11.17.2004
Well... I have been thinking about Chad's previous post, and the recent ones prior to that.
I admit that I do not really wish to respond to the posts, but I feel as though I should; that silence on the matters raised would be tacit or implicit approval. I feel as though posts I have made in the past have been ineffective at changing any minds, but I feel prompted to say something regardless. I hope that people who read this will at least entertain the ideas I bring up, and in particular might entertain the idea that we on some level have things at least partially wrong. Being fallible and easily influenced by our respective sources of information, it is easy to charge ahead rather blindly, rejecting out of hand information that runs counter to our case-hardened perspectives and accepting information that supports those same perspectives.
I think that the Pro-war/pro-life question was directed particularly at me because of my past expressions on the abortion issue, so I will tackle it as best I can again.
On a superficial level, it seems as though the two ideas are polar opposites, mutually exclusive. By embracing one, you are rejecting the other. Unfortunately, it is not quite so simple. I don't think that you will find anyone in the US (or at least very few) who would describe themselves as "pro-war", at least at the level they describe themselves as "pro-life". I have never met anyone who supported a war in any way other than reluctantly. Variations of reluctance abound, with some being far more reluctant than others. Yet they are only matters of degree, only disputes of justifications. There are times when war is necessary. If this particular case (Iraq) is or is not necessary is beyond the scope of what I am trying to say here. I think that it is beyond the scope of our collective knowledge. I have said before that we have no idea what information was presented to our leadership: we may each have made the same decision that they did... we don't and can't know. By negating the question one could ask how you can simultaneously support pacifism and abortion. Proponents of either would take issue with that.
Further, the question that Chad asked is ill-posed, and is in fact begging the question. It is like asking "Have you quit beating your wife?". To reject war in general because innocents and children are killed is analogous to rejecting driving automobiles because they do the same. Indeed, the automobile analogy can be stressed until broken, but war and driving can be conducted in similar manners (they can be done recklessly, dangerously, carelessly, or out of necessity or because of a moral compunction to do so).
In this particular instance (Fallujah), a few things need to be remembered. Innocent people were given ample time to escape. People knew for weeks that attacks were coming, and nearly all of the city left. Those that didn't assumed the risks that staying would bring. I believe it was negligent to stay in the face of that kind of danger, but it is not for me to say. The US military tried its best to avoid civilian casualties (most of the pictures of the "aborted" children I saw showed them wounded, though very much alive, in US medical facilities. Indeed, a still picture tells us nothing of what their condition was previous to the battle, or how they got into US hands), but in war, especially this kind of war, there are bound to be some. This does not lessen the ugliness of the experience, but it is a simple fact.
It is kind of odd... When I saw the images, I was struck by the knowledge that I have seen worse things. At various points I have seen rather gruesome images of motorcycle crashes, shootings, autopsies, Nazi medical tests, concentration camp images, etc. They were not "pornographic" displays of violence a la` Hollywood movies, but were simply there. Like these they had little or no caption because none was really needed. It kind of drove home to me that, yes, war IS ugly, horrible, terrible, dehumanizing, almost beyond imagination. I wish as much as anybody or more so that this sort of thing will never happen again. I envision myself and my family in these situations (my brother-in-law is in Afghanistan at the moment, so my family IS in this type of situation) , and my heart goes out to those on both sides. But yet I realize that war is, at times, necessary, and in a general sense will never truly go away. There is a long and philosophical discussion that could be launched into now, but that is something else that is beyond the scope of what I am trying to say.
Tonight I reread an essay (really a transcript of a speech) that CS Lewis gave to a university crowd entitled "Why I am not a Pacifist" from his book "The Weight of Glory". I would beg everybody reading this to get that book and read it (and all his other stuff for that matter). It has some extremely good points that are very relevant for our day. He says in a far more intelligent and articulate way than I the things I am trying to get across.
I will close with a comment about previous links....
I read the previous posts talking about Tim LaHaye and "Christian Reconstructionism", and was extremely disappointed. I am not going to go to bat for Tim LaHaye, because I think he can and should fend for himself. But I do think that the articles completely missed the mark on Christian theology and general worldview. It is amazing to me that people take seriously a non-Christian viewpoint on Christian theology from someone who is not a theologian. People wade in way over their head way too quickly in these matters.
"Given how fundamentalists see the modern world, they may as well be living in Iraq or Syria, with whom they share approximately the same Bronze Age religious tenets. They believe in God, Rumsfeld's Holy War and their absolute duty as God's chosen nation to kick Muslim ass up one side and down the other. In other words, just because millions of Christians appear to be dangerously nuts does not mean they are marginal. "
I thought this was particularly disappointing. It shows a complete misunderstanding of Christianity, Islam, and the reasons why (Christian) "fundamentalists" think the way they do, and in a bigger sense, WHAT they actually think.
In this sense, we (Christians, and by extraction, me) in fact lost the election, because 40% of the population blames whatever problems the US may have on us (Christians).
Please consider what I have said here. I hope that I have articulated my viewpoint well enough to be understood. You don't have to agree with me, but I hope that I have at least prompted a little thought.
