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph that even Europeans are beginning to realize that the root of the international terrorist problem is a religious one. Here is a quote:
“The alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners and last year's terrorist attacks on London have made more people fear Islam as a religion, not merely its extremist elements, a poll for The Daily Telegraph has found.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4DFR5LHIYU0FNQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/25/nislam25.xml
What is it about Islam in this radical form that these young people find more attractive than Christianity?
What is about Christianity as presently expressed in our world that is so UNattractive to these young people who are attracted to Islam in its radical form?
Some military historians consider these two battles more important than any battle conducted by either Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar because of their great impact on preserving Christianity and Western Civilization. You may not be aware of this, but when Islam is established in a country by force or demographics, the population is converted to the Muslim faith and all other religions are severely suppressed. Check it out for yourself.
Although you did not respond to my comment - yourcomment confirms what I was saying that this Muslim radical "religion" is out to destroy everything Christian or any other belief than theirs. I have been unable to understand why any of the liberal media show any sympathy for them and their distruction or lifestyle they have brought upon themselves.
As they say, this is a "holy war" and death seems to be the only thing they understand or are rewarded for in their heaven. Christian people say we have God on our side, I agree, but should we just sit and wait for Him to appear on his white horse...I don't believe so. If we do they will "take" all we have including our lives and the life of all we hold dear. I can't believe that is God's wishes. What are your thought upon that?
That's the point that strikes me whenever I think about. 1683 is the middle of the Enlightenment, Newton is doing his best work, John Locke is a decade away from penning his treatises on government, and Islamic slave soldiers are attempting to batter their way into the middle of Europe, and would have succeeded if not for the now almost forgotten contribution of a Polish king.
After a typical internet diatribe about how awful the Crusaders were - they were all cannibals donchaknow - I attempted to locate some internet sites on Islamic atrocities and came up with essentially zero which stuck me as odd because we know they are out there. So, I picked up a book on Jihad over the ages by Dr. Andrew Bostom, who apparently is one of the few willing to handle the subject and I found that Muslem slave raids were occuring into the Ukraine and Poland well into the 18th - the 1730s and 1740s - century when tens of thousands of Christians were enslaved and taken back to the Ottomon empire!!
What I picked up from Dr. Bostrom's book is the historic Islamic approach to conquest. Typically, Islamic holy warriors or raiders would launch independent, non-state sponsored annual campaigns into adjacent non-muslem countries for booty, plunder, slaves and because those areas were Dar al Harb and so raiding was religiously encouraged. After years or decades of this predation, the adjacent state would be undermined and weakened and then a set piece battle of conquest would be fought with the Muslems usually wining. This was the recipe for Muslem expansion out of Arabia, into Asia Minor, into the Balkans and into Hungary. Typically, the raids - which netted thousands of slaves - would be viewed as annoyances by the non-muslem powers, who felt that taking on and rolling back the Islamic regional power to be too costly compared to the annoyance.
I think there is a parallel between those historical events and our modern situation.
On the other hand, I also think that the Muslem extremist we see today is a new post-modern type. Michael Hanby makes a persuasive case that the 9/11 suiciders were quintessentially post-modern: they drove fast cars, had all the women, went to night clubs and they were bored, nihilistic, empty. If that's the case, we don't have to fear a confident Islam; it's the empty culture of death that we have to fear in both its Western and Islamic forms.
Your commentary was quite complete and I found it fascinating. In all that I have read and all the commentaries I have heard have sum it up just as you did. Your statement "we don't have to fear a confident Islam; it's the empty culture of death that we have to fear in both its Western and Islamic forms" makes the point dramatically, I am sad to say.
Thanks for your comment.
Here's a problem: if Hanby is right, it may mean that the Bush doctrine is wrong, because the Western values we are exploiting are essentially without content. I'm a neo-conservative and a big believer in Western cultural values, but what our culture has defaulted into is a value set that lacks content. Things like tolerance, democracy and freedom have nothing to say about what is being tolerated, freely chosen or voted in democratically - those things could be really evil, like Hitler or Hamas. So, we wax lyrical about the mysery of life and how everyone has an equal right to choose their own paths as we permit the murder of the helpless.
The content that has to go into tolerance, democracy and freedom are things like respect for the human person, respect for the conscience of the individual insofar as the conscience is searching for truth and, ultimately, respect for the good, which means not respecting evil, such as pedophilia (there is now a Dutch pedophile party), infanticide (the Dutch - again - engage in it in exceptional cases) and encouraging people to kill themselves, generally or specifically with bombs attached to themselves. Those kinds of things - and logically correlated beliefs - are the content necessary to make essentially empty ideas like freedom, toleration and democracy.
Mark Shea has been aliennating his fellow conservatives with observations like this in discussing Bush's Second Inaugural address (which I support):
The only problem with this beautiful sentiment is that it is not so. German humans used their freedom to vote in Hitler. Hamas was democratically elected. The democracy of Lebanon supports Hezbollah. Newly freed citizens of Iraq are sinking into civil war as we speak. Iran threw off the Shah's tyranny in order to impose upon itself a merciless and draconian sharia. Afghanistan is heading the same way.
Mere freedom--increasingly understood in the West as the Imperial Autonomous Self without regard for God or the common good--cannot save. Indeed, it can often be the precursor to greater slavery.
According to the Church (particularly Veritatis Splendor) freedom must be used in service of the Truth and the Good. But questions of truth and goodness are no longer ones which we in the West much like to face because they are intractably religious questions.
So, perhaps one answer is not to shy away from the quinessentially religious discussion. How that happens, I'm not clear.
One thing is particularly clear - We no longer have the luxury of thinking that because we live in the United States of America that we are safe from all of the world’s problems. If that isn’t obvious with all this going on, I don’t know what is. People better be addressing something soon because others are investing in make their ideas lethal.
We have just concluded a discussion on how Christ transforms cultures through people. Sweet stuff. It seems we concluded that our US culture ain't doin' so hot. Have you heard how Islam describes the Western Christian, all of us as a whole? Some of it sounds pretty accurate to me.
All Chistians who believe Jesus Christ has warm feelings for the manner in which they live their lives are in for one hell...of a surprise. I speak of LDS, Protestant, and Catholic - everyone Christian.
"...the Western values we are exploiting are essentially without content. I'm a neo-conservative and a big believer in Western cultural values, but what our culture has defaulted into is a value set that lacks content. Things like tolerance, democracy and freedom have nothing to say about what is being tolerated, freely chosen or voted in democratically - those things could be really evil, like Hitler or Hamas. So, we wax lyrical about the mysery of life and how everyone has an equal right to choose their own paths as we permit the murder of the helpless."
I think the correct word in the first line is not 'exploiting' but
'exporting'. If you re-read the quote with my recommended change it is more powerful. And of course, all of this discussion appears to validate much of what I said earlier about the impotence of most American Evangelicalism because we have bought into what Neibuhr called the "Christ and Culture" paradigm. Radical muslims think we are corrupt culture worthy of destruction.
We look at this from the Christian perspective, and t is easy to say that something needs to be done about the Islamic problem. It is easy to show how Islam and Christianity have clashed in the past, a we can even make the case that Islam is the bad guy, but we are missing what the world is seeing.
I have been saying for years (since before 9-11) that Islamic terrorism will be the crucible that Christianity is burned in. The world is going to get sick of all faiths that hold one truth against others. The world, as a whole, will no longer tolerate these faiths unless they agree to accept all other belief systems. The end result will be, the wrold will begin to make it illegal to believe fundamental (aka traditional, aka orthodox, aka real) Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
Of course, I do not view this as a terribly bad thing. As I said, this is a crucible, and a crucible is a good thing. It makes iron useful, and is used to remove impurities. Historically, persecution of the church does the exact same thing.
Oh, and one more point. I agree with most of what Stealth had to say in his comment. I do think that the psuedoChristians of America are going to be judged by this, and they will be faced with a choice. Face judgement in this world, or face it in eternity. Unfortunately, most will likely choose eternity, but the good news is, many will hold to their faith, and miracles will increase, and then many more will believe. All of this is historical standard fare.
I think everyone is thinking about this way too hard. The bottom line is that these fascists will not stop unless they are utterly destroyed. They don't want to talk, they don't want to reason, they don't want a cease fire, and they don't want to convert. Their hearts have been hardened just like Pharaoh's, and they must be swallowed up, and annihilated just like the earth was in the flood.
These people hate everything Christianity and America stands for, and will stop at nothing to make this a Muslim world. If you really think that our "love for our neighbor," will stop this menace, you're dead wrong. Why don't you try to negotiate. God gave victories to his people in war countless times in the o.t. He hasn't changed. Now, Jew and gentile alike are his people. And I have faith that he will give us(Christians) victory no matter what.
We are not commanded to love our neighbor for our neighbor's sake, but rather our own. Read what you have written again. The interesting thing is, I bet Satan has made the same argument to God trying to get Him to destroy all of humanity.
I cannot sit in judgement saying that they deserve death. That is what they are doing with us. Further, when we sit in judgement, no matter how righteous, the rest of the world judges us. They will come to the exact same conclusion that you have come to regarding the Islamic terrorists.
Eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth results in a blind world gumming their mash.
Finally, I leave you with the words of Christ.
Matthew 5:38 You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (NIV)
Here is the crux of the matter. Do we choose to follow Christ at all cost or are we only willing to follow so far and then follow our own sense of justice when we have been wronged?
Let me share a story.
A little over two years ago my wife was working for a Christian company. A Christian publisher to be exact. She was in the shipping department. When she was pregnant with our frst, she ended up on limited activity, and they worked around this. When she was pregnant with our second, the Dr. put her on the same limitation, but her boss refused to accept the note. She went to HR and they said she could either go back to work, or go home until they could find work for her that would honor the Dr.'s note. She went home, and they advised against her using FMLA so they could start her back once they had a job instead of getting a Dr.'s note stating she could go back to work first.
She contacted them by phone every single day. She went in 3 times a week for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks they fired her for "job abandonment." Now, we have a very solid case against them proving that they intentionally disregarded the Dr.'s note, and advised against using FMLA (which is against the law) in order to fire her because she was pregnant. This kind of lawsuit would certainly generate a sizable bit of cash, which we need more than most can imagine, but it is also wrong.
Now, most people have sugested that we would be completely justified in following with the suit, but I say it is not. Maybe some of you already are aware of why I feel this is totaly against the Bible.
1 Corinthians 6: 7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
I take these words as truth from God. We tried to work things out with them, but after pursueing it short of going to court, I choose to be wronged.
This is very hard, but it is the cost of following Christ. I am sure that the merit of this story as related to the current situation is obvious, but let me elaborate.
I have choosen to follow Christ knowing the cost. I could sue, and be better off, but at what cost? We could turn ourselves against people who have wronged us, and certainly we would be just in doing so, but at what cost.
I have heard many make great arguements for complete destruction of the people who promote terrorism, and I cannot disagree with them on their logic. As an individual, though, I cannot go there. I would rather be wronged, and I cannot resist the evil man.
I must follow Christ.
Ron wrote: “Another further question to be added to my earlier question…What is about Christianity as presently expressed in our world that is so UNattractive to these young people who are attracted to Islam in its radical form?”
