Book Review - Godless
I tend to agree with those who believe that liberalism is a mental disorder. I can think of no other explanation for those who hold steadfast to a system of beliefs that are self-contradictory, contrary to reason, and entirely Godless. Nor does Ann Coulter. In her latest book, Godless, she attempts to “throw open the doors of the church of liberalism” to expose the lunacy that exists within. “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’” she begins, “which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’”
Coulter frames liberalism as the opposition party to God. “Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul.” An important footnote explains her understanding of the term Christian. “Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.” This rather inclusive understanding of Christian keeps Coulter focusing on the Old Testament rather than the New. She speaks often of God and of Creation, but rarely (if ever) of Jesus.
Based on the title of the book and on the opening sentences, I had assumed that Coulter’s thesis in this book would involve proving that liberalism is a religion. I did not find this to be the case. Rather, the book was a collection of sometimes insightful and sometimes outrageous facts about liberalism with little reference back to this thesis. The chapter titles (“The Martyr: Willie Horton,” “The Liberal Priesthood: Spare the Rod, Spoil the Teacher,” “The Creation Myth: On the Sixth Day, God Created Fruit Flies”) keep the theme alive, but only barely. Despite this incongruity, the book contains vast amounts of interesting facts and information. Coulter certainly has a way with words.
Coulter is nothing if not witty (and reminds me of Mark Driscoll in that way). The book is replete with statements like this: “Throughout the 2004 campaign, the Democrats were looking for a Democrat who believed in God—a pursuit similar to a woman searching for a boyfriend in a room full of choreographers.” “In fourth grade Americans are in the 92nd percentile in science literacy…Eight years later, American twelfth-graders’ science scores have fallen to the 29th percentile. (For those of you who learned math in the U.S. public schools, going from the 92nd to the 29th means it went down.)” “This is why we need the death penalty. Without it, you always run the risk that a Democrat will come to power and start releasing all the prisoners sentenced to life in prison.” “While gays were being decimated by the AIDS virus, Koop was more interested in not ‘stigmatizing’ them than in saving their lives. See, where I come from being dead also carries a certain type of stigma. Instead of distributing condoms in gay bars and at Madonna concerts where they might have done some good, Koop insisted on distributing condoms in kindergarten classes, in order to emphasize the point that AIDS does not discriminate, which it does.” Similar statements can be found ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
Despite an obnoxious thread of sarcasm throughout the book, Coulter does a good job of exposing the lunacy of liberalism. She shows how it constantly contradicts itself; she shows how it celebrates death and destruction; she shows how it is fundamentally opposed to human life and to the God who created life. She affirms the truth of truth and the unchanging rules of life and morality given to us in Scripture. Though she does so with little of Christian love and compassion, she certainly does so convincingly. Her view of the world is clearly very black and white and perhaps a little too much so. Still, as she says, “truth is truth whether we like it or not.”
It does seem that liberalism is a mental disorder. But as a Christian, I can see that it goes even deeper than this and, like many mental disorders, must be caused by spiritual infirmity. Liberalism is opposed to human life because it is opposed to God. Liberalism is proof of the truths of Romans l: “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! … since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:24-25, 28-32, emphasis mine). They are, in short, Godless.
I did not find Godless a particularly good read; neither was it a bad read. Its strengths were too often offset by its weaknesses, leaving me someone ambivalent about it. If you read only a few books each year, I would not recommend making this one of them. But if the subject matter is of particular interest to you, at least Godless won’t take long to read and, regardless of your perspective on the issues, you’ll find yourself both amused and infuriated.
Comments (39) »
1. Joel
August 30, 2006
10:30 AM
I have to read it. Anything that can make the liberal blogosphere collectively foam at the mouth the way this book has must be a fun read.
2. Martin Downes
August 30, 2006
11:40 AM
I was tempted to buy it but I have yet to figure out whether it is about theology or politics. I’m still none the wiser! And if it is the former isn’t it a bit dated?
3. David Reimer
August 30, 2006
11:45 AM
TC wrote:
Coulter is nothing if not witty (and reminds me of Mark Driscoll in that way).
Does that mean that Driscoll is “chickified”?
Or Coulter “dudified”? (I just made that up.)
