You wrote: “Jason seemed invested in logic and reason in the form of communicating with you, except, of course, when it became convenient for him to lapse into primal truth beyond mere words, and to suspend dialogue...which seems to tie into Benedict's Regensburg Address.”
● Agreed, and this seems to be the modus operandi for post-modern theological bloviation. I was also struck by the self-congratulatory attitude of the participants based upon the number of contemporary theologians one could reference.

●I, too, pray that things are well with Stealth and his family.

● I have no quibble with your statement, it is certainly taught in Scripture as the private ethic of the Christian. My post here is in regard to the public ethic of Just War.
● I am still working through my theology of self-defense. Currently I hold to the view that the force used in self-defense must be minimal — not more than is necessary for the preservation of one’s life.
● Just a side note, it is estimated that 2.5 million violent crimes are thwarted each year simply because victims brandish firearms without firing. In the vast majority of cases the attackers immediately skedaddle. In these cases neither the attacker nor victim are injured. A large percentage of these are women who would be likely victims of violent sexual assault. Of course, criminals (particularly violent criminals) purposefully look for the easiest prey they can find. As the Israeli’s discovered, “gun-free zones” are an invitation to killers—modern public schools are like a flashing sign that says, “Come and use us as a killing zone.”

You wrote: “It may well be true that there are a large number of violent crimes averted by people packing in America, but in the same vein, there are fewer violent crimes in Great Britain per capita than in the US.”
● Most Americans are shocked to discover that England has an out-of-control violent crime rate. Objective observers identify England’s super-prohibitive gun laws as the prime reason law-abiding citizens are so heavily victimized. Below I will quote from an article by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College found in Reason Online. You can access the full article at: http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
● Her is what she says in part:

“From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.” Joyce Lee Malcolm, Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome, Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

● My points here would be two-fold. First, the most effective form of self-defense that reduces the likelihood that neither the assailant nor the victim will be injured is the availability of a firearm for the victim. Statistically this is indisputable. Second, Americans that do not have firearms in their homes, those that oppose gun ownership and anti-gun activists are all receiving a substantial indirect benefit from those Americans that do possess firearms. Criminals, by a huge margin fear homeowners with firearms more than they fear the police. Also, please notice the key statistic above regarding criminal break-ins while occupants are home. Notice that in England 53% of burglaries occur while the occupants are at home as opposed to 13% of break-ins in the U.S. This is, statistically, a huge difference. In England there is an added benefit for the burglar because he is able to rob the personal valuables of the homeowner without fear of facing a firearm. The downside for the homeowner in England is that burglars tend to be high on drugs or alcohol and are likely to commit violent crimes against the homeowner.
● These things all make perfect rational sense when viewed from the perspective of the criminal.

● In regard to Israel as a theocracy, I don’t think we can do any kind of one-to-one comparison between ancient Israel and any contemporary country. This is why I think we must refer to the NT for direction for our personal ethic of love and our governmental ethic of delegated justice (Rom. 12-13).

Your position:

1. In the Old Testament the nation of Israel was a theocracy ruled by God in which the prophets served as the “presiding authority” that determined when Israel went to war. This insured that Israel always won her battles.
2. In the United States we are no longer a “nation under God” and the government and God are “mutually exclusive” so our decisions to go to war are based not on the “Bible or any scripture” but these decisions are based upon “philosophers far separated from the writers” of the Bible.
3. However, a nation “need not have a theocracy to follow God’s will in our relations with other nations.”
4. The Just War Tradition as outlined by Aquinas gives as much reason for Islam to wage war against us as it does us against them.
5. The whole topic of the JWT is meant to give a Christian justification to a political agenda.

Responses:

Point 1: It is true that Israel was a theocracy ruled by God; but, it was uniquely this. The Israelites were God’s chosen people. This is stated over and over again in the OT. While often the prophets were consulted as to when to conduct a war, so also, were the priests. David sought God’s guidance from the High Priest using the Urim and Thummim in order to conduct a war. The sad truth is that Israel often lost her battles because of her disobedience.
Point 2: Obviously, all nations are under God whether they realize it or not; however, the motto “One Nation Under God” is intended to signify that the United States is a nation that willingly submits to God’s sovereignty. However, there has never been any other nation that has had God as their political sovereign (king) except ancient Israel. The Bible clearly states this in Deut. 4:19-20 “ …the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are. Consequently, America must seek to live by biblical principles if it intends to have God’s favor. The JWT is based upon the biblical principles ascertained from the Bible as to how to conduct a just war. Every point of the JWT arises out of a biblical concept that is referenced by both Augustine and Aquinas. Modern Western governments do not have formal relationships with “prophets” and “priests” by which they seek political guidance. Additionally, there no longer exists the office of Levitical Priesthood nor do the Urim and Thummim exist.