Response: Ralph Peters’ response might go something like this: the great majority of young Islamic men live in societies that strongly suppress any other religion and radically punish conversion out of the Muslim faith. Death is not an unusual punishment for converting to Christianity. These men live in a hermetically sealed theocratic culture with little chance to make anything like a “free decision.” My view is that if the playing field was made level in Saudi Arabia, you would see a fairly high percentage of conversions.
Ron also wrote: “And of course, all of this discussion appears to validate much of what I said earlier about the impotence of most American Evangelicalism because we have bought into what Neibuhr called the "Christ and Culture" paradigm. Radical muslims think we are corrupt culture worthy of destruction.”
Response: while Muslims may think we are a corrupt culture, they actually are drowning in real corruption. Bribery, nepotism, male dominance, the male sexual double standard, and corrupt governments are rampant in Muslim countries. The elite are horribly cruel to the average Muslim and are constantly deflecting their corruption onto the “Jews,” the “Americans,” “Hollywood,” etc. A large part of the problem is the Muslim unwillingness to look in the mirror and come to grips with their own problems; end the blame game and start creating just and workable societies. The easiest thing to do is to blame someone else for my problems. Instead of trying to destroy Western culture, why not build a beautiful and productive Islamic culture. I wonder if that has ever crossed anyone’s mind?
Lucy wrote: “…your comment confirms what I was saying that this Muslim radical "religion" is out to destroy everything Christian or any other belief than theirs. I have been unable to understand why any of the liberal media show any sympathy for them and their destruction or lifestyle they have brought upon themselves.”
Response: Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch was recently interviewed by Brian Lamm on C-SPAN. He said a very interesting thing about Western journalists. He noted that journalists almost without exception do not understand the nature of Islam and think that Islamic terrorism is not, somehow, related to the Muslim faith. Islam, he mentioned, is NOT first of all a private religion that directs one’s personal life. It is, rather, a total environmental religion that regulates everything socially and personally from the government to the bathroom. It literally cannot co-exist as a “personal religion” and allow secular states to regulate crime, grocery businesses, the internet, and street sweeping. In the good Islamic society (the one Al Queda wants), every last thing is regulated by Sharia. Somehow, Western journalists have missed this very important detail, which, by the way, helps make sense out of why Islamic terrorism is worldwide and not just a manifestation of anger against the West.
Peter wrote: “On the other hand, I also think that the Muslem extremist we see today is a new post-modern type. Michael Hanby makes a persuasive case that the 9/11 suiciders were quintessentially post-modern: they drove fast cars, had all the women, went to night clubs and they were bored, nihilistic, empty. If that's the case, we don't have to fear a confident Islam; it's the empty culture of death that we have to fear in both its Western and Islamic forms.”
Response: I fully agree with Hanby that the 9/11 Islamic terrorists were classic postmodernists. However, where I part ways with Hanby, is that the incredible discontinuity between the attacker’s ideology and their behavior is not unusual for many young Muslim men. If you want a biographical picture of Muslim society you should read, Princess: A True Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia by Jean Sasson. Sasson recounts the life story of a Saudi princess she met while living in Saudi Arabia, offering a glimpse of the appalling conditions endured by even privileged women in the Middle East.
Puri wrote: “I have been saying for years (since before 9-11) that Islamic terrorism will be the crucible that Christianity is burned in. The world is going to get sick of all faiths that hold one truth against others. The world, as a whole, will no longer tolerate these faiths unless they agree to accept all other belief systems. The end result will be, the wrold will begin to make it illegal to believe fundamental (aka traditional, aka orthodox, aka real) Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.”
Response: your basic premise is very similar to Samuel Huntington’s in Clash of Civilizations. In fact, if I remember correctly, he uses the term “crucible” in regard to the Islamic effect upon European Christianity. At any rate, he believes that the rise of worldwide Islamic aggression will cause Europe to rediscover Christianity. Mark Styen, writing in the Wall Street Journal has predicted that by the mid-21st century, parts of Europe will be under partial or full Sharia Law do to the demographic time-bomb of the Muslim birthrate and the European depopulation mania. At the same time, the United States will be nearing a population of 500 million people. Now get this, Styen notes that virtually all of the demographic growth in the U.S. will come in the so-called Red States because conservative Christians and traditionalist have a much higher birthrate than the Blue State folks (they’re also at the depopulation rate). On average 80% of children follow their parent’s social/political attitudes. Okay, get the picture! Guess who is going to have to do the “heavy lifting” to deal with Muslim aggression.
●Here is where I disagree with your scenario. If the Lord tarries, Islamic aggression is going to force a revival of a robust and realistic Christianity. The “world,” if it wants to avoid the complete dominance of Sharia Law will have no place other to turn than to Christian and traditionalist culture. By the way, guess who is doing all the fighting right now for the American Armed Forces. It ain’t Harvard grads! Remember, this has happened a number of times already with Islam. Perhaps a future generation, instead of saying “remember the Alamo,” may say, “remember Charles Martel.”
If the world perceives that Islam VS Judaism and Christianity is causing all the world conflict, then the world will have a choice to make. Back one of the religions, and hope things settle, or turn against each of the religions. I honestly think that if the world chooses to back Christianity, it will result in a more relativistic Christianity than ever before. Consider what is happening in many major Christian circles already because of the influence from the world.
Christianity will actually be better off by going through the fire. I would like to point out that this is promised in multiple places by Jesus Christ himself. The cost of being a Christian is supose to be high. When it is not, then Christians become complacent, and things go poorly.
WOW, that’s a great response to Guns. I concur. Matthew 5:38-42 is an excellent example of the fact that our desire should not be to keep score, but to love and forgive. It’s not natural – it’s supernatural. Only God can give us the strength to love as he does. Instead of planning vengeance, pray for those who hurt you. This passage is also in direct relationship to the law that was given to the judges in the OT and a perfect example of how Jesus has taught us to change from the laws of the OT to a new order of giving justice and mercy on a personal basis rather than receiving it. Great point.
However, I think the topic of this discussion is more of a focus on what is the question of where do you (we as Christians) stand on what can be perceived as demonic force and what, if anything, do we do about it? As a Christian, I will follow the Word of God and accept the teachings of our Lord verbatim. But when it comes to being imposed upon by demonic forces, I’m not sure I’ve been instructed to roll over. Sure it says (and you highlighted) an evil person (Matthew 5:39), but this discussion is about a movement – perhaps an evil movement put into motion by Satan himself. Unfortunately but true, we’re all sinners, so unfortunately we are all a bit evil (had a hard time typing that). So we all need to be forgiving and show mercy to each other. But this full scale assault on Western civilization especially focusing on Christianity is a different matter. I renounce Satan. I renounce the evil doers that are under Satan’s control. And I do not read Matthew 5:28-42 as an example of an instruction for me to show justice or mercy on the known enemy of God – Satan and the fallen angels. I’m going deep here, but I think this is really the “apples and oranges” of this topic. I renounce Satan and all his works and I’m thinking that this whole topic is larger than your neighbor and turning your cheek – I’m thinking we’re discussing large scale demonic forces at work today.
Response: I am in complete agreement with you in regard to the Christian’s personal ethic. Both Christ and Paul made it abundantly clear that we are not to seek revenge but to pray for our enemies and to do good toward them. If you want to read an amazing story about how this sort of thing actually is happening today, you should do a little research on the three precious Christian school girls who were beheaded by six Islamic terrorists in Indonesia. It is both a horrifying and amazing story. The Christian parents have shown unbelievable (from a human perspective) love and forgiveness toward the terrorists. Start with this website: http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jun06/Art_Jun06_04.html
● However, what you are not taking account of is that the government and the governing authority is established by God, as Paul states: “He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:4). The Christian magistrate, President or public official cannot abdicate this responsibility. While the Christian serves in the role as magistrate, he/she is no longer simply a private Christian. He/she must act as an instrument of God “to do…good” and to “bear the sword” as an agent of “God’s wrath.” While individual Christians are not allowed to take vengeance or mete out justice; the governing official must do so or there will be chaos and innocent people will greatly suffer. Down though the centuries Christians have understood this passage from Romans to apply to threats from inside and outside a country. In other words, the governing authority must protect innocent lives from thieves, rapists and murderers and from outside marauders, pirates, and warring countries. Those magistrates that do not provide adequate justice and protection to the populace or who pervert justice are held accountable to God.
●In short, Evangelical Christians cannot have it both ways. We cannot push for more Christians to move into the public sector and run for public office and then want to wash our hands of the difficult and ugly business of punishing wrong-doers and defending our country. To me it is the height of irresponsibility to want “godly men and women” in office and then simply hide under our beds hoping Jesus will come back before things get too nasty. The governing official is “God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” This is the most important and God-ordained function of government. If we want to wash our hands of this responsibility than we had better let secularists run the country.
You make a good point, and quite frankly, I agree that the government is responsible for the people. This means many things including making laws, and sitting in judgement over those who break the laws.
This is something I am not able to do at this point in my life. I have decided I cannot seek office. If I ever did, I would simply not be able to perform my duty in areas where I feel my personal ethics stand at odds against what is right.
Here is a good example. On a political level, I agree with the theory of capital punishment. On a practical level, I am not certain I could vote for the death penalty while sitting on a jury. There is an ethical conflict where the right thing for a government to do, is not the right thing for me to do.
The question was, "what should Christians do?" We should forgive, and we should turn the other cheek. If you ask what the government should do?
Now that is a different story. The only way peace has ever existed on any level in that portion of the world is through total domination. This is a historical fact. The UN wants peace, but they do not want to pay the price. Look at the "peace keeper" force being sent to Lebenon. What a joke. Consider how Rome handled it. They destroyed any resistance to their peace down to the last man, woman, and child. Historically we call this the Pax Romana. Compared to the time before and the time after, the world in general was at peace.
America is working on trying to establish a Pax Americana. The problem is, the rest of the world is not willing to pay the price for peace. If America, and the handful of allies we have, finish the job, we will likely have to deal with the UN. The ultimate result, as I see it from an historical perspective, will be the fall of the republic, but a forced peace.
BTW this lines up with Biblical prophecy as well.
BTW – sidebar on the UN and the French peacekeeping force that have been deployed. I got a recent email from an unconfirmed source that stated the first wave of 30 French peacekeepers approached by Landing Craft one mile from the Lebanon shore and immediately surrendered to Lebanese fishermen. The 30-man French contingent peacefully surrendered to a thirty-foot Lebanese fishing boat that had broken down and was drifting as the result of an overheated propeller shaft bearing while trawling for sea bass off the coast of Lebanon. The surprised fishermen were extremely delighted with the cooperative attitude of the French infidels and are especially happy to receive rifles and machine guns that have never once been fired, plus a nice landing craft. They are considering selling the spoils so they can travel to America and open a doughnut shop or maybe an institute for diversity training……
I will now ask for forgiveness and hope and pray that God has a sense of humor....
You wrote: “Consider how Rome handled it. They destroyed any resistance to their peace down to the last man, woman, and child. Historically we call this the Pax Romana. Compared to the time before and the time after, the world in general was at peace.”