David Reimer
4. Tim Challies
August 30, 2006
12:01 PM
“I was tempted to buy it but I have yet to figure out whether it is about theology or politics. “
I’d say it is primarily about politics.
“Does that mean that Driscoll is “chickified”? Or Coulter “dudified”? (I just made that up.)”
Coulter is dudified. At least Driscoll doesn’t show off air-brushed cleavage on his book covers (for which we are all grateful).
5. Boxcarvibe
August 30, 2006
12:21 PM
You twice mentioned the phrase “liberalism is mental disorder”. There’s actually a book by that name…written by radio talk-show host Michael Savage. If you haven’t heard of him, his on-air wrestlings with the essentials of Christianity have me scrambling for the phone at times but his show is tape-delayed where I live.
6. Jabbok
August 30, 2006
12:32 PM
This is a paradox to me.
It seems that when we use Christianity to argue against Liberalism in the political realm we destroy the conservative nature of our Christianity.
What ever happened to “cast not your perls before swine” and “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. “?
7. donsands
August 30, 2006
2:56 PM
I most likely would agree with much she says in her book. But I sure don’t like the way she says it sometimes.
BTW, I heard she will be at a speaking engagement with James Dobson in D. C. on September 22nd-24th, with a multitude of other speakers.
8. Michael Garner
August 30, 2006
3:27 PM
I read her OP/Ed virtually every week. She is a very solid conservative and does a good job of pointing out many of the problems of the left. One should be clear to call her a Conservative and not a Republican as she clearly has some issues with the current administration.
If you are a strong conservative or wonder why people would be a strong conservative, then this may be a good book.
However, despite her repeated attempts to declare herself a Christian, very little (if any) of a Christian spirit can be detected throughout her writings. There is a place for satire and even sarcasm, but Ann has crossed the line one-hundred fold.
9. Kenny Archbold
August 30, 2006
5:09 PM
A 200 page political cartoon.
It was funny though.
10. Steve Camp
August 30, 2006
5:49 PM
I bought this book a few months ago and really enjoyed it. It is a book about politics, not faith; though the title can be lead one to believe that she is making the case for Christianity—which ultimately she is not.
On a personal note: several years ago I ministered to a small (under 100) gathering of Washington politicals for a prayer breakfast in D.C. Among the notoriety was Newt Gingrich. I remember visiting with Mr. Gingrich afterwards and had a brief opportunity to share the gospel with him (I sang and spoke about grace - Romans 5:1-2 and he had some interesting questions). He was a delightful man, very intelligent, and an honor to meet. A part from his conservative politics, with which I mostly agree, he was also a troubled man. As it was revealed later, he was just as adulterous towards his wife as President Clinton was towards Hillary.
All to say beloved that, the Democrats don’t have the corner on depravity anymore than the Republicans have the corner on righteousness. We must not confuse (as Dobson and others in the ECB have done continually) morality and civility with Christlikeness and regeneration; we must not confuse conservatism’s brief triumph over liberalism politically, as representing biblical Christianity; and finally, we must not confuse family values with the once for all delivered to the saints faith.
Lastly, Tim, you wrote: “Coulter is nothing if not witty (and reminds me of Mark Driscoll in that way).” IMHO, Driscoll is not even in the same league as Ann… Coulter is witty; Driscoll is crude… trying to be witty.
Thanks for your review…
Steve
Romans 13:1-7
11. JRush
August 30, 2006
6:41 PM
“Despite an obnoxious thread of sarcasm throughout the book, Coulter does a good job of exposing the lunacy of liberalism.”
Every word in the above sentence sums up the book.
12. donsands
August 30, 2006
6:51 PM
Some good thoughts from steve c.
“Conservative humanism is just as wrong as liberal humanism.” -Francis Schaeffer
13. Mike
August 30, 2006
8:46 PM
Tim:
I found your review to be informative and - as it should be - to come from a solid Christian perspective. I appreciate your reading of her book and analysis of it. You do well with reviews and may be at your best when evaluating books.
I am somewhat troubled, however, by a phrase you employ a couple of times:
A mental disorder is something that causes significant distress in personal, social, educational, or professional endeavors, rendering the individual unable to perform effectively in any or all of those areas.
Liberalism is not a mental disorder; liberalism is a worldview and a political belief system, guilty of much of what you identify. Again, it is not a mental disorder and I don’t think that’s a path we want to go down.
