Iraq
I am terribly dismayed at the war-mongering attitude among Christians these days. It's as though GW's profession of faith and party status entails our allegiance. I know there are arguments about justifiability and questions about Saddam's involvement with terrorist in the past, but I see precious little in the way of a developed Biblical view of war. I know that some of you support the war, if so, please provide the criteria for war and then show how this shoe fits.
My views are close to the following two articles. The first is by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), this article was posted on Lewrockwell.com today. Read it. It warms my heart, especially considering Laurence Vance's article on Lewrockwell on the previous day. I want to say from the outset that peace is the status quo...that is...for a Christian peace is default and all the burden of proof is on the advocates of a war.
My views are close to the following two articles. The first is by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), this article was posted on Lewrockwell.com today. Read it. It warms my heart, especially considering Laurence Vance's article on Lewrockwell on the previous day. I want to say from the outset that peace is the status quo...that is...for a Christian peace is default and all the burden of proof is on the advocates of a war.
posted by Anonymous | 7/22/2005 02:10:00 PM
4 Comments:
As an ex Navy man I have my own opinion of the military. In terms of what our military does for our country. Hmmmm. I'd have to say the Department of Defense would be more properly named the Department of Offense. And not just because we keep offending everyone. But because I fail to see how policing the world is defending OUR country. We are the agressors. We are hated because we try to force our "democratic" ways on our weaker neighbors throughout the world. Well a bully can only push someone so far before the one being bullied retalliates.
Now it's not that I think war can't be justified. The Bible does dictate just war. However, the spread of Democracy isn't grounds for war. A true defense of ones homeland requires not policing the world, but only guarding ones borders and ones homes. This land is our land and we should be readilly armed and prepared to defend it should someone actually try to invade us.
As for the effect the military has on it's personell. No organization has a greater negative effect on family values than the US military. Young folk are recruited and then encouraged to marry young in order to gain the finacial benifits the military offers married folk. Once married these couples are forced to follow the whims of the military. Moving every few years... separating spouses for incredible lengths of time... many times there is little break between times of separation. The one who leaves is exposed to every temptation under the sun while the one left behind is forced to face holding together the household alone and overwhelmed. Once again the temptation to fall into the first available open arm is rarely refused... along with the temptation to spend the "wealth" which is being readilly provided by an absentee spouse... Lying, cheating, and squander become prevalent in most military marriages. Even the "Christians" have a hard time holding their marriages together. This isn't to say it's impossible to have a succesfull marriage in the military. But just that to do so requires a true marital commitment and a whole lot of sacrifice above and beyond the sacrifices already neccessary in marriage. Few succeed.
I like you. You're silly.
Ehud would--
Neo-Con, eh? That's swell. Y'all are pretty fiesty for Peacenics.
No. I'm Archeo-Con all the way-- nosey to toesies.
In breif, I subscribe to the historical formulation of Just War Theory (one of the few things Aquinas got right) as derived from the Biblical laws governing warfare. In contrast to the Neo-Con, I beleive declaration of war to be an extension of constabulary powers of the Magistrate. And though these principles have been imperfectly employed & executed in "The War on Terror", I beleive they are still legitimately persued therein. I reckon the Bush administration's actions as (you're gonna love this--) particularly Cromwellian. Where Cromwell extended his umbrella of protection over "the Christian Commonwealth" (a non-national concept--) the current Admin. has likewise extended the principles of Just War Theory to para-national entities in as far as providence dictates the neccessity; however, the engagement w/Iraq is our prime example of the Admin.'s persuit of the more formal proceedure of J.W.T.. That is to say that as a Nation, when exerting our constabulary power over oh say, Al Quaida, it is only appropriate to identify any foreign nations that would support, protect, train, endorse, or grant a semblance of legal legitimacy to such groups. Once identified, we are to "declare peace" under terms of cooperation or surrender. If on the other hand, they spurn the terms of peace, we take 'em behind the wood shed. And guess what,... Ehud would.
Ehud would--
Ehud?
Post a Comment
<< Home