●Very, very interesting insight. Ralph Peters consistently comes back to the main point for warfare—to attrite the enemy and cause them to give up the will to fight. Since WWII, modern Western societies have lost touch with this reality. The Romans completely understood that if you are going to have a trans-national (what we call multicultural) society, the will to resist must be overwhelmingly destroyed. We understood this at one time. For instance, you’ll notice that two of the most militaristic societies in world history—Japan and Germany—for all intents and purposes cannot even be “forced” to field an army since WWII. Now for the “dicey” insight: Yahweh certainly understood how to minimize long-term casualties, and provide extended peace and prosperity; check out the Old Testament. The Israelites got into trouble when they failed to carry out God’s specific instructions for warfare.
●The point Peters makes in regard to resisting Islamic imperialism (and it is imperialistic), is that the West will have to get back in touch with the brutal realities of warfare. You certainly are right that the rest of the world is not ready to “pay the price for peace.” Currently, neither are we. We would rather pretend that war is like “patty-cake” where nobody gets hurt and lawyers blow whistles at rule-breakers. Believe me, Islamic imperialist relish breaking all of our rules. We do not have to stoop to their cruelty an inhumanity; but we cannot continue to pretend that we are playing bridge with grandma.
And the voice said, Cry. and He said, What shall I cry?
All grass withereth,
the flower fadeth:
because the spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it: (in judgement)
surely the people is grass.
The grass withereth.
the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
--------------------------------------------------
Thank you for bringing up Romans! " By the sword..." .I'm kind of sick of all the bleeding hearts on this blog with their " Holier than thou," comebacks to my logic. You guys are playing semantics, and it's ridiculous. Are we to wait until they actually invade this country, or hit us with another terrorist attack?
We don't have to be souly on the defensive. As a police officer, what should I do with those who break the law? Respond to a crime scene, and just inform the victim's family that I'm not going to apprehend the criminal because I'm just going to pray for them? Have you ever dealt with these kinds of people first hand? I don't think so. Have you ever dealt with the criminal mind, maybe you have, maybe you haven't. What we're dealing with is so much worse than the criminal mind. We are dealing with people who BELIEVE that it is an honer to kill for their God. And that includes kill themselves if they have to.
So while you bleeding hearts wait for another attack, I will side with justice. God's justice. God uses people to dispense his justice. So tell me; how many of you who will read this and consider me crazy, or misinformed, or un-Christ like, or try to tell me that I don't know my Bible, have lost someone to these terrorists? Who? Well, with your plans, you can write a blog on how your outlook has changed, because now, it directly effects you. Oh, now it's different cause it's your son, or daughter, or husband, or wife, brother, sister, or best friend.
I'm not claiming in the LEAST BIT to speak for God. But I'm fairly sure He wouldn't be thrilled about us doing nothing. This includes diligent prayer, righteous living, and being the " sword", that Christ talks about in Romans. God bless
When the teams are divided - I hope you chose me!
That is another profession I could not ente with good concience. On a theoretical level, I know that the law must be upheld. I know the police are needed. Without law and order, we would have anarchy and chaos. However, on a personal level, I could investigate crime, and I could enforce the law on those who do not resist, but I could not resist the evil man.
There are a lot of professions I would not be able to do. I could never be the CEO for a major business. I would try to structure the company to help out the employees and customers as best as I can resulting in zero profits. Shareholders get touchy about that kind of thing. Now, I could head up a not for profit agency.
Anyways, back to te subject at hand. Like I had said previously, the question of what Christians should do is a simple answer. We follow Christ. "Those who live by the sword will de by it." We can occupy professions that use the "sword" to enforce peace, but remember that Christ's words tell us our end when we follow such a thing.
Fifty years of Maoism in China, seventy years of Marxism in Russia didn't kill Christianity. I get the feeling reading some of these responses that we fear the death of Christianity if the Muslims run us over. Reading some of these discussions I must conclude we really do not believe in the power of God.
Am I grateful for the liberty and freedom I have? You bet! My father escaped from Leninist Russia as an infant. I am glad they got out. Some of his family didn't. Those of us who lived in liberty and freedom for the past 80 years (this would be the 80th year anniversary of my grandparents and father's escape) have enjoyed prosperity (my uncles and aunts are wealthy as this world counts wealthy). Most have taken advantage of their freedom to worship God. Some of my relatives were not so fortunate and who stayed behind. Yes, they had a hard life. They had difficulties. I have met some of them. Their faith endured sometimes as by fire (Hebrews 11) and sometimes its just endured. Their joy is abundant in face of the difficulties.
But my confidence is not in the strength or power or the brilliance of the US military. I take God's word on that: Psalm 20:7 - Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God. (See also Hosea 1:7)
So if you want to join the military or send your sons or daughters or grandchildren,- I won't stop you or argue against you (I will even pray for you). But please, don't confuse the kingdom of God with the kingdom of this world. Please don't say you are doing it in Jesus' name.
Christ was not a passivist. What is meekness but controled power. When someone offends you, you shrug your shoulders and move on; when someone offends God or His Word, you stand up and go to battle for Him.
"To turn away from justice in the name of peace is not an act of love; it is a refusal to love one’s neighbor as oneself. To dispense with justice would never bring any kind of peace anyway. It would simply allow lawless people to dominate the world in a deadly fashion."
-John MacArthur "Terrorism, Jihad, and the Bible"
Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
-Genesis 9:5-6
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
-Romans 13:1-7
The bible, God's inerrant word to His followers, is pretty clear.
Always in Christ,
BGA TFA
Joshua 11: 19-20 (KJV) There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. 20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.
Isn’t it interesting that it was only the Hivites and Gibeonites that supported the Israelites in their battle for their homeland. Hmmm…Britain and the United States are the only countries really backing Israel…hmmm. It is also curious that it was the Lord Himself that “hardened” the hearts of the enemies of Israel so that “he might destroy them.” Fascinating, I wonder if there are any people today that seem to have an irrational hatred of Israel?
Just a thought.
Here's where I stand,.. I'm not a tyrant, or an extremist, or some kind of war monger. I'm all for loving our Muslim brothers. I'm all for exhausting all our efforts to end this monstrosity that is Islam. But THAT HAS ALL BEEN DONE! They will not Concede!!
So, if we don't do something, they will bring it to our country. And when they do, I will be standing right in front of them. Whether you think it's right or not, it will be in the name of Christianity.
I will leave you all with one of my favorite versus in the Bible, and one I WILL live out...for all of my Christian brothers and sisters, whether they will stand by me or not.
John 15:12-13- " This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends."
God bless
“Call it what it is - saving your hide. Saving your country, defending your bank account, defending a 'way of life' (a way of life, by the way, which allows 6% of the world's population to consume about 60% of the world's resources).”
● Well, yes, exactly, the United States government is required by God to save our “hide.” If you are not comfortable with this idea then perhaps you could take it up with the Apostles Paul and Peter who were moved by the Holy Spirit to propagate the concept. That being said, the “old saw” of the American public consuming a “disproportionate” amount of the world’s resources is strict Marxism in its purest from—he actually invented the idea.
● Let’s take the 6% and 60% figures as an example (which I do not think are currently accurate), but for argument’s sake we will go with them. What never seems to occur to the critics of American is the reason we consume more is because we produce more than anyone else on planet earth! A United Nations report listed the U.S. as consuming 115,540 kilowatt hours of energy per person per year. At the same time, each person in the tiny central African nation of Burundi used just 120 kilowatt hours. Do Burundians have less energy available to them because Americans use so much? Are we greedily hogging everything on the planet? No, the average American, literally produces over 1,000 times the goods and services that a average Burundian does creating a net blessing to the world and not a net loss. The United States is the most productive country in the world producing the largest gross domestic product per capita of all people on earth.
● Why would this be? Well, it just might be our work habits—duh! You know, work=production. Americans are more likely to be employed and more likely to work longer hours than other people. According to the Dept. of Economics at Arizona State University, Americans now work 50% more than the average German, Frenchman or Italian. Most important, Americans take fewer (and shorter) vacations. The average American takes off less than six weeks a year (usually 2 weeks); the average Frenchman almost 12. The world champion vacationers are the Swedes, at 16 ½ weeks per year. Oh, by the way, remember how the French took off for the coast a few years back and left their elderly parents and grandparents to swelter during their heat wave in the cities…hmmm…remember how millions of Americans mobilized money and resources to help the Katrina victims—seriously, you will not see that happening in France in the near future.
● Of course, Europeans pay a price for their extravagant leisure. The average Frenchman produces only three-quarters as much as the average American. Amazingly, as recently as the 1970s, Europeans worked slightly more than Americans. I wonder if this change has anything to do with the rapid secularization of Europe after WWII?
● This may come as a shock, but the Bible is actually pro-work and pro-productivity. God blesses the diligent worker and he punishes the slothful. Let me give you an example.
●In 1900, the life expectancy in America was around 50 years; today, it is more than 75 years. Advances in medicine and agriculture are mainly responsible for the change. This extension of the life span means more years to enjoy life, more free time to devote to a good causes and the Lord’s work, and more occasions to do things with the both children and grandchildren (considered a blessing in the Bible). Meanwhile in Europe they are facing a huge depopulation crisis. Not only are Americans continuing to gain in life expectancy, but our population is expanding—especially in areas where conservative religious people live.
Sorry, Ron, I hate Marxism. It is one of my personal pet peeves because it is so insidiously guilt producing and destructive of human life.
You also wrote about Russian Marxism and how Christians lived under that deadly regime. True, but did you ever consider that the United States may have had a direct and powerful influence on bringing an end to the Soviet Union? I would venture to say that the Soviet Union and its Marxist allies would be completely dominating the world today with their poverty producing, godless system if it was not for the United States. I think a little credit is due our often maligned and denigrated country.
The point is according to the Bible, God uses governments and governing authorities as an “instrument of His wrath” against evil doers. He actually brings down unjust regimes through governments like the United States. He rarely uses angels for this purpose.
" They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the father, nor me. But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you." John: 16: 2-4
“"To turn away from justice in the name of peace is not an act of love; it is a refusal to love one’s neighbor as oneself. To dispense with justice would never bring any kind of peace anyway. It would simply allow lawless people to dominate the world in a deadly fashion."
-John MacArthur "Terrorism, Jihad, and the Bible"
Guns man, I read through your quote from John 16:2-4 several times. It is very provocative. Obviously, when Jesus notes that “They will put you out of the synagogues” he is referring to the 1st century Jews; but, when he says “the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God” seems incredibly relevant for today. I was also struck by Jesus’ statement regarding “when their hour comes.” This seems to indicate that there is a specific time that God appoints for these kinds of things to happen and it is not, first and foremost, anything else other than God’s hand upon history for the unfolding of such events. In a certain sense we must see these events, times and seasons as those things that are allotted to our generation. I am sure that 1st or 2nd century Christians would have “preferred” to have lived in a humane society rather than the cruel Roman Empire, but that was their allotted setting and their appointed hour. Yours is now. Hopefully, we will be found faithful.
Please understand what I am writing here. Jesus told his disciples to accept the harm period. He says this in multiple ways, and even demonstrates it. You say that they have offended God and so we must stop them. Don't you believe Jesus was God? This is what the trinitarian view teaches. When we are assaulted for His name, it is an assault against Him, but He tells His disciples this will be the norm. Even more, Christ was ridiculed, tortured, and killed in one of the least humane ways possible. This was done to God directly. Not once did He stop it, but He did stop Peter for standing up for him, and told him the bit about living by the sword and dying by it.
