A friend of mine who lives in Europe asked me my opinion of the problem with Iraq.
Even though she wanted to know if I thought we (the US) should go or not, she instead got an earful of bent up hostility against European countries.
Look, I started, America regularly stands between her allies and their aggressors; such heroics commonly fuel the American war engine. US intervention can be politically unpopular, but slothful isolationism (the easier choice) can be ethically immoral.
But my friend did not see why Americans would be angry with Europe when Europe so regularly stands beside American soldiers in efforts like Desert Storm and Afghanistan.
Look, I said, European countries cannot not support American activities once underway, it could be politically catastrophic for them to appear unsupportive of a successful campaign. So to see French, English and Italian troops along our sides is not something of comfort, just predictable.
As an aside, I want to apologize for mentioning England, who are reliably a friend to the United States, backing her even when evidence was not clearly on our side.
The European cowardice that resists standing with America prior to a conflict is the true problem. Politics presses involvement, but friendship presses support. To see your support on the field is one thing, to hear your support before the trigger is pulled – that is what is not happening today.
As threats point to other countries, America regularly stands in front of the gun for them. But today, the gun is at the United States and what country is standing up for us? Indeed, they appear to not be assuaged to act before the grievance is realized.
America is big enough to withstand an attack; however, America is not such the awesome power to prevent all existing threats. We can respond successfully, but prevention – rarely can we prevent so meaningfully.
Saddam has weapons that he cannot use. It doesn’t take a 5 year old to know that Saddam would love to attack the US, but we have humiliated his military to impotency. With no delivery mechanism, terrorists offer him an unusual promise.
Terrorists (who believe in a 40-virgin bonus if they kill Americans) would sop up Saddam’s juicy badness with the bread of zealot fervor. And why wouldn’t Saddam do it? His love for America? His concern for human life? His patronage of decency? Saddam kills his own people; no sense can be made that he would not treat his foes the same.
So, there’s the threat to America, Europe. What are you going to do?
Consider the frustrating, yet undeniable reality that terrorists are too many and to spread apart. Stopping them is a dream. Let me then ask you to consider injustice and poverty. If you are realistic, you know we shall have both until Jesus returns.
Does this mean we should not have police or judges? Does this mean we should protect the weak or help the poor? Indeed, we have a moral duty stand against injustice as well as the weak and poor.
So then, do terrorists win because they are not organized? Do men not have the moral duty to stand against social terror even when we will most likely fail?
Mortal questions are far from simple, and even farther from easy. Innocent Iraqis will dies if we attach, yet innocent Iraqis will dies if we do not. We may fail to prevent Saddam’s ultimate objective if we attack, but we will more likely fail if we do not attack. The world may hate us if we attack, but we may hate ourselves if we do not.
War may seem the easier choice, until you think.
So, my friend and I concluded, friendship would defend even against a threat, and our governments are not acting like friends, but let us not mistake our governments are not us. Our frustration to the powers that be will not transmute to each other.
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
A Defense of Islam
Traditionally, I am a Southern Baptist, therefore Christian; so it seems strange to arrange the words for 'a defense of Islam.' But, it's not quite the way it first reads ' don't stop reading just yet.
Islam, as you know, is a false religion. I can say this because I believe that Christianity is the only true religion. Indirectly, I am also saying that Buddhism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Catholicism, and any other 'paganism' are also false religions.
Muslims, as you know, practice Islam. Like Jews, the religion and the nation are somewhat plays on words. Are Jews from Israel or are they who follow the Torah' Far more confusing is the 'nation' of Islam, but I don't want to deal with that.
A few days before the first attacks on Iraq, I received an email exhorting me to remember the MUSLIMS who bombed Pan Am #103, the World Trade Center in '93, the barracks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the embassy in Africa, the USS Cole, and who committed the atrocities of September 11th.
The person who forwarded that to me (forwarded email is so overdone) seemed to not see any problem with this sort of wartime propaganda, but I did.
Consider this: have you ever heard a Pollock joke' Of course you have. Did you know that Pollock is derogatory' People from Poland are Polls, not Pollocks. 'Pollock' is the term Nazis, among others, consumed to help dehumanize their enemy, the Polish people; the jokes around 'Pollocks' did the same thing.
This is a basic tenant of propaganda. Not only does propaganda tell you what to think, it also tells you how think. The Nazis thought that an invasion of Poland was legally justifiable, that is 'what' they thought. But 'how' they thought, which is the most dangerous, is that the Polish people were deserving of invasion, and they propped this opinion on the devaluing of Polish people.
