February 16, 2008
“To suggest that Jesus is requiring Christians to be passive victims of violence, abuse and exploitation is taking the scripture far beyond its intent.
I do not see war as being hypocritical, when it is waged defensively. There are, just wars and there are unjust wars. This is a biblical principal. I see, just wars, as promoting peace.
Until we reach those who have no understanding of Christ's message, we struggle to survive to continue preaching that message.
Your child is outside playing on their bike and someone comes along and takes it away. As Father's, what shall we say to that child? What shall we teach them, turn the other cheek? Pretend it's not happening? And when they come back again to take his car, again shall we turn the other cheek? NO, because there is evil and greed in this world and the next thing taken will be his house.
I'm a realist. And I believe in peace through strength. As stated in the Preamble of the Constitution, “Provide for the common defense”... “SECURE the Blessings of Liberty”
The operative word is," Secure,” translation ... “Strength.”
Most definitely, NOT the George Bush's view of strength through bullying.
As I watched the images of the first cruise missiles landing on Baghdad, I was in disbelief. When I saw the first tank (flying the American flag) charge into Iraq, I thought to myself, "this is so wrong". On the other hand, when I see a terrorist site that was responsible for the World Trade Center collapse, in Afghanistan, I see justice.
Iraq is an unjust war. Afghanistan is a just war.
I am not suggesting that Christians should be passive to violence, abuse, and exploitation. That sort of reasoning would be antithetical to Christ's message. To the Prince Of Peace, violence, abuse, and exploitation would be abhorrent. Christ would condemn these things and combat any and all of them in a non-violent way.
If someone stole my child's bike, as a father I would teach my child that a bike only has material and object value. It can always be replaced. You can never replace your or another persons limb, life, or more importantly, what you are as a human being. The result of a confrontational action based on revenge could be unrecoverable injury for you or the other person. Who you are as a person will forever be contaminated if you would take revenge out of anger and hate against the person who stole your bike. It will become an affliction hard to overcome. Anger, hate, fear, and greed all come from the same human source. That source is the same behavioral, emotional source from which motivated the person to steal your bike in the first place.
I would teach my child that in life it is not so important what happens to you, but how you react to it. If you allow yourself to be overcome by the sense of your loss it will turn into revenge, anger, and consequently hate, which are all complimentary factors of fear. These are not the values I would wish for you to incorporate into your life. The beneficent and opposite behavioral source of these immoral values are the values of love, compassion, understanding, as well as reverence and respect for all life, irrespective of what happens to you, or your ego. These are the core values with which I would wish you to embrace, incorporate, and color your life.
This does not mean that I would not expect you to react to a situation in personal self-defense or assisting in the self-defense of others. My only expectation that I would hope that you would try non-violent means first.
I would teach my child that that is why it is necessary to have laws. I would tell my child that we will report the theft of the bike and let the police and legal system handle it.
"By having a reverence for life, we enter into a spiritual relation with the world. By practicing reverence for life we become good, deep, and alive." - Albert Schweitzer
In war, there is not one scintilla of reverence for life.
In war every atrocity known to man, every atrocity as described in the Bible's Old Testament, or what is also referred to as the First Testament, has been acted out by man. Every atrocity that any terrorist has ever employed and of which Americans condemn, also has been employed in war by both sides, and that does include Americans.
War is always the result of a failure to act proactively. It is an ignorant response. It is a failure of not having complete knowledge. Participation by patriots in support of war is always the outcome of fear, real or devised - mostly devised by those who have the power to declare it. Those in power and those who have psychological control over our lives, create it to garner the support of nationalist and patriots.
And, as expressed by Chris Hedges, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning!"
Initiating war to promote peace is oxymoronic, if you will. To coerce a people to accept democracy or to make them free as the consequence of the "tip of a bayonet" is also oxymoronic and reveals ignorance (by ignorance I mean the lack of complete knowledge).
There is no such a thing as a just war. The principles and rules of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are antiquated principles even though they have been employed as recently as the latter part of the 1940s. The concept itself of just war and the term bellum justum dates to St. Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century.
To be "Just" means to be consistent with what is morally right. It means the upholding of justice, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. An action taken that is in conformity with the facts and sound reason. War certainly does not embrace this meaning.
From a Christ's view, war is unarguably an immoral act. If anyone thinks that Jesus Christ would support war certainly does not have the same understanding of his teachings as I do.
Strength is both of brawn and of spirit. The spiritual ability to maintain a moral and intellectual position always takes greater fortitude. Brawn and militancy come from a latent, prehistoric, animalistic sense of behaviors that are acted out without thought.
A large military, brawn and militancy, gives one a lulled false sense of security. In case America faces a greater enemy, an enemy with a greater military power that in war we would have difficulty in conquering, we develop and stockpile a nuclear arsenal that is many times the number of nuclear weapons that we need to defeat any threat. We are in a constant and perpetual state of fear. How can anyone feel secure under these circumstances?
I understand and I respect the opinion of others. I believe we all desire the same outcomes: peace and freedom. We differ in our views on how to get there. We do not agree on the necessity for war.
Some may think of me as some sort of unrealistic kook. Some view me as a utopian. Amongst some of the things I have been called, up to and including that I do not deserve to be an American and that I should leave the country, is that I have a "pollyannaish" view and I should join all of those other pacifists and do-gooders who sing "Kum Ba Yah." I also have been called an anarchist and someone even went so far as to anonymously send to me the "Anarchist Bible." Some consider me an atheist when I really am not. Only an atheist in their view because I do not believe in a personal god. I am an atheist in the view of a Christian. Moreover, at least two people have said I should watch my back, and that our government may target me if I don't curtail my writing and discussion. Quite a few extremes, don't you think? I do not believe in the biblical Jesus; but I do believe in the historical, philosophical, and metaphorical Jesus - I believe in and try my best to abide by his teaching. I do know that very few are willing to discus my views with me. That is because I am in the minority. So in some sense I do understand where others are coming from. It can get very lonely in a crowd if I should respond in discussion within the context of my point of view. I usually am shunted or confronted in an extreme hostile way, but I don't mind. Believe it or not, I do understand.
JFK knew and understood the dissension there would be to his American University speech. He must have expressed this opinion previously. He knew and understood the opposing view. That is why he was so secretive. And, as he said, “to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.”