Finally, let me say it clearly. I know that law and order must exist and be enforced. I am not some hippie shouting "give peace a chance." I know full well that that phrase is really asking to give anarchy a chance. I know better. I know that the only way to have peace is with an iron rule. This is goign to happen. Twice actually. The first time will be a rule by evil incarnate, and the second time will be the second coming.
What I am saying is the Christian, on a personal level, is commanded to love not hate, to forgive not seek justice, and to be gentle not overbearing. A nation, though, must make other considerations, and the USA has made a choice which I do not oppose, but there will be consequences for the actions of the US. If we follow through and finish the job, the rest of the world will turn against us, if we don't finish the job, we will have just emboldened the terrorists, and given a whole new generation of people a reason to become terrorists.
I would love to live in a world without these sort of things. But it's inevitable. I just find myself getting upset when people try giving philosophical answers where they demand reason. There is a logical explanation for all of this, and I'm sorry, it's not to lay down and die.
I'm prepared to do that....But it won't be for lack of trying.
God bless
No body's denying that God's hand has and will sustained his people. But He uses different means to do that. If you think that Reagan didn't have anything to do with the fall of communism in the U.S.S.R, you are mistaken my friend. I hate to see how that would have turned out, had the alternative been in office.
God bless
I would certainly heartily agree with you that there is a time for Christian civil disobedience. Unfortunately, Christians behind the iron curtain and in many Islamic countries are forced to disobey the laws of the land so that they can obey God rather than their slave masters. I pray that some day they might be released from this oppressive and unjust bondage to Satan’s influence over these governments. There may also come a time when Christians in the US have to engage in civil disobedience if the government oppresses freedom of conscience and worship.
I also agree with you that the cross is greater than the sword. No question about it. My point is that God specifically and directly states in the Bible through the Apostles that the responsibility of the government and governing officials is to actually “bear the sword” against evil doers. This is not an either/or situation. One is a private realm in which we willingly suffer abuse, if necessary, by our enemies. The other is a public sphere where God institutes justice, peace and order through his social agency, the government against evil. Government is actually established by God and used by God as an agency of “His wrath.” I know modern Christians struggle with words like “wrath” and “punishment,” but they are biblical and have an important meaning and purpose.
However, I am worried that all of this talk about the big, bad enemy out there (currently it is Islam - or some forms of Islam) will cause some Christians to equate hatred for a particular religion with the people who hold that belief system. Do you understand, Thom, my fear?
I know people who hated communism so much that they would never have been able to love a communist to Jesus. I hope that our rhetoric about 'hating ______________ (fill in the blank with group or ideology that irks you at the the moment) will not keep us from recognizing that Jesus loved everyone of these people (and us) on the cross in the First Century. If the Gospel does not extend to the person who you and I most revile or hate at the moment, it cannot reach our hearts either (Matthew 6:14-15)
I am glad you have made the distinction between personal requirements of the Christian, and the requirments of duty towards the citizens placed upon the government. I think this is a very important distinction, because we are commanded to lay down our lives as Christians if the need arises. We look at sayings like "take up your cross and follow me" as figurative, but for the early church, it was very literal. We do not war against flesh and bone, but rather against the spiritual forces that would come against the church. This calls for an entirely different approach from the Church. Our government, though, does war against flesh and bone.
This is why we must do what we can as Christian. We go before God in prayer.
Rev 2:6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
In my mind, what is interesting about this verse is that Jesus Himself commends the Ephesian church for its hatred of the “practices” of a false teaching (probably a proto-Gnostic teaching that fostered immorality). Jesus also states that he hates the same practices. This, of course, is simply one example of a number of times in Scripture where the Lord shows His hatred of sinful things and expects that His people will also hate these things. For these reasons I hate Marxism and love Marxists.
I realize that few Evangelical Christians (in my sphere) even know enough about Marxism to have an opinion about it one way or the other. Therefore, my “hatred” of it seems odd to many people. My guess is that they think, “Hey, buddy, it is just a political option—what’s the big deal?” Sadly, I know a lot more about it and am aware of its destructive nature and how it is atheistic to the core. I think it is “worthy” of Christian hatred. By the way, Marxist regimes have persecuted and executed more Christians than any other system in world history. That counts (negatively) for something. On the other hand, I have absolutely no hatred in my heart for even one Marxist. I do, however, think they are deluded. Good discussion.
You have to follow your conscience and no one else’s, but since you raise an issue that is within the core area of my professional life, I thought I’d offer my thoughts.
Christ commanded us to love others and that is a non-negotiable command, but we have to ask what “love” is. Is it simply warm feelings of good will or is it something else?
I subscribe to the view that love is “willing the good of another for the sake of the other.” So, the question is, what does it mean to will the good of another? Does it mean acting like the favorite grandfather and making sure that nobody’s fun is ever spoiled or does it impose a duty to occasionally spoil someone’s fun if spoiling the fun means sacrificing a lesser good for a greater good?
Obviously, given that choice, we have to pick the latter.
So, now consider the conduct of your wife’s employer: that employer did objectively evil things – it lied, it deceived her in order to have her forfeit benefits that were due her and it engaged in blatant pregnancy discrimination. As I read the scenario, it was sufficiently comfortable with what it did as to suggest that this was a “standard operation procedure”, which means that it is habituated in its evil.
Habituation toward evil is fairly common. In my experience with con-men and frauds, the road to hell is paved with small steps. There is the first lie, which goes unnoticed, and then the first con, and then the cons get bigger and the injuries get worse. We practice our way into evil before we ever have the destination in sight.
So, then, what is the proper attitude of “love” toward your wife’s employer? Do we show love by saying that we cannot sue to protect our rights or do we show love by suing and thereby forcing the employer to confront the reality and the cost of what it has done in this life? By suing, do we not provide an incentive and an opportunity for the evil-doer to reform? I think we do, and I think it is not love to let someone on the road to Hell to think that everything is hunky-dory. I think that kind of “love” does nothing to prevent the fall of the employer from grace and I think it is no kind of “love” that would stand by while someone slow-walked their way to Hell.
The morality of a deed is determined by the objective conduct of the deed, the intent of the deed and the circumstances of the deed. Insofar as the intent of a lawsuit is to seek justice – a restoration of losses and not extortion or vengeance - and the circumstances of the lawsuit always remains open to justice, suing can be entirely moral. Moreover, insofar as it is aimed at restoring the wrongdoer to grace, it can be an act of charity and love.
Finally, what of others? Your wife is undoubtedly not the only or last person who will be injured by this habituated pattern of evil. Should we not love those others who we do not know by willing their good, which we do by imposing the legal penalty on the wrongdoer in the hopes that it will deter future bad conduct?
Incidentally, since I am in fact a plaintiff’s employment attorney, I am entirely serious about the approach I’ve outlined, and I may work this into my next closing argument.
But let me affirm that you must answer for your conscience, and the worst thing you can ever do is to ignore what your conscience tells you is right. ( Nonetheless, we also have a duty to properly form our consciences.)
Here is my passion. I want to go right at the “eye(s) of the dragon.” What I mean is that instead of retreating, I think we should advance; strategically and directly. I am really excited about doing a number of outrageously powerful things in our area (hand-in-hand with other churches) to help young men and women not only stand strong for the Lord but also become “change-agents.” I am also stoked about raising large amounts of resources (financial and human) to go into Muslim countries to do servant evangelism. We are praying to be able to begin this in a big way in Beirut, Lebanon ASAP. We have an advance team working on this right now together with missionaries and a Christian school in Beirut that has 90% non-Christian students.
I get energized when I realize what we can actually do if we move beyond complaining.
P.S. I don’t know if you saw the “Faith and Values” section of the Bee this morning, but they had a story on Blogging with a piece about TFD. I slipped a little mention of your study group into the article!
What an amazing insight! What kind of love would sit back and watch, while a movement perpetuated evil on all who stood in their way? In fact, the evil we're talking about, will destroy you whether you stand in their way or not. And it's my belief that God wants us to stand in the way of these hate mongers.
I think that stopping this cancer from spreading across the world; now that's love.
As far as the US war on terror, doctrine aside, why would we not fight for ourselves? We have fought for much less, so why wouldnt we fight against cowards who blow up innocent people? Islam has always been a militant religion. Muhammad was not a peace loving prophet. I will bet you that islam would not be where it is today if you take the fear factor out of their belief system.
There is a book called Tea with terrorists. I saw an interview with the guy that wrote it. He says that it is not islamic fanatisism we have to worry about. It is islam itself. He goes on saying that he believes tht there is a direct correlation between the devil and islam. He says that one of the few things the devil tempts you with is either women, money or power (100 virgins, money to family if you blow yourself up, sound familiar?) I dont know if I agree with everything he says about islam, but it does make you think.
And I am so sick of liberal tolerance non-sense. If you have faith in anything, of course you are going to disagree with the rest of the belief system, but when was the last time a buddist try to car bomb you or a scientologist declaring a Fatwah? I think eMeters are annoying, but as long as they arent rigged with C-4, I dont really care about what Tom Cruise believes. Not wanting to blow up is not intolerant, thats just good common sense.
I'm not blowin up for anybody! But you can bet your gluteus maximus I'm all for stopping those who want to blow me up! Or my brother for that matter.
Just a little temperance, perhaps. We have always had people that want to blow us up. Think about it. They've always wanted a piece of us.
Why now are they able to reach us? The "why" is important.
--------------------------------------------
Before you were alive, we had the Ruskies with their threats of world domination, Krushchev said they didn't need to bomb us, he said we would do ourselves in with our decadence and rash behavior. But they broke up first. Nevertheless, we still have our decadence and rash behavior. Now we have others upping the wager. And Mr. Policeman, we don't know who to arrest or fire at. Yet.
I think we need to pull out of the region. I think we need to go full bore into alternative energy sources and prepare ourselves for the sacrifice each of us will need to make in the face of full scale war. And we wait for the inevitable day when they hit us at home hard UNPROVOKED (because they will). With a return of sympathy for our plight, our retaliation can then be a measure of what they hit us with, it can possibly be nuclear where it is measured to completely destroy their will to continue. This will mean a serious and extended disruption of world oil. Iran is preparing as we speak.
But it needs to be an unprovoked attack on us. For that to occur we need to extract ourselves from the region.
This certainly is not my religion talking, it is me.
God has always supported in victory His people when they have DEFENDED themselves....when evil could clearly be defined. If we are a prayerful and confident people, if we turn to him with full intent, we can survive this. Otherwise, we will be overcome by a world out of control.
I have had many people give me that argument, but I still keep comeing back to that passage in Corinthians. "Why not rather be wronged?" The fact is, this kind of case would get media attention, and it would ultimately hurt the body of Christ. That is not right either. We pursued this using arbitration and that failed because they supply the arbitor. Everything is done to the benifit of the company, and that is that.
I read what the Bible has to say on it, and it seems pretty clear. Maybe we get the short end of the stick, but this life is a vapor against eternity. I don't wish them harm and I do not look at it as if they will be judged for what they have done against my wife and myself. It is the right thing to do, though, as a Christian.
Jesus never said that it would be easy to follow Him. He said to count the cost. He said we would be persecuted and wronged, but that we should not seek retribution, but rather we should forgive. I do hope and pray the people who wronged us will be changed, but I choose to live the example and be above reproach so they can see what it really means to follow Christ.