Point 3: It is true that a modern government does not need to be a theocracy to follow God’s will; however, the United States separates its government from a direct relationship with any religion. This provides for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Therefore, the government must be religiously influenced by its populace. Whether the United States follows God’s guidance and conducts Just Wars is dependent upon the spiritual vitality of the populace.

Point 4: Contrary to your assertion, the JWT does not give “Islam” the right to conduct a war against the United States. First of all, the United States is conducting a war against terrorist organizations and rouge states that support terrorism. It is not conducting a war against “Islam.” Secondly, groups like Al-Qu’ida are not legitimate governing states and therefore cannot meet the first requirement of the JWT. Thirdly, terrorists attacked us repeatedly. Whatever grievances that Osama Bin Liden may have had, they do not justify, according to the JWT, attacking unsuspecting non-combatants. The terrorists cannot possibly met even one requirement for a just war.

Point 5: The JWT is indeed designed to give moral justification for political action—this is its whole purpose. By the way, the prophets and priests of the OT did the same for David and other Israelite kings. This seems obvious. However, you use the word “political” in a pejorative way as if it was sub-moral or unsavory. In the United States the word political has a long and wonderful meaning. It refers to the American system as the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I think it is terrific!

For Vitoria and Suarez, hostilities can be sub-divided into two groups: 1) an armed attack against a peaceful society and 2) “injurious actions” against a peaceful society (“generally defined as an infringement of a right”). The first is obviously a defensive war and, according to Vitoria and Suarez it needed “no special justification.” However, the second type of war needed justification because it was considered offensive.

Specifically, the two conditions added by Vitoria and Suarez were that an offensive war—to be justified—must be fought as a last resort and it must be done in a proper manner. The proper manner referred to avoiding the loss of innocent life.

●Regarding the loss of innocent life: I believe that Vitoria and Suarez were realistic enough to know that it is impossible for a war to be conducted without the loss of innocent life. What they meant is that the Just War country must avoid conducting a campaign against innocent parties. In my opinion, no nation in the history of the world has been more conscious, concerned and careful at doing this than the United States of America. Can you imagine, for instance, the former Soviet Union conducting a court marshal against its soldiers during the time of war for mistreating POWs—not torture—mistreatment? Ever read about how the French treated the Algerians when they rebelled against the French? Ever read about how the Belgians treated the Congolese in the 20th century? Ever read about how the French treated the rebels in the Ivory Coast? Ever read how the Soviets treated the people of Afganistan?
●See, what the world and the left does is hold America up to a standard that even angels could not maintain and then when they conduct their wars, they feel free to use whatever means suits them. Unfortunately, Americans are clueless about world history so they fall for this ridiculous nonsense.

●Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists: 10,564
●Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans: 71
●Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists).

If you will do the math, you’ll see that the U.S. military is responsible for less than 1 in 100 deaths in Iraq. Americans killed fewer Iraqi people this year than those that died in Iraq due to automotive accidents. Now please take the time to research how many Afghan citizens were killed per year by the Soviets during their 1980’s occupation and the number of those killed by the French in Algeria.

I am willing to bet that you had no idea that the number of collateral civilian deaths caused by the U.S. military was so low. Please be willing to give me an honest reply and suggest to me why you think you are not aware of this information.

Here is another thought question. How many stories have you seen in the mass media highlighting the heroism and positive work of our military in Iraq? If all we get is reporting on the aberrant, negative behavior and absolutely no reporting on the heroic, positive and uplifting work of our military, how can we possibly make any kind of rational judgment of the just or unjust means of our endeavors? What if absolutely no context is supplied from the mass media? What if the mass media never reports on the incredibly low level of collateral civilian casualties? How can you or anyone ever make a rational judgment? If all you ever get is the aberrant and negative, my view is that you will assume that the U.S. military is the worst, most war-mongering institution ever launched against the innocent peoples of the world. However, the factual reality is 180 degrees the opposite. It is the least offensive and least aggressive of any military in human history.