Consider the current climate of French jokes. We have renamed French fries and French toast, poured out French wine, thrown out French cheese and reminded ourselves that is was the United States who saved the French people from speaking German.
This conditioning, which slowing degrades the French people, makes it easier to introduce accusations like: the French have been buying Iraqi black market oil or, the French have been supplying Iraq with nuclear technologies. Regardless of their merit, such claims have a better chance of 'sticking' in our environment of French distain.
And so, let us return to the Muslims, and our defense of Islam.
When Americans are killed, other Americans have natural reactions. We are shocked, frightened and angry. Anger, the most potent of the three, usually drives a shameful response. Add fear and arrogance in the stew and a mess is brewing.
But logic can help us here.
Of the foreign-based terrorist attacks against the United States in recent years most culprits are Muslim. Does this fact have but a single conclusion in it to draw' Of course not, but an uneducated polity typically concludes the following:
Then again, it is not so simple to conclude that all Muslims are not terrorists, and that is the problem at hand. Because the headline attacks are by men who are Muslim, this unreasonable conclusion is propped up on regime of unscrupulous propaganda.
Let us consider Islam and Christianity. Let me first say, Islam and Christianity are not comparable, as one is true faith in God and the other is one in a chorus of false religions. But, the trueness of Islam is not the point I want to make.
If a man throws a brick through a window and then cries out, 'Jerry Nixon rules!' I am embarrassed to be associated with something that I would never do.
Christianity, likewise, has a similar ailment. The Klu Klux Klan (or KKK) considers itself a Bible-based, Jesus-supporting organization. These ambassadors of the Christian faith make other followers of Christ look like a violent, hate-loving group of people.
Consider what black Americans could say: Remember the Christians who beat us' Remember the Christians who lynched us' Remember the Christians who hanged us for crimes we didn't commit' Remember the Christians who enslaved us' Remember the Christians who concluded we were less than human'
So, if we apply poor logic to their situation, blacks could conclude:
You see, if you are a Christian, odds are the proof against this KKK business is already beginning to form. You would argue that not all KKK members are Christians and not all Christians are KKK members. Shoot, I would do the same.
If you can imagine that kind of argument, you can also see why all terrorists are not Muslims and all Muslims are not terrorists. A correction to the title of this article would be 'A defense of Muslims,' instead of Islam.
Then the old propaganda line appears: According to the Koran, if a Muslim kills Americans, he will get 40 virgins in heaven. Well, I am not about to spend time defending the goodness of Islam, but I will correct this one common chant; Islam teaches peace and the Koran does not teach killing Americans or Christians gives you vestal virgins in the afterlife.
So, where did this come from'
Well, consider how television evangelists pervert Christianity for their own devices. Consider also how nefarious historical leaders have misused the Bible to justify their wars and injustices. They do not represent God; they only twist his words for their own benefit. Using God, their followers would dedicate their life to the success of their leader.
Like that, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and other bad leaders have twisted the Islam faith to recruit followers who are willing to do their bidding and give their lives willingly in the process.
So, what do we do about Muslim-American'
This is the kind of question they asked in World War 2: what do we do about the Japanese-Americans; we can't really know where their loyalties lie' This is hard, and especially muddled because of the grenade attack suspected to be by a Muslim-American infantryman.
Do we round them up for internment camps' Do we 'send them back' like so many whisper' Do we surveil them around the clock'
Thus is the struggle of a free society.
Let's hope we cannot update the slogan:
Islam, as you know, is a false religion. I can say this because I believe that Christianity is the only true religion. Indirectly, I am also saying that Buddhism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Catholicism, and any other 'paganism' are also false religions.
Muslims, as you know, practice Islam. Like Jews, the religion and the nation are somewhat plays on words. Are Jews from Israel or are they who follow the Torah' Far more confusing is the 'nation' of Islam, but I don't want to deal with that.
A few days before the first attacks on Iraq, I received an email exhorting me to remember the MUSLIMS who bombed Pan Am #103, the World Trade Center in '93, the barracks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the embassy in Africa, the USS Cole, and who committed the atrocities of September 11th.
The person who forwarded that to me (forwarded email is so overdone) seemed to not see any problem with this sort of wartime propaganda, but I did.
Consider this: have you ever heard a Pollock joke' Of course you have. Did you know that Pollock is derogatory' People from Poland are Polls, not Pollocks. 'Pollock' is the term Nazis, among others, consumed to help dehumanize their enemy, the Polish people; the jokes around 'Pollocks' did the same thing.