I know I a making it sound like I am perfect, but I know I a far from it. I have to check my anger in things like this and pray it does not get the better of me. I wrestle with a multitude of faults, but where I have mastered myself through the power of the Spirit, well I'm not going to let a temporary wrong ruin it.
To Love God,
To Love Those Who Love God,
To Love Those Who Don't Love God.
This is my personal mission statement. I use it to determine my ethics, morality, how I use my time, treasure and talent.
As you read it I think you might grasp my dilemma with those who desire to use military means to achieve that they perceive to be Biblical ends.
You see I have many co-workers who I call friends who have relatives and family members who live in the countries which have been variously, over the years, been labeled enemies of the US. If I say that I endorse wholesale bombing of their countries for whatever apparent justifiable reason I undermine my witness to them. At my work we have has many Muslims as we have Christians. We also have Buddhists and other religions as well. If they happened upon this blog and saw me endorsing violence against their families I may as well take off the label "Christian" or "Follower of Jesus" (my preferred label).
Some people (including sincere Christians) may decide to call me a traitor to this country for my views. All I can say to those people is that I fear God more than I fear our earthly government. (I render to Caeser what is Ceaser's - I pay my taxes.) At the end of my life I will answer to God not the the president of the US. My citizenship is first and foremost in heaven (Philippians 3:20).
For those who say that the most loving thing I can do for those who love God is to pick up the sword and defend them - I say 'They are already in the kingdom. God is their defense. And I am not worried about their eternal fate. Jesus took care of that.' I am however very concerned about the fate of those who don't know God's love for them. I prefer to put my emphasis on those people.
For me this passion for those who are outside of the knowledge of God's love in Christ is as personal as Thom's hatred for Marxism is personal.
I cannot advocate violence against anyone for whom Jesus died. Or whom the Bible describes as the object of God's love (see John 3:16).
Got to go and love some more people who don't yet know God loves them.
And I love you - agree or disagree with me
I would say you have to let God direct your heart - then follow it.
ron
As if to underscore your point that the threat from Islam is essentially the traditional threat of Islam - and not some deracinated post modernist mutation, as I argued - please note that the Fox News reporters were released after being forced to convert to Islam.
How very 12th Century.
Most connects the "infinite objective titles" to grace; does this mean that there is an infinite amount of sufficient grace available to every person at their request or demand or just rained on them? Hos can there be a title to grace? It can't be that there is some entitlement, unless the idea is that God has given men in some fashion a claim to sufficient grace by "title" because He has freely bound himself to respect such claims ... or something like that...
So, what are these infinite objective titles?
“To Love God,
To Love Those Who Love God,
To Love Those Who Don't Love God.
This is my personal mission statement. I use it to determine my ethics, morality, how I use my time, treasure and talent.
As you read it I think you might grasp my dilemma with those who desire to use military means to achieve that they perceive to be Biblical ends.”
Response first let me say that I support and affirm your personal convictions. All Christians must do as their consciences dictate otherwise they sin. This does not mean, however, that I agree with your reasoning. Frankly, I do not see the moral dilemma that you are posing in regard to love. Simply put, it is an act of love for the individual Christian to return “good” for “evil.” However, it is not an act of love for the Christian magistrate to leave the evil doer unpunished or to fail to act as God’s instrument of “wrath” against any wrongdoing that threatens a society. To use your language, it would be unbiblical for the Christian magistrate to FAIL to punish the wrongdoer. It is clear from the Scripture that God will not let rulers off the hook and go unpunished themselves if they fail to provide justice and protection for the innocent from the guilty. It is a perversion of justice for the government to wink at evil or to fail to act on behalf of the innocent. Clearly, the Christian governing authority that fails to punish wrong doing is NOT acting in a loving fashion. Just as parents are delegated the responsibility by God to train their children by commending their good behavior and punishing their bad behavior; likewise the public magistrate must do the same. Parents, as Proverbs teaches us, who fail to punish the bad behavior of their children actually “hate” them; so too, magistrates that fail to punish wrongdoing actually “hate” their people. The Christian that does not understand this should never be a parent or seek public office, serve in the military, work in criminal or civil justice, or work in law enforcement. I, for one, to not want Christian police officers in uniform that are too scrupulous to use deadly force against armed assailants.
In regard to Muslims or Buddhists reading this dialogue. I personally have absolutely no moral qualms about anyone from any other religion reading what I have written here. Muslims of all people should understand that Christians believe in A) a personal ethic of suffering for Christ (as demonstrated in the horrible beheadings of three Christian school girls in Indonesia); and B) a public-sector ethic of justice and defense of the innocent meaning that the government is delegated the responsibility from God to punish wrongdoing. If they do not have the mental and moral insight to see the clear ethical and biblical differences, then they should probably refrain from reading TFD.
“So the fact that the Father has accepted the infinite price of redemption, means He owes it to Himself to offer to all every grace and forgiveness. It is only if as Thomas says, we close our eyes to the light that we shall not have it…But there is more. We could put this in legal language and say that Christ has generated an infinite title to forgiveness and grace for our race as a whole.”
●It appears to me that what he is saying is that when the Father accepted the atoning work of Christ it had infinite value because of Christ’s deity. Therefore, God “owes it to Himself” to provide every means and grace to all mankind for their salvation. The Protestant language for this is that Christ’s infinite sacrifice opens the way for an “unlimited atonement” for all mankind. Most uses the language of an “infinite title to forgiveness and grace” for humanity in and through Christ. It is not that the Father owes this forgiveness to humanity, but He owes it to Himself in Christ. Humanity, then, has full access to this forgiveness and grace by faith in Christ.
"Joshua 11: 19-20 (KJV) There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. 20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses."
There is an unfortunate difference between our most recent military adventures and what we have here. We have not faithfully waited on the Lord when it has come to war. Instead of someone else "coming against America in battle", we have come against them first. All the wars we have lost have had this formula. We waited in a World War until someone came upon us, sinking a cruise ship in one and enduring an unprovoked attack on Pearl in another.
Now that we are the world's only superpower we no longer need the Lord, nor his counsel, in battle.
Let me get this clear - Do you think we fly our own planes into the twin towers? hmmmmmm
Today on the radio I heard an extended interview of Lieutenant General Abizaid the man in charge of US Central Command. Abizaid is fluent in Arabic and is the grandson of Christian Lebanese immigrants. He went to university in Jordan and holds a master’s degree in Middle Eastern studies from Harvard. He noted that it is quite easy to discover what al-Qu’ida and other Islamic groups want to do—simply check their websites. Their desire is to establish an Islamic base of operations similar to what Afghanistan was for them and institute strict Sharia Law as the Taliban had done. This means the brutal oppression of women, open and swift executions or punishment for violations of Sharia, ending of education for girls, and no music. It also would mean a base of operations for developing—yes—WMDs: biological, chemical or nuclear. These WMDs would be used against the United States and Israel. This is common knowledge available to anyone who takes the time to look into the matter.
The point is; as Peters notes, this is apocalyptical terrorism—not political terrorism—the purpose is to kill as many people as possible and establish Sharia throughout the world. In order to stop further devastating attacks against the United States it is necessary to disrupt the stated and openly broadcast plans of al-Qu’da and the many other like-minded groups. Above all, they must be denied a political base of operations. Knowing this, it would be the absolute height of irresponsibility for our government to avoid what you call our “military adventures” (others term these to be minimal and undermanned operations against an implacable enemy). To passively stand by and allow al-Qu’da to use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons against our civilian population would not only be heartless, it would be remembered in our school textbooks as the most cynical act of governance in our history.
The simple answer is yes.
In order to answer in a longer form, because I am aficionado of medieval theology, please allow me to provide a few quotes from the definitive work on “Just War Theory” by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , Part II, Question 40.
Regarding the question, is it sinful to wage war?
(Aquinas answers) “Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [*Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [*Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."
(He further states) “I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged.”
● (Here is your specific answer) “And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends (hmmm…) for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
“Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good."
Ron: Augustine and Aquinas delineated the consensus view of Scripture as applied to war for Western Christendom—both Catholics and Protestants. I believe Augustine and Aquinas were working within a strong Christian tradition and took into account a fair and accurate reading of the New Testament as well as giving weight to the Old Testament. I do recognize that there are certain Christian groups that have held to a completely pacifistic position. Though I respect each Christian’s conscience, I do not personally believe a purely pacifistic position is biblical as it applies to the governing authorities.
Your plan is unworkable. WE have already proven it unworkable. You should be able to see that.
With your logic Thom, we should certainly attack and occupy Iran next. These are the people you are talking about. And then there is Saudi Arabia, they have taught their youth to hate us for the longest time.....and it is Saudi Arabia who was the home of the great majority of the 911 fliers (hope you are reading Lucy)....yet we have not attacked them.
And in waging war against the entire Arab world, what do we show the rest of the world we are made of (assuming we haven't shown it already). WOW, America is one special kind of Christian nation you are describing. But then you probably had a special kind of regard for the Crusades, right?...admiring that era so... What a religious war you describe....and we are to go it all alone.
It is certainly evident from the results so far, we don't have God on our side with civil war in Iraq now and Afghanistan still a mess.
No we leave the region and build strength at home.
Just wondering if you are both 5-point tulipists?? Amish? I hope you realize that the sarcasm is a joke. I just gotta tell you both that I resent the comments about how much you both love on everyone, and preach the gospel, as if to say that those of us who are in support of stopping anymore people from being converted to Islam, don't do the same. And no those weren't your words, but I feel that was your insinuation.
I hope you read the news brief from Peter. You guys seem to think that I'm against loving my neighbor, or bringing people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. So let me ask you both; Would your pacifist stances change if someone were to break into your house, and try to kill you wife and children? Of course! You would do all you could to stop them! ( I hope )
Don't you realize that that's what these people want to do?? So why would you wait until that point? Why wait until they invade your house like the secret police? Why is it any different that they're killing other people's wives and children? If you both love your neighbors so much, I would pray that you would want to stop such things.
Or is it only different when it's YOUR family? God bless
So, now they fight for their homeland and their God. They know justice is on THEIR side.
●No, it has been remarkably successful with an amazingly low loss of life for our troops and collateral damage to civilians by our efforts. Number of Iraqis killed by US troops in 2006 by collateral damage—59. Number of Iraqis killed this year by Islamic terrorists—7,961.
You wrote: “With your logic Thom, we should certainly attack and occupy Iran next. These are the people you are talking about.
● No, there is a very good chance that by supporting the Iranian internal resistance movements, the Iranian government will fall of its own weight. However, if they become seriously deranged and begin to threaten us with nuclear weapons, we may have to do a strategic strike against their nuclear capability. “Boots on the ground” should be avoided.
You wrote: “And then there is Saudi Arabia, they have taught their youth to hate us for the longest time.....and it is Saudi Arabia who was the home of the great majority of the 911 fliers (hope you are reading Lucy)....yet we have not attacked them. “
● You left out Egypt the other primary source for al-Qui’da terrorists on 9/11. Just as we would not expect that Egypt or Saudi Arabia would launch a military strike against our nation if “free-lance” or mercenary terrorist from the United States attacked their countries; neither should we attack them. The fact is, they would look to us to assist them in dealing with “free-lance” American terrorists. By the way, they have assisted us against al-Qui’da.