The acknowledged expert on firearm’s ownership and crime is Law and economics professor John R. Lott Jr. You can find a University of Chicago interview with Dr. Lott here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Here is a National Review article by Dr. Lott touching on the Canadian, English and Australian crime rates. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp

Regarding the American murder rate: Over 70 percent of American murders take place in just 3.5 percent of counties--these being the inner-city areas where drug dealers are concentrated. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports show that in 2005, 88% of murder victims were age 18 or older. Of all murder victims, 45% were 20 to 34 years old. In short, the largest group of violent crime perpetrators are young men living in urban centers who are involved in drug trafficking.
●For the period 1999 to 2001, the average rate (the number of homicides per 100,000 population) was 1.6 in the EU with the highest rates in Finland (2.9), Northern Ireland (2.7) and Scotland (2.2). For the other countries, the highest rates were found in Russia (22.1), Estonia (10.6), Lithuania (10.6) and the USA (5.6). Source: Barclay, Gordon & Cynthia Tavares, "International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001," Home Office Bulletin 12/03 (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, October 24, 2003), p. 3.

●However, there are also a large number of peer-reviewed academic studies showing that letting private citizens own guns reduces violent crime—even against the police. Professor David Mustard in the Journal of Law and Economics specifically tested this and found that each additional year a state allows citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces the number of police murders by another 2 percent.

The Lancet (a British medical journal) analysis estimated that 100,000 civilian casualties had been caused in Iraq. However, their "study" has been widely discredited by credible groups on both sides of the debate. Yet, we continue to be inundated with high casualty numbers with massive numbers of civilian dead reported. However, Logic Times’ maintains an in-depth analysis of all combatant and non-combatant deaths. They report that after “two years of combat since the fall of Baghdad, much of it urban warfare, with less than 1,000 (948) civilians killed as a result of U.S. action.” A full and detailed analysis of all deaths can be found here: http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

The website: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ maintains a complete week-by-week full analysis of every single death related to Islamic terrorism; an ongoing analysis of the civilian collateral deaths from both Islamic and American forces; and a listing of all terrorism attacks in the world.

I agree with Ralph Peters the brilliant columnist for the New York Post and Washington Times. He maintains that the media has been unconscionably irresponsible and childish in its misrepresentation of the American effort in Iraq. Never has a military labored so hard to reduce civilian casualties and so maligned and misrepresented.

You wrote: “The war as it is being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan is not achieving any of the desired primary objectives.”
●You are such a typical American—microwave mentality. The clear and decisive objectives for Afghanistan were to end the Taliban’s rule of the country and its usefulness it as a base of operations and training for Al-Qu’ida and other terrorist groups. An additional benefit for the Afghan people was that it allowed them to restart their country and economy and develop a viable democratic government. The clear and decisive objectives for Iraq were to depose Saddam Hussein after violation after violation of U.N. sanctions. Side benefits have been the ending of his rule of terror, the formation of an elected government, an improved economy, the end to his secret police’s involvement in terrorism, etc. As I have mentioned, the historical record indicates that it takes a minimum of 10 years to end an insurgency. Even when we are able to largely withdraw, the Iraqi government will be dealing with terrorism and insurgency for some time into the future.