This is a basic tenant of propaganda. Not only does propaganda tell you what to think, it also tells you how think. The Nazis thought that an invasion of Poland was legally justifiable, that is 'what' they thought. But 'how' they thought, which is the most dangerous, is that the Polish people were deserving of invasion, and they propped this opinion on the devaluing of Polish people.
Consider the current climate of French jokes. We have renamed French fries and French toast, poured out French wine, thrown out French cheese and reminded ourselves that is was the United States who saved the French people from speaking German.
This conditioning, which slowing degrades the French people, makes it easier to introduce accusations like: the French have been buying Iraqi black market oil or, the French have been supplying Iraq with nuclear technologies. Regardless of their merit, such claims have a better chance of 'sticking' in our environment of French distain.
And so, let us return to the Muslims, and our defense of Islam.
When Americans are killed, other Americans have natural reactions. We are shocked, frightened and angry. Anger, the most potent of the three, usually drives a shameful response. Add fear and arrogance in the stew and a mess is brewing.
But logic can help us here.
Of the foreign-based terrorist attacks against the United States in recent years most culprits are Muslim. Does this fact have but a single conclusion in it to draw' Of course not, but an uneducated polity typically concludes the following:
- Therefore, all terrorist are Muslims.
- Therefore, all Muslims are terrorists.
Then again, it is not so simple to conclude that all Muslims are not terrorists, and that is the problem at hand. Because the headline attacks are by men who are Muslim, this unreasonable conclusion is propped up on regime of unscrupulous propaganda.
Let us consider Islam and Christianity. Let me first say, Islam and Christianity are not comparable, as one is true faith in God and the other is one in a chorus of false religions. But, the trueness of Islam is not the point I want to make.
If a man throws a brick through a window and then cries out, 'Jerry Nixon rules!' I am embarrassed to be associated with something that I would never do.
Christianity, likewise, has a similar ailment. The Klu Klux Klan (or KKK) considers itself a Bible-based, Jesus-supporting organization. These ambassadors of the Christian faith make other followers of Christ look like a violent, hate-loving group of people.
Consider what black Americans could say: Remember the Christians who beat us' Remember the Christians who lynched us' Remember the Christians who hanged us for crimes we didn't commit' Remember the Christians who enslaved us' Remember the Christians who concluded we were less than human'
So, if we apply poor logic to their situation, blacks could conclude:
- The KKK is violent and hate-loving.
- All KKK members are Christians.
- All Christians are KKK members.
- All Christians are violent and hate-loving.
You see, if you are a Christian, odds are the proof against this KKK business is already beginning to form. You would argue that not all KKK members are Christians and not all Christians are KKK members. Shoot, I would do the same.
If you can imagine that kind of argument, you can also see why all terrorists are not Muslims and all Muslims are not terrorists. A correction to the title of this article would be 'A defense of Muslims,' instead of Islam.
Then the old propaganda line appears: According to the Koran, if a Muslim kills Americans, he will get 40 virgins in heaven. Well, I am not about to spend time defending the goodness of Islam, but I will correct this one common chant; Islam teaches peace and the Koran does not teach killing Americans or Christians gives you vestal virgins in the afterlife.
So, where did this come from'
Well, consider how television evangelists pervert Christianity for their own devices. Consider also how nefarious historical leaders have misused the Bible to justify their wars and injustices. They do not represent God; they only twist his words for their own benefit. Using God, their followers would dedicate their life to the success of their leader.
Like that, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and other bad leaders have twisted the Islam faith to recruit followers who are willing to do their bidding and give their lives willingly in the process.
So, what do we do about Muslim-American'
This is the kind of question they asked in World War 2: what do we do about the Japanese-Americans; we can't really know where their loyalties lie' This is hard, and especially muddled because of the grenade attack suspected to be by a Muslim-American infantryman.
Do we round them up for internment camps' Do we 'send them back' like so many whisper' Do we surveil them around the clock'
Thus is the struggle of a free society.
Let's hope we cannot update the slogan:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for the Muslims,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Muslim.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
Thursday, February 06, 2003
Pull the Trigger
An unnamed friend of mine has the opinion that Christians should be pacifists. To be honest, many unnamed friends of mine have such an opinion. I hold a similar opinion, but also different.
Tonight, I was listening to a radio talk show and heard something that got me thinking about this unnamed friend of mine who thinks Christians should be pacifists in a most extreme way.
Let's start with God. We know God loves us, not only because he says he loves us, but because he acts like he loves us. Now, what do we mean when we say God acts like he loves us'
Does this mean that God does not punish or discipline us when we sin' No, because a loving father who does not discipline his children is not acting lovingly.