You wrote: “And in waging war against the entire Arab world, what do we show the rest of the world we are made of (assuming we haven't shown it already). WOW, America is one special kind of Christian nation you are describing.”
● “Waging war against the entire Arab world” is solely a construct of your imagination. The fact is that many Arab nations are assisting us against Islamic terrorists and actually want us to succeed in suppressing them because the terrorists are threat to Arab nations—they want to overthrow them. As opposed to France (in Africa in 2004-05), Germany (WWI and WWII) and the Russia (all the time), the United States consistently seeks to function in conjunction with other democracies and Islamic nations. You could not be further removed from the reality.
You wrote: “But then you probably had a special kind of regard for the Crusades, right?...admiring that era so... What a religious war you describe....and we are to go it all alone.”
● I have written a number of posts on the Crusades. Suffice it to recall for this comment these statistics. Current scholarly estimate of the number of non-Crusader casualties for 200 years of the Crusades: between 30,000 and 650,000. Current estimates for non-Muslim casualties for the Islamic Jihad in Southern India—40,000,000. The Crusades are the most over-hyped and misunderstood response to 400 years of worldwide Islamic Jihad that one can imagine. The purpose of the Crusades was to liberate one city and provide one safe route to its holy sites. Muslims have maintained a nearly continuous 1,500 year aggression on the world’s population. I dare you to prove otherwise—using real facts.
You wrote: “It is certainly evident from the results so far, we don't have God on our side with civil war in Iraq now and Afghanistan still a mess.”
● No, based on world history going back 2,500 years; insurgencies are almost always defeated. Even Viet Nam was NOT an insurgency. The average length of time to grind down an insurgency is ten (10) years. The only way that the United States could be defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan is that our incredibly irresponsible media continues to give a false picture of what is happening in the Middle East and the U.S. Senate fails in its responsibilities to the American public.
You wrote: “No we leave the region and build strength at home.”
● No, the result of a failure to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan will most certainly be the needless loss of millions of lives on both sides—this is not hyperbole. Just a side note, Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement movements of Europe in the late 1930s are greatly responsible for the loss of 40,000,000+ lives in WWII—it did not have to be so.
Stealth: your lack of understand regarding current affairs and world history is breathtaking.
From Alice in Wonderland: “Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on. `I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.' `Not the same thing a bit!' said the (Mad) Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'
● In dialoguing with you, I identify with Alice trying to talk to the Mad Hatter in his upside-down world.
A little reality:
●Number of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11—5,671.
●Number of those killed by Islamic terrorism this week—133. Those critically injured—390.
●Number of those killed by Islamic terrorism in August, 2006—1,368. Those critically injured—2,780.
● Fact: More people are killed by Islamic terrorists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
● Fact: More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
Obviously you have no idea what the words “just” or “justice” mean.
Please go back and read what I have written again. I have not spoken out against war and such, but I have spoken out against it having religious overtones. This war should not be between Christianity and Islam. I do not believe that the Bible OKs this on any level.
As for what I would do if someone broke into my house. Well, that is a very tough issue. I still believe the Bible requires me to "not resist the evil man." Would I succeed? Probably not. On the other hand. I pray that God will not allow me to be challenged in this. Also, if this ever did happen, they would have to deal with my dog before they ever got near my wife or kids. That wouldn't be a pretty picture.
Finally, I would like to point out that all of your arguments here are from emotion, which is fine, but it doesn't really go to the source that answers what a Christian should do in the situation. In fact, your argument appears so shaky you are resorting to sarcasm and ad hominum attacks.
Your Comment: (Please go back and read what I have written again. I have not spoken out against war and such, but I have spoken out against it having religious overtones. This war should not be between Christianity and Islam. I do not believe that the Bible OKs this on any level.)
I must disagree from my understand of Islam - it is a war against anything and anybody that is NOT ISLAM. A war to the DEATH of whoever isn't.
Second, I am not a 5 pointer or 3 pointer or what ever other pointer there is out there in the theological world. Theologically I fit into the third wave of the Reformation: Anabapistist/Mennonite theology.
Currently, my ordination is held by a non-denominational group and our house church is unaffiliated.
Interestingly, the question about self-defense was tested in history by pacificists. In the post-1914 era in southern Russia (Ukraine) there were many Mennonites who were trying to figure what to do with the nightly pillaging of their villages by the Red and White armies. One night the Red Army would come through. The next night the White Army would come through.
[My grandparents and father as well as many other relatives lived through the horrors of those nights. I genuinely believe now that my grandfather and grandmother exhibited what would today be called post-traumatic stress disorder.]
As you can imagine this series of events created quite a conversation in the community. What does our faith say about our response? The ministers and many others agreed that they should continue to practice their understanding of Jesus's teaching about not taking up arms. Some young men did not agree and decided that they would try and defend their villages (they created self-defense teams). All historians who have looked at this case have concluded that the villages that did NOT have self-defense teams fared better than those with self-defense teams. That is, those villages who decided to take arms experienced much more destruction than those without did not do so.
My family came from one of the villages that did not have a self-defense team. My father refused to have weapons in the house. I have never owned weapons.
Today I would say I would not defend my family. I say 'today'. I don't think anyone of us knows what we would necessarily do in any particular situation until confronted by it. (I think about the lady in Atlanta who was confronted by the man who had just killed several people at the courthouse - she sat down and talked to him about the Purpose Driven Life.) As to protecting my neighbors, I pay my taxes. I am on a first name basis with the mayor of Phoenix, my city council member and many of the commanders in Phoenix PD. We talk regularly about the crime issues in our community (Although feel safe in my home and safe when I walk every morning, I also know that about 1 mile east of me is a very high concentration of people involved in criminal activity. I have even helped that community try to deal with their problems from both a faith perspective and a political perspective.)
History is replete with many similar stories to the one my family lived through. There is the story of the French Village who refused to fight the Germans in WWII and how it fared. There is the story of the downfall of Apartheid in South Africa through candles rather than guns. (I will post that story on my blog in the next week).
I find it interesting that in the American psyche there is this absolute obsession with guns and violence. I have some theories about this obsession. I think that this civic obsession makes it difficult for many of us to think about another way to deal with life. I think it makes it difficult to hear Jesus's words about turning the other cheek. As every teacher of hermeneutics will remind his or her students, we all have glasses on when we read the Bible.
Self-critique of those glasses is always a challenge. That is why my spiritual ancestors didn't believe that understanding the Bible was a solitary (only God and me) activity. Hence, my stong belief in accountability to another believer. They practiced what they called the 'hermeneutical community'. Maybe blogs like this are the 2006 version of the hermeneutical community?
ron
My point was not that Islam is not warring against Christianity, but rather that Christianity should not be warring against Islam. The United States shouldn't even engage in war against Islam. Rather our war should be with Islamic Terrorists. I know this is a very fine line, but when the country turns against Islam (which may well happen) it is only one small step away from turning against Judaism and Christianity.
“For its sheer magnitude in scope and death toll, coupled with its occasional intention to exterminate entire Hindu communities, the Islamic campaign against Hinduism, which was never fully called off since the first naval invasion in 636 ce, was famously evaluated by Will Durant as follows: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers indicates that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the subcontinent, Muslim warriors easily killed more Hindus than the six million of the Jewish Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they had set as a minimum goal for "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 ce); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526- 1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in earnest.
Elst also lists a number of sources for further research including the Durant’s The Story of Civilization.
Speaking of “magnitude,” the magnitude of disparity between the carnage caused by Islamic Jihads and the Western media’s fixation on the Crusades has to be classified as truly phenomenal. It certainly must fall in the category of delusional.
It may be worthwhile for you to also examine the Hindu reaction to Islamic terrorism and their view of what “the religion of peace” intends to do.
Aquinas on Self-Defense:
“On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life… Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful.”
Aquinas (as well as Augustine) take into consideration the Divine Law of God. Also, Jesus instructed his disciples to not only carry a sword as they went out to evangelize, but if they didn’t have one, to sell personal possessions in order to purchase one (Luke 22:36). When he admonished Peter for cutting off the ear of the man in the Garden of Gethsemane, he told him to “Put your sword back into its place.” The meaning of “those that live by the sword shall die by the sword” could easily be understood that those who make violence their “livelihood” will find that they die a violent death. Criminals often find this to be true.
A few interesting statistics about gun ownership you will NOT read in the media:
●Approximately 2.5 million times per year citizens use their guns to defend themselves, of which the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker. Source: 1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
(Gun ownership in the United States by law abiding citizens is probably the single greatest contributor to crime reduction and personal safety of any single factor.)
● As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. (Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185.)
● Concealed carry laws are drop crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. (Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.")
● 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." (U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985).
● 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (Ibid.)
Dogs and self-defense: humans have used dogs as a means of personal defense and home defense for millennia. It remains an effective means of self-defense.
●First, I certainly recognize the fine point you are delineating. The problem, however, is that Islamic terrorism is religious in its very nature. It is not political in the traditional sense even though Islamic terrorist would like to establish Sharia as the law of the land in both Europe and the United States. Fundamentally, though, this form of terrorism is religious in nature.
●Second, it will greatly help our cause as a nation to refuse to use the rhetoric that we are at war with Islam or Muslims. The reason for this is that the Jihadists want to capture the heart and soul of Islam. We need moderate and liberal Muslims to assist us in suppressing Islamic terrorism. This will be a great benefit to Muslims.
● In my view, our government and our people have done a remarkable job of resisting the temptation of making all Muslims the “enemy,” especially considering the continuous religious anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu and anti-Western preaching of the extremist Muslim clerics.
● It would be a huge help for the silent majority of Muslims to loudly and consistently condemn the extremists. However, I believe they are mainly waiting to see which way the “wind blows.” If we preemptively withdraw from Iraq it will swing millions upon millions of Muslims into the extremist camp. We will reap the “whirlwind.”
Thanks for the info on the Indian Subcontinent holocaust - its obviously one of histories better kept secrets along with Stalin's holocaust of 30 million Ukraines.
ron
Thom, I thought this was fascinting - I believe most US states have laws that codify Aquinas's undertanding. "There is nothing new under the sun."
I find this discussion strangely disorienting, albeit I must acknowledge that your positions are apparently "live" issues in your tradition (My partner is a Mennonite who has become a neo-conservative of late). In contrast, in the tradition I belong to, positions like those that you hold are found only occasionally and on the margins, typically by those on the "Catholic left" who hold a panoply of other heterodox views. So, it may be useful to see where the traditions diverge and why.
What I'm specifically unsettled about is the disconnect that appears in your position between the individual believer and the believer's government. Certainly, all Christians have to keep in mind that we are pilgrims in this life and through grace our ultimate destiny is in the City of God. So, insofar as there is any ordering of our obligations, we must choose our Christian duties before our secular duties.
But ordering presupposes conflict, and in a justly ordered democracy, such conflict ought to be the exception and not the rule. Obviously, such conflict can exist – which is why I won’t do divorce work and Justice Scalia has maintained (properly) that the Church’s position on capital punishment is prudential opposition, since if it were otherwise, his moral position would require him to resign.
Your positions appear to find a systemic conflict between Christian duty and secular duty. Hence, while you will notionally accept the morality of the “magistrate” using the sword to protect the community, your views on the moral obligation to suffer injustice passively means that you – Puri, at least – cannot serve in government.