I admit that I do not really wish to respond to the posts, but I feel as though I should; that silence on the matters raised would be tacit or implicit approval. I feel as though posts I have made in the past have been ineffective at changing any minds, but I feel prompted to say something regardless. I hope that people who read this will at least entertain the ideas I bring up, and in particular might entertain the idea that we on some level have things at least partially wrong. Being fallible and easily influenced by our respective sources of information, it is easy to charge ahead rather blindly, rejecting out of hand information that runs counter to our case-hardened perspectives and accepting information that supports those same perspectives.
I think that the Pro-war/pro-life question was directed particularly at me because of my past expressions on the abortion issue, so I will tackle it as best I can again.
On a superficial level, it seems as though the two ideas are polar opposites, mutually exclusive. By embracing one, you are rejecting the other. Unfortunately, it is not quite so simple. I don't think that you will find anyone in the US (or at least very few) who would describe themselves as "pro-war", at least at the level they describe themselves as "pro-life". I have never met anyone who supported a war in any way other than reluctantly. Variations of reluctance abound, with some being far more reluctant than others. Yet they are only matters of degree, only disputes of justifications. There are times when war is necessary. If this particular case (Iraq) is or is not necessary is beyond the scope of what I am trying to say here. I think that it is beyond the scope of our collective knowledge. I have said before that we have no idea what information was presented to our leadership: we may each have made the same decision that they did... we don't and can't know. By negating the question one could ask how you can simultaneously support pacifism and abortion. Proponents of either would take issue with that.
Further, the question that Chad asked is ill-posed, and is in fact begging the question. It is like asking "Have you quit beating your wife?". To reject war in general because innocents and children are killed is analogous to rejecting driving automobiles because they do the same. Indeed, the automobile analogy can be stressed until broken, but war and driving can be conducted in similar manners (they can be done recklessly, dangerously, carelessly, or out of necessity or because of a moral compunction to do so).
In this particular instance (Fallujah), a few things need to be remembered. Innocent people were given ample time to escape. People knew for weeks that attacks were coming, and nearly all of the city left. Those that didn't assumed the risks that staying would bring. I believe it was negligent to stay in the face of that kind of danger, but it is not for me to say. The US military tried its best to avoid civilian casualties (most of the pictures of the "aborted" children I saw showed them wounded, though very much alive, in US medical facilities. Indeed, a still picture tells us nothing of what their condition was previous to the battle, or how they got into US hands), but in war, especially this kind of war, there are bound to be some. This does not lessen the ugliness of the experience, but it is a simple fact.
It is kind of odd... When I saw the images, I was struck by the knowledge that I have seen worse things. At various points I have seen rather gruesome images of motorcycle crashes, shootings, autopsies, Nazi medical tests, concentration camp images, etc. They were not "pornographic" displays of violence a la` Hollywood movies, but were simply there. Like these they had little or no caption because none was really needed. It kind of drove home to me that, yes, war IS ugly, horrible, terrible, dehumanizing, almost beyond imagination. I wish as much as anybody or more so that this sort of thing will never happen again. I envision myself and my family in these situations (my brother-in-law is in Afghanistan at the moment, so my family IS in this type of situation) , and my heart goes out to those on both sides. But yet I realize that war is, at times, necessary, and in a general sense will never truly go away. There is a long and philosophical discussion that could be launched into now, but that is something else that is beyond the scope of what I am trying to say.
Tonight I reread an essay (really a transcript of a speech) that CS Lewis gave to a university crowd entitled "Why I am not a Pacifist" from his book "The Weight of Glory". I would beg everybody reading this to get that book and read it (and all his other stuff for that matter). It has some extremely good points that are very relevant for our day. He says in a far more intelligent and articulate way than I the things I am trying to get across.
I will close with a comment about previous links....
I read the previous posts talking about Tim LaHaye and "Christian Reconstructionism", and was extremely disappointed. I am not going to go to bat for Tim LaHaye, because I think he can and should fend for himself. But I do think that the articles completely missed the mark on Christian theology and general worldview. It is amazing to me that people take seriously a non-Christian viewpoint on Christian theology from someone who is not a theologian. People wade in way over their head way too quickly in these matters.
"Given how fundamentalists see the modern world, they may as well be living in Iraq or Syria, with whom they share approximately the same Bronze Age religious tenets. They believe in God, Rumsfeld's Holy War and their absolute duty as God's chosen nation to kick Muslim ass up one side and down the other. In other words, just because millions of Christians appear to be dangerously nuts does not mean they are marginal. "
I thought this was particularly disappointing. It shows a complete misunderstanding of Christianity, Islam, and the reasons why (Christian) "fundamentalists" think the way they do, and in a bigger sense, WHAT they actually think.
In this sense, we (Christians, and by extraction, me) in fact lost the election, because 40% of the population blames whatever problems the US may have on us (Christians).
Please consider what I have said here. I hope that I have articulated my viewpoint well enough to be understood. You don't have to agree with me, but I hope that I have at least prompted a little thought.
< 01:18 >< /j >
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
Post a Comment
<< Home