Does this mean that God gives us everything that we want' No, because a loving father who gives his children everything they want, teaches his children nothing.
What does it mean to say that God acts like he loves us'
Let's first examine if God really loves us. 1 John 4: 9 says, 'By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.'
Because God sent Jesus Christ down from a heavenly throne to a painful cross in order to redeem mankind, we can know that God loves us. We can be sure of this because John 15: 13 says, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.'
So, let us be agreed that God loves us. We are, after all, telling the truth when we say, 'Jesus loves you.'
Now let us consider God's actions to man. We know that he is a role model, not only insofar as a perfect God, but also as a perfect friend, a perfect father, a perfect priest, a perfect servant and a perfect man.
Now, don't get lost here.
However God interacts with man is perfect and perfectly loving; for God is love, according to 1 John 4: 8. Moreover, Jesus' life on earth is the perfect model for our lives, but also God's interaction with man is also a continued model for our lives.
I am getting to the point here.
The Jews call Yahweh, the God of the defenseless. In the Old Testament, God again and again defends the weakest of all so that his glory is magnified. In the New Testament, Jesus again and again takes sides with the poor, the prostitutes and the hated ones who are defenseless against a hypocritical and aggressive society.
God defends the defenseless.
We also know that God does not defend all the defenseless. God has chosen some over others. After all, there are many occasions where God does not intervene for victims of a greater power.
As an aside: We also know that there is a paradox in calling anyone championed by God the weakest. But, let's focus on the point at hand.
When a man and a woman marry, these things are promised: fidelity and love. If Kyndall gave me nothing more, I would be endlessly happy; and she has, so I am.
But what is love' The love we are committing includes many aspects.
One aspect of that love is protection. Husbands to our brides are like God is to us. We know that we have only a limited ability to cope with the world, and rely on God to 'delivery us from evil.' At the same time, God has charged the head of a household with certain responsibilities which he models with his own bride, the church.
We see the beginning of this in Matthew 21: 12. 'And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13. And He said to them, "It is written, `My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a robbers' den."
Jesus is defending the tabernacle.
We see again and again as God rescues his church ' or as God defends his bride. In Acts, God strikes dead Ananias and Sapphira for sinning inside his church, and breaks followers out of prison, and delivers them from captors.
So, then, let us cut to the quick of it.
A man breaks into your house, he has tied you to the rail and is about to rape your wife. Part two: There is a gun hidden near you and you could safely reach and discharge the weapon to disable the intruder, saving your wife from imminent rape and potential death.
To this scenario, we always have asked, in the past, 'Would you do it?' I content that the correct question to ask is, 'Should you do it?'
Consider this, 'Would God do it for you?'
If your knee-jerk reaction was 'I am not God' then we are all in agreement ' you are not God, neither am I ' but we are called to emulate God's righteousness, and nothing God does is unrighteous.
We know that God has eradicated entire nations for his people. We also know that Jesus left some to their own devices. In 1 Timothy 1:20 we see where aberrant church members are discharged to their sin or 'delivered to Satan.'
Now consider our home invader. Definitely, he is sinning. Rape and robbery are never righteousness. The consequences are unpredictable.
When you pull the trigger, your intruder is dead on the floor and you have done two things. Faithfully, you have defended your home and, sinfully, you have killed another person.
But can you be both good and bad?
In Romans 13: 4, Paul reminds us that the government bears the sword, 'For it [authority] 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 upon the one who practices evil.'
Government has the right to punish. In the day of Jesus, the argument of capital punishment was a foreign one. Consider the words of the doomed thief on the cross in Luke 23: 41, "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.'
Following this through, a government can rightfully punish.
Imagine, however, a government who would not punish lawbreakers.
Imagine a police who race to crime scenes only to watch them.
Imagine a military who stood by motionless as their country is invaded.
Imagine a husband, who watches passively as his wife is raped and murdered.
We are commanded in Mark 12: 17, we give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's. We are to be servants of God without denying our obligations as people.
God has modeled our life of love by his example through Jesus Christ. He has modeled marriage through the example of his church.
Women have an obligation to their husbands and husbands have an obligation to their wives.
If God had but a single choice, God would choose those he loves and who love him over the existence of those who threaten.
We know this because he has done so again and again. God is an unchanging God, as Hebrews 13:8 says, 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.' Old Testament and New Testament, we have the same God with the same character.
Pull the trigger.
Tonight, I was listening to a radio talk show and heard something that got me thinking about this unnamed friend of mine who thinks Christians should be pacifists in a most extreme way.