It is one thing to dissent from a particular position and another to dissent from the basic function of a non-tyrannical government. I may refuse to sit on a capital case because I dissent from the death penalty, but that doesn’t disable me from participating in government. If I could impose my will, capital punishment would end – which is possible in the real world - and the government would othewise remain unchanged. In contrast, to dissent from the idea of the magistrate using the sword to protect the community is utopian – because it’s not going to happen in the real world – and it is such a basic function of government, that the essence of government would change, and, so, those with your view must find their separation from the functions of government to be systemic, irreconcilable and total.
That disturbs me, because the last time that kind of attitude developed it led to the collapse of the Roman Empire as the best men pulled out of the project of maintaining the secular world.
I also think that this attitude misses the long-tradition of the idea of the Christian commonwealth that developed in the Orthodox east and the “Two Swords” theory of politics in the Catholic west. Under the “Two Swords” theory – through which we get our ideas of the separation of church and state – the state’s use of power was always susceptible to criticism and counsel by religion. This approach recognized the responsibility of religion with respect to the use of force – it was religion’s job to define when the use of force was just - which is a far different thing from an approach that understands force to be something that someone else – ruder and less Christian, perhaps – employs and which we benefit from as third parties. That latter approach seems to me to spell the end of the idea of the Christian community whose religious values inform its secular values.
On another note, I’m going to offer what I’m told by a scholar of the Middle Ages would have been the apologia for the use of force in the Middle Ages to show how there can be a divergent reading of the Bible and why things like the “Two Swords” and “Just War” theory were a step toward a better world (Here’s the link to the full thread):
Peace is found in the kingdom of heaven (Luke 19:38). Jesus came not to bring peace on earth, but the sword – war and bloodfeuds will result (Matthew 10:34). That sword is given to the royalty of the earth, to whom everyone is subject – to resist this power is equal to disobedience to God and will entail damnation (Romans 13:1-2). One must honor the King, and fear God (1 Peter 2:17). The King bears his terrible swift sword to avenge victims and to dispense divinely ordained justice in wrath (Romans 13:2-4). The laws of Kings and their vassals must be obeyed, for it is the will of God (1 Peter 2:13-15). Every power of one’s feudal lord is from God, and God will judge the lords according to how justly they administer this power (John 19:9a-12b). Those called to battle by God’s will must take up their sword, even if it means sacrificing security (Luke 22:36), for the purpose of the just war (1 Timothy 1:17). The just war is a participation in the righteous cause of St. Michael, to vanquish evil (Revelation 12:7), and a foreshadowing of God’s retribution on the day of judgment (Revelation 6:2, 4), mirroring the heavenly host and the second coming of Christ in battle (Matthew 13:41).
Although I don’t offer this perspective as anything other than an interesting tidbit, nonetheless, under this exegesis, it may be those who don’t take up the sword in a just war who are disobeying God.
So, I guess that my answer to ‘Thom’s questions are: (a) the state should pursue its obligation to justice by protecting its people consistent with justice as defined by “just war” theory and (b) the Christian should support the state insofar as the state is acting with justice and with the end of justice (subject always to the Christian’s obligation to obey his or her well-formed conscience.)
● I consistently think you are mixing apples with oranges. I also noticed this tendency with the Mennonites that I attended seminary with in regard to the subject of non-violence.
● Apple: one’s personal life as a Christian. We are taught by Christ to endure persecution for the sake of Christianity. We are taught to do good to our enemy and therefore “overcome evil with good.”
●Orange: the public realm. God delegates to the government the responsibility and activity of “punishing” the wrong and “commending” the good. The government and various levels of governing authorities are designated by God to be agents of His “wrath” and to “bear the sword” against those who do public evil.
Examples:
●The six Muslim extremists that cut off the heads of three precious Christian school girls who were walking home from classes are “evil doers.” The governing officials of Indonesia have a responsibility to the populace and to God to apprehend and punish them for their heinous actions. If the Indonesian government were to wink at this, God would hold them accountable. This is clear from Scripture. However, the Christian parents have shown an amazing degree of love and forgiveness toward the killers. It has brought glory to Christ and His church.
● Al-Qui’da and its extremist allies (both the states that sponsor them and the network of terrorists) that perpetrated the attack on the US on 9/11 are evil doers. The governing authorities of the United States have a responsibility to the populace and to God to apprehend and punish them for their heinous actions. If the United States government were to wink at this, God would hold them accountable. This is clear from Scripture. However, many spouses, parents, siblings and friends of those killed on 9/11 have shown a remarkable love and forgiveness for both the attackers and Muslims. This has brought glory to Christ and His church.
● The Islamic Sudanese government should cease and desist immediately from their persecution of Christians. They are acting unjustly and committing horrible acts of genocide. When the Jews brought Paul before Gallio in Acts 18 to unjustly and falsely accuse him, Gallio threw the case out of court and had the Jews punished. This is presented as a just and celebrated act in the Bible. If the Sudanese government does not end its persecution of Christians, God will likely cause another country to militarily destroy it. This is the standard way that God has worked throughout human history to punish unjust governments. Human government is God’s “agent of wrath” in the world.
● The first and primary responsibility of Christians outside the Sudan is not to call for the Christian Sudanese to suffer ever greater loss of life, loss of property and forced conversions to slavery or Islam. Our responsibility is to call out to God to end the unjust actions of the Sudanese government and to call upon our government to do everything in their power to end the injustice. We must act like the Christians in Acts that worked to assist Paul against his false accusers often helping him to escape or advocating for him in court. To do otherwise is unbiblical and inhumane.
Here is a surprising fact. It was not unusual during the colonial era for the colonies to require that every able-bodied male carry his musket or rife to church on Sunday so that there could be militia drill following Sunday services. The American colonists looked at Europe and concluded that every free citizen must have the right to bear arms or they will not really be free politically. Many have concluded that those who refuse to bear arms as individual citizens are actually receiving a “free” benefit from those who willingly protect themselves and their families from a government that—by the force of arms—would deny our freedoms. If you will look into the matter, you will see that this is what our founding fathers believed. Human political history confirms their judgment.
Pull out of the region? Can you imagine what these animals will do if we pull out? It is too bad that we have to police the world, but you know what, God gave this country a great responsibility along with such wealth and power. Im tired of libs complaining about how half the world hate us. Far as im concerned the other half can hate us too for all I care. World peace is not a popularity contest.
I find this a really interesting statement because when I attended the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, Ontario, Canada in the late 70's this was exactly the view proposed by the political thinkers within the Christian Reformed school of thought (which is the view espoused by ICS). The argument, as I recall it is this, each sphere in the world has a calling ( Marriage is loyalty or fidelity; government is justice.) We might all agree that God's word for government is justice - that is God has placed government in human society for the purpose of keeping or bringing justice. However, the question is this: what is our definition of justice? Is justice only having to do with dealing with wrongdoing? That is one definition of justice - and the one most people support. However, some people believe that government as an instrument of justice goes beyond that. Hence the discussion about economic justice for example on the comments on the blog about Christ as a transformer of culture. I suspect that Thom probably limits governmental justice be defined in terms of dealing with evildoers.
Thank you, Peter, for the memories of Toronto you stirred up and about my class with Professor James Olthuis.
Be careful, Thom, you and I may actually agree about this :)
I understand your concerns, but I think it is important to understand that I do not disagree that the government is responsible to its people, and I do not believe that all Christians must abstain from government.
More over, I am not against service to my government. They have a couple of months left to draft me even, and I would serve if called up. There are even more places in government I could serve without compromising my ethics. Still, I choose to avoid puting myself in a place where I have to choose between my Christian walk and the government. I just do not feel like I can walk that line.
● I consistently think you are mixing apples with oranges. I also noticed this tendency with the Mennonites that I attended seminary with in regard to the subject of non-violence.
● Apple: one’s personal life as a Christian. We are taught by Christ to endure persecution for the sake of Christianity. We are taught to do good to our enemy and therefore “overcome evil with good.”
●Orange: the public realm. God delegates to the government the responsibility and activity of “punishing” the wrong and “commending” the good. The government and various levels of governing authorities are designated by God to be agents of His “wrath” and to “bear the sword” against those who do public evil.
Thom, so your answer to my question to Ann's thought is YES - we would give different answers to the Sudanese than we would to our government in dealing with the people who are persecuting the Sudanese. We would encourage our government to be the military that overthrows the persecutors and we would tell the Sudanese believers to "endure persecution for the sake of Christianity."
So it is not apples and oranges - it is a difference of stance or role in the situation. If you are with Peter in the first century writing to people facing persecution you're telling people to endure the cross (which is what you just said your message would be Sudanese Christians - By the way, I have met many of these refugees and some work where I work). And if you are St. Paul you are saying to some external power go and get those persecutors and punish their evil doing (well, you could have said in the first century except the whole Roman empire was under one totalitarian regime - there was no USA to send in.)
So I read your answer to my question to Ann as 'YES'
Ann’s question was: i am surprized you asked that question. i do not know the bible very much but arent christians suppose to go to the roman colesium and let the lions eat you.
●My comments on the Sudanese were not an answer to Ann’s question, they were a response to your thoughts on what is happening in the Sudan. Your reflection had to do with what Christians in the United States (or elsewhere) should do about the situation in the Sudan. My view in regard to the American Christians as they view the plight of the Sudanese Christians:
1) Our first responsibility is to pray for them.
2) Our next responsibility is to attempt to assist Sudanese Christians and not to instruct them to suffer more injustice (assistance is what the Christians in the book of Acts provided for those like Paul who suffered unjust persecution—they didn’t tell Paul, “Hey, go back into that arena and get torn apart by the Ephesian crowd.”) There is no moral difference between telling the Sudanese Christians to “buck up and suffer” when we can assist them then it would be for us to let our Christian neighbor get beaten to death by thugs on his front lawn when we are able to help. It just so happens that a friend of mine was attacked on his front lawn by thugs but fortunately he had a Christian neighbor that rushed to his rescue.
3) American (and Canadian) Christians should also apply as much pressure on our governments to influence the Sudanese to cease and desist their heinous actions. This would not have to include military action because sanctions and other measures may work. However, for the United States to carry out a military action against a genocidal government is not wrong per se. I have noticed how the left-wing continues to criticize the Vatican for what they believe was a tepid Catholic stance against the Nazis. Who would believe it “just” for the United States to standby idly and allow the Nazis to conduct mass genocide against the Jews?
My answer to Ann’s question is “yes” if forced to, but, no if we can escape persecution in an orderly way. However, this does not mean that we are not to help those being persecuted and it doesn’t mean that governments are relieved of their obligation to do everything they can to end genocide. Nor does it mean that we are to tell our fellow Christian “buck up” when we can help them.
● Well, of course, I think the best all-time definition of justice is: “Now the proper matter of justice consists of those things that belong to our intercourse with other men,” stated in the words, "Rendering to each one his right," and "a man is said to be just because he respects the rights [jus] of others."
● There are two kinds of justice: distributive and communitarian.
● Distributive justice has to do with the distribution of things that belong to the whole society as it is then assigned to the individual (i.e. freedom, the right to vote, equal protection under the law, etc.) In a democratic society, according to Thomas, the individual receives his/her proportion of the whole “according to liberty” and not according to wealth (socialistic societies); or prominence (aristocratic societies). Those in a democratic society who have charge over the proper distribution of these just “goods” are the elected officials and the judiciary. According to Romans 13, the governing authorities distribute the good of “freedom” when they protect the common order from evil-doers. It is not a just society if one has to cringe in fear of evil-doers.