You wrote: “…believe there is a link. That link is what is called Justice.”
●I take it that you mean that because Islamic Jihadists are using terrorism against us, this means that God is bringing justice against us because of Hiroshima in the form of suicide attacks and the whole-sale slaughter of Muslims.
●I take it that you would have preferred that 500,000 to 1,000,000 of our American servicemen should have been sacrificed on the shores of Japan in order to appease your sense of fairness. This, of course, would have meant that at least two-three times the number of Japanese would have died defending their mainland (conservatively 1.5 million). I draw your attention to Iwo Jima were 20,000 Japanese troops literally fought to the last man. It took 7,000 Marine deaths to secure that small island. However, that was even less intense than Okinawa where the battle lasted for two and a half months, until June 21, 1945 and cost nearly 19,000 American lives. The Japanese losses were even more sobering: more than 100,000 Japanese soldiers were killed (out of just over 100,000 Japanese soldiers on the island), while the civilian death toll was estimated to be 80,000 to 100,000. The closer the American forces got to the Japanese mainland the more extreme the Japanese methods of defense became. The Japanese assessed that, while they could not defeat us, they could cause so many casualties that we would leave their country and future empire in tact. After 1942 the Japanese refused to surrender in any battle no matter how badly they were loosing. Literally—in no way figurative—a ground invasion of Japan would have been catastrophic. However, I am sure none of this makes any impact on you because no matter how evil our enemies may have been, for you, we are always at fault and God is always pouring out his wrath on America.

●Guess who was pressuring the United States NOT to enter the war against the Axis powers. In the minds of American pacifists and isolationists, what was happening in Europe and Asia was not worth dying for—am I wrong? It took a direct attack against our navy to overcome the opposition to the war. I think a policy of appeasement (a literal policy and not a pejorative term) was the guiding principle for many until Pearl Harbor. I believe the thinking was “that’s not my problem.” Actually, if it hadn’t been for Pearl Harbor, it is very likely that pacifists and isolationists would have allowed Hitler to have his way with millions; because, after all, the death of one innocent American life or one innocent bystander is not worth our involvement.
●You’d think we would have learned our lesson, but, frankly it doesn’t appear that we can grasp the idea that there are evil regimes in the world.
●Again, the biblical principle is that one’s individual Christian ethic is guided by “love overcoming evil.” The Christian ethic for the government is serving as an “instrument of God’s wrath” against evil doers. In my opinion, confusing these two leads to catastrophic disasters.

Its four principles were:

1. The United States must build an invulnerable national defense.
2. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack an America that is prepared.
3. American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the war in Europe
4. "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.

Within a year the organization had more 800,000 members.

Charles Lindbergh.com has an extensive article on the America First Committee and has a wealth of resources including an archive of Lindbergh’s isolationist speeches. They describe his leadership and thinking as follows:

His approach was, in effect, more understanding of the Germans (without approving of what they did) and more skeptical of the Allies than the conventional view in the United States. Lindbergh saw a divided responsibility for the origins of the European war, rather than an assignment of the total blame to Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Axis states. He did not view Germany, Britian, and France as implacable foes with irreconcilable differences that could be resolved only by war; he saw them all as parts of Western civilization. And he conceived of the European war as a fratricidal struggle (like the wars between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece) that could destroy Western civilization. http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp

One might argue that Lindbergh was not appeasement minded; however, you may be aware that many in the United States believed that he went too far in justifying and accommodating the Axis position and in his urging the American government to avoid siding with the Allies. The fact is that Lindbergh lived the rest of his life (like Chamberlain) with the whispers of being a Nazi appeaser or sympathizer.

Again, I am sure there were many and varied views within the isolationist and pacifist camps. However, I think I am justified in using the broad brush stroke that they calculated that the loss of American lives was “not worth it” and that appeasement was preferable (certainly this was true at with the leadership of the largest isolationist group in the U.S.).

Finally, you’ll notice that none of the things that you listed as the “economic” reasons for staying out of the war were listed by AFC in its printed literature. Other isolationists may have valued the things you listed; however, they didn’t make it into the platform for the largest isolationist group in pre-war America.

"In our civilization, when two men get down, either seriously or just “woofing”, what do they say? Some variation of “I’m going to kick your ass.” Am I right? Here’s what I heard in the Kingdom, “Hey, don’t f**k with me, or someday you get a knife in the back.” I’m not saying that wouldn’t happen to you in the West, but most men would be ashamed to make a threat of that nature. We don’t understand that direct shock battle is not necessarily the law of nature. When overwhelming force is brought to bear on them, they become cringing and obsequious. To put it bluntly, they lie their heads off to get you to turn your back on them. Try to see it from their point of view – how else do you expect them to act when you have the overwhelming force? You expect them to meet you on equal terms when the situation is so unequal? What other tactics are available but prevarication and delay followed by a sneak attack?

Folks, what we call “terrorism” is quite close to the historically normal way of warfare among these people."