Let's start with God. We know God loves us, not only because he says he loves us, but because he acts like he loves us. Now, what do we mean when we say God acts like he loves us'
Does this mean that God does not punish or discipline us when we sin' No, because a loving father who does not discipline his children is not acting lovingly.
Does this mean that God gives us everything that we want' No, because a loving father who gives his children everything they want, teaches his children nothing.
What does it mean to say that God acts like he loves us'
Let's first examine if God really loves us. 1 John 4: 9 says, 'By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.'
Because God sent Jesus Christ down from a heavenly throne to a painful cross in order to redeem mankind, we can know that God loves us. We can be sure of this because John 15: 13 says, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.'
So, let us be agreed that God loves us. We are, after all, telling the truth when we say, 'Jesus loves you.'
Now let us consider God's actions to man. We know that he is a role model, not only insofar as a perfect God, but also as a perfect friend, a perfect father, a perfect priest, a perfect servant and a perfect man.
Now, don't get lost here.
However God interacts with man is perfect and perfectly loving; for God is love, according to 1 John 4: 8. Moreover, Jesus' life on earth is the perfect model for our lives, but also God's interaction with man is also a continued model for our lives.
I am getting to the point here.
The Jews call Yahweh, the God of the defenseless. In the Old Testament, God again and again defends the weakest of all so that his glory is magnified. In the New Testament, Jesus again and again takes sides with the poor, the prostitutes and the hated ones who are defenseless against a hypocritical and aggressive society.
God defends the defenseless.
We also know that God does not defend all the defenseless. God has chosen some over others. After all, there are many occasions where God does not intervene for victims of a greater power.
As an aside: We also know that there is a paradox in calling anyone championed by God the weakest. But, let's focus on the point at hand.
When a man and a woman marry, these things are promised: fidelity and love. If Kyndall gave me nothing more, I would be endlessly happy; and she has, so I am.
But what is love' The love we are committing includes many aspects.
One aspect of that love is protection. Husbands to our brides are like God is to us. We know that we have only a limited ability to cope with the world, and rely on God to 'delivery us from evil.' At the same time, God has charged the head of a household with certain responsibilities which he models with his own bride, the church.
We see the beginning of this in Matthew 21: 12. 'And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13. And He said to them, "It is written, `My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a robbers' den."
Jesus is defending the tabernacle.
We see again and again as God rescues his church ' or as God defends his bride. In Acts, God strikes dead Ananias and Sapphira for sinning inside his church, and breaks followers out of prison, and delivers them from captors.
So, then, let us cut to the quick of it.
A man breaks into your house, he has tied you to the rail and is about to rape your wife. Part two: There is a gun hidden near you and you could safely reach and discharge the weapon to disable the intruder, saving your wife from imminent rape and potential death.
To this scenario, we always have asked, in the past, 'Would you do it?' I content that the correct question to ask is, 'Should you do it?'
Consider this, 'Would God do it for you?'
If your knee-jerk reaction was 'I am not God' then we are all in agreement ' you are not God, neither am I ' but we are called to emulate God's righteousness, and nothing God does is unrighteous.
We know that God has eradicated entire nations for his people. We also know that Jesus left some to their own devices. In 1 Timothy 1:20 we see where aberrant church members are discharged to their sin or 'delivered to Satan.'
Now consider our home invader. Definitely, he is sinning. Rape and robbery are never righteousness. The consequences are unpredictable.
When you pull the trigger, your intruder is dead on the floor and you have done two things. Faithfully, you have defended your home and, sinfully, you have killed another person.
But can you be both good and bad?
In Romans 13: 4, Paul reminds us that the government bears the sword, 'For it [authority] 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 upon the one who practices evil.'
Government has the right to punish. In the day of Jesus, the argument of capital punishment was a foreign one. Consider the words of the doomed thief on the cross in Luke 23: 41, "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.'
Following this through, a government can rightfully punish.
Imagine, however, a government who would not punish lawbreakers.
Imagine a police who race to crime scenes only to watch them.
Imagine a military who stood by motionless as their country is invaded.
Imagine a husband, who watches passively as his wife is raped and murdered.
We are commanded in Mark 12: 17, we give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's. We are to be servants of God without denying our obligations as people.
God has modeled our life of love by his example through Jesus Christ. He has modeled marriage through the example of his church.
Women have an obligation to their husbands and husbands have an obligation to their wives.
If God had but a single choice, God would choose those he loves and who love him over the existence of those who threaten.
We know this because he has done so again and again. God is an unchanging God, as Hebrews 13:8 says, 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.' Old Testament and New Testament, we have the same God with the same character.
Pull the trigger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)