● Communitarian justice is that which is paid between individuals—usually in buying and selling. In this regard the individual should pay back to the other just so much as he owes. This is more of an “arithmetical mean” which is gauged along the lines of an “eye for an eye” (not to be understood as avenging something). For example, paying a fair wage for a good day’s work is communitarian justice. The Bible requires that we pay back our parents for the love and care that they have given us.
Sounds like time for another blog you so we can create another 100 comments :)
have a nice evening in the central valley.
ron
Anyway in your comment concerning apples and oranges, I would remind you that justice needs to account for International Law for your logic to have traction. The international community made it clear that they thought it unjust that we slash and burn our way through the Islamic nations of the world to find the organizers (after all, the murderers were dead already). Did we get them all yet?
●No, it has been remarkably successful with an amazingly low loss of life for our troops and collateral damage to civilians by our efforts. Number of Iraqis killed by US troops in 2006 by collateral damage—59. Number of Iraqis killed this year by Islamic terrorists—7,961.
●●So, success is strictly a measure of the number we have killed? We must have won the Vietnam War as well.
You wrote: “With your logic Thom, we should certainly attack and occupy Iran next. These are the people you are talking about.
● No, there is a very good chance that by supporting the Iranian internal resistance movements, the Iranian government will fall of its own weight. However, if they become seriously deranged and begin to threaten us with nuclear weapons, we may have to do a strategic strike against their nuclear capability. “Boots on the ground” should be avoided.
●● If asked who is in charge of Iran, one is hard pressed in knowing. The internal resistance movements have the wealth of the Shah supporting their efforts. If they threaten us with nuclear, they are deranged. But our nuclear threats are Justified.
You wrote: “And then there is Saudi Arabia, they have taught their youth to hate us for the longest time.....and it is Saudi Arabia who was the home of the great majority of the 911 fliers (hope you are reading Lucy)....yet we have not attacked them. “
● You left out Egypt the other primary source for al-Qui’da terrorists on 9/11. Just as we would not expect that Egypt or Saudi Arabia would launch a military strike against our nation if “free-lance” or mercenary terrorist from the United States attacked their countries; neither should we attack them. The fact is, they would look to us to assist them in dealing with “free-lance” American terrorists. By the way, they have assisted us against al-Qui’da.
●●I also left out Lebanon. Saudi Arabia has been teaching their youth to hate out way of life generation after generation. You must know that. Their interest in our behalf is belated and not genuine. They are Arab. How 'bout Pakistan. Nuke them. They're dragging their feet on getting the man. Besides India will be happy. By the way, we have created the Iran that threatens us today. We put their Iraq and Afgan enemies in chaos.
You wrote: “And in waging war against the entire Arab world, what do we show the rest of the world we are made of (assuming we haven't shown it already). WOW, America is one special kind of Christian nation you are describing.”
● “Waging war against the entire Arab world” is solely a construct of your imagination. The fact is that many Arab nations are assisting us against Islamic terrorists and actually want us to succeed in suppressing them because the terrorists are threat to Arab nations—they want to overthrow them. As opposed to France (in Africa in 2004-05), Germany (WWI and WWII) and the Russia (all the time), the United States consistently seeks to function in conjunction with other democracies and Islamic nations. You could not be further removed from the reality.
●● Certainly we seek it today. But within the frameword of the UN it is not happening. Are you aware the baiting of Israel to attack Lebanon was orchestrated to take pressure off the move for sanctions against Iran? This is a different world from WWI or II. We could win those.
You wrote: “But then you probably had a special kind of regard for the Crusades, right?...admiring that era so... What a religious war you describe....and we are to go it all alone.”
● I have written a number of posts on the Crusades. Suffice it to recall for this comment these statistics. Current scholarly estimate of the number of non-Crusader casualties for 200 years of the Crusades: between 30,000 and 650,000. Current estimates for non-Muslim casualties for the Islamic Jihad in Southern India—40,000,000. The Crusades are the most over-hyped and misunderstood response to 400 years of worldwide Islamic Jihad that one can imagine. The purpose of the Crusades was to liberate one city and provide one safe route to its holy sites. Muslims have maintained a nearly continuous 1,500 year aggression on the world’s population. I dare you to prove otherwise—using real facts.
●● My earlier remarks framed this now insane shotgun response.
You wrote: “It is certainly evident from the results so far, we don't have God on our side with civil war in Iraq now and Afghanistan still a mess.”
● No, based on world history going back 2,500 years; insurgencies are almost always defeated. Even Viet Nam was NOT an insurgency. The average length of time to grind down an insurgency is ten (10) years. The only way that the United States could be defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan is that our incredibly irresponsible media continues to give a false picture of what is happening in the Middle East and the U.S. Senate fails in its responsibilities to the American public.
●● I hope you realize that is a radical right point of view. The US Senate is not radical right by nature. And, mind you, sentiment of the voters are predicting a big change in the House to the center.
The poisoning of the liberal press could not be maintained if in fact Iraq were not deteriorating into civil war. Bush is now on damage control.
You wrote: “No we leave the region and build strength at home.”
● No, the result of a failure to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan will most certainly be the needless loss of millions of lives on both sides—this is not hyperbole. Just a side note, Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement movements of Europe in the late 1930s are greatly responsible for the loss of 40,000,000+ lives in WWII—it did not have to be so.
●● With your mentality we would still be in Vietnam. As for Chamberlain, the British and French governments followed a policy of appeasement in order to placate Hitler and postpone war until the British air force (and radar system) was ready. It is preposterous that you could claim that 2/3 of all killed in the war throughout the world in all theatres would not have died because of Chamberlains strategic delay of 1 1/2 years.
I have no interest in insulting you. But it ain't working with the strategy we have in place. And the strategy isn't changing. And other countries can sense we are not inclined to do anything to Iran or anywhere else for that matter.
Today, It is your suggestion that winding down the losing war of Iraq now will in itself create a WW!!! in comparison all by itself is ludicrous. Every country in the world knows we can stop anything in its tracks with the bomb.
And the icing, for you "appeasement" is not the proper Christian response. It will not be our show of force that will stop dirty bombs from detonating here under the shadow of night in the back of a UHaul, or in a San Diego port. What stops that stuff is trusting God by turning to him, leaving our modern day idolatry behind.
1) Success in Iraq is measured by: A) deposing Saddam Hussein; B) assisting the Iraqi people to install a democracy; and C) suppressing the insurgency until the Iraqi people can control the country by themselves. A and B are in place and it usually takes a decade for an insurgency to be suppressed.
2) Iran’s nuclear threats vs. America’s: Iran publicly and openly threatens to use nuclear weapons (when acquired) to “wipe the Zionist entity of the map.” The United States has not threatened to use its nuclear arsenal since the Cuban Missile Crisis which was October 18-29, 1962. This was 44 years ago against another aggressive nuclear power threatening to put nuclear missiles within 90 miles of our borders.
3) You wrote: “I also left out Lebanon. Saudi Arabia has been teaching their youth to hate out way of life generation after generation. You must know that. Their interest in our behalf is belated and not genuine. They are Arab. How 'bout Pakistan. Nuke them. They're dragging their feet on getting the man. Besides India will be happy. By the way, we have created the Iran that threatens us today. We put their Iraq and Afgan enemies in chaos.”
● I honestly am not sure how to respond to your convoluted logic. My point was that we should not attack Saudi Arabia or Egypt (please include Lebanon and Pakistan as well) simply because individuals in al-Qui’da come from these countries. As I mentioned, if mercenaries or free-lance terrorists from the United States attacked Saudi Arabia, they would expect us to assist them in apprehending the terrorists. I am sure we would; just as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and Pakistan have assisted us in dealing with al-Qui’da. What is so hard to understand about this? Using your logic, the German leftist terrorists that were engaged in acts of violence with the American Weathermen in the 60-70s should have provoked us to “Nuke” Germany. Perhaps you need some hypertension medication.
4) Regarding how the U.S. works in conjunction with other democracies and Islamic countries: hey, thanks for changing your tune and recognizing that we are working with other countries and not free-lancing.
●You wrote: “Are you aware the baiting of Israel to attack Lebanon was orchestrated to take pressure off the move for sanctions against Iran? This is a different world from WWI or II. We could win those.” Yes, I am. However, the military disparity between the United States and any other country in the world is truly astounding. What we don’t want to do is use this capability injudiciously and we should avoid the “you break it, you own it” philosophy that necessitates our having to rebuild every country that wars against us. Such an approach nearly guarantees that countries won’t count the full cost of their aggression against us.
5) You don’t seem to understand my point about the Crusades. I believe your point was that since I admire the Crusades then I am probably in favor of a religious war today. My point was that the Crusades pale in comparison to the 1,500 year, worldwide Jihad the Muslim faith has carried on against ALL other religions. Consequently, it is the Muslims that are engaged in religious warfare and not us. I certainly don’t want the U.S. wasting resources on a bunch of religious kooks.
6) Regarding preemptive withdrawal from Iraq. You could very well be right. After the next election, the Senate may pressure for us to withdraw before the Iraqi government is ready to defend itself. A similar thing happened in 1974 in Viet Nam despite our promises to the Viet Namese people. I am sure you are aware that 2,000,000 people died because of this and millions more died in Cambodia. The difference, however, between then and now is that the Islamic extremists are not going to stay on the other side of the world. They will be coming here. They will love having a base of operations right next to Iran. They will be riding high on Islamic success, untold thousands will pour into their ranks and they will know beyond a shadow of doubt that Osama was right, America is a “paper tiger”—as soon as the US suffers a small number of casualties they cut and run. I am sure you will enjoy the aftermath.
7) You wrote: “As for Chamberlain, the British and French governments followed a policy of appeasement in order to placate Hitler and postpone war until the British air force (and radar system) was ready.It is preposterous that you could claim that 2/3 of all killed in the war throughout the world in all theatres would not have died because of Chamberlains strategic delay of 1 1/2 years.”
● What have you been drinking, man? Talk about preposterous! Radar system, you must be kidding. First of all, the official policy started in 1934 but was extant well before that. Neville Chamberlain actually called his policy toward Hitler “The general policy of appeasement” (June 7, 1934). He was committed to peace at any price short of war. The disastrous theory was that dictatorships arose where people had grievances, and, therefore, by removing the source of the grievances the dictatorship would become less aggressive (does this sound familiar in any way?). This led directly to the Munich Agreement (1938) that allowed Hitler to annex Sudetenland and left Czechoslovakia exposed to attack—it was. Chamberlain expressed the widespread British desire to heal the wounds of WWI and the “feelings” of some British officials that Germany had not been treated well in the Versailles Treaty. Can you imagine how things would have been different if the Allies had resisted Hitler in 1934. Chamberlain’s policy is uniformly considered by historians as one of the greatest disasters in human history.
●Again, millions died in Viet Nam and Cambodia that did not have to die. As Thomas Sowell, the brilliant black economist notes, liberals are impervious to facts.
● Your “thoughts” on my views of “The general policy of appeasement” don’t insult me because I have rarely come across such utter nonsense.