If we start diagnosing those with whom we have worldview or political differences as mentally disordered, we run the risk of being hoisted on our own petard. To me, that’s a scary proposition: the declaration of those with whom we have political or philosophical differences as suffering from a mental disorder.
You may have be jesting, but institutionalizing political opponents has been done in the past and could happen here. I don’t want to go that route.
14. Phil
August 30, 2006
10:15 PM
You said,”Though she does so with little of Christian love and compassion …” I have heard other Christians say the same, but consider what Flannery O’Connor said. “To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures.” Though she is not the same caliber of writer as O’Connor, Ann Coulter attempts to do just this. If I saw a man walking towards a cliff while absorbed in reading a book, I would not say softly,” excuse me sir.” I’d be yelling, screaming and throwing rocks. Would this be showing Christian love and compassion? Certainly. In an attempt to get His people’s attention, God repeatedly had invaders overrun the land. Christian love and compassion? God is the one who writes the definitions. In spite of Coulter’s shouting, I don’t think the liberals heard her. Being called godless didn’t seem to bother them at all. Perhaps someone needs to up the volume before God does.
15. wfseube
August 30, 2006
11:17 PM
Tim, you really should read Michael Savage’s book by the same title (“Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”). It’s a little rough around the edges, but he definitely supports that thesis.
And, wrt. Mike’s statement A mental disorder is something that causes significant distress in personal, social, educational, or professional endeavors, rendering the individual unable to perform effectively in any or all of those areas. - I see no inconsistency, considering your definition. Liberalism definitely causes distress in their social, educational, and professional endeavors, since liberal views make one unable to act and make decisions in a rational manner. Liberals are indeed unable to perform effectively in those tasks that are affected by their liberalism. The liberal sickness severely impares the ability of the liberal to think and act in a rational fashion in most situations.
Liberalism is a framework of thought that simply makes no sense. Just today I was talking to co-workers about my thoughts of how liberals acquire this disorder. I would really be interested in any research that indicates why an individual adopts a liberal (or conservative) philosophy. There is really no other reasonable explanation for liberalism except the idea that it IS a mental disorder.
——
bill
16. Señor Limpio
August 30, 2006
11:25 PM
Tim, I’m disappointed. Coulter is a mistress of uncharity. I posted about this a little while back.
17. Brendan
August 31, 2006
7:39 AM
I think that it’s dangerous to automatically tie liberalism to the Democratic party…there are moderates.
It IS possible to be a Democrat and a Christian, because neither political party exactly lines up with Christian theology. To speak out so hatefully against an entire political party, then, is wrong to me.
Does Ms. Coulter speak out of love? Does she leave judgment to the Lord? Does she conduct herself in a manner that a woman should?
After reading come articles over a year or two, it actually surprised me to find out that she professes Christianity.
18. Mike
August 31, 2006
9:19 AM
Brendan (#17):
Not to pick on you (since what you stated is so similar to what have said numerous times in the past), but let me turn a couple of your questions back to you.
In your comment, you describe Ms Coulter as “hateful,” imply that she does not “conduct herself in a manner that a woman should,” and say that it surprises you “to find out that she professes Christianity.”
So, do you speak out of love? Are you leaving judgment to God?
I’m not saying you do not have a right to your opinion - in fact, I likely agree with some or most of your assessment - but only that we fall short of the standard by which we measure celebrities such as Ms Coulter. As we seek to critique, we need to be careful that our tongues do not get us into trouble or hypocrisy. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been guilty of this (and you may think I’m doing it again right now!).
bill (#15):
Your comment left me wondering if you understand what constitutes a mental disorder (even by my superficial definition) and/or the experience of liberals (being a recovering/reforming/returning liberal myself). Their system works for them quite well and they sleep well at night. I’m not saying they should, in all cases, but only that they do. They are perfectly rational and consistent (in their minds) within the confines of their belief system.
The difference is between the conservative Christians view of reality and a liberal perception of reality. We believe to see more (and to the extent they deny the eternal, we are correct), although there are more than a few “liberal” Christians who adhere to eternal perspectives but emphasize social justice, ecology, etc. Some conservative Christians do the same, of course.
But simply because one’s worldview does not agree with another’s worldview does not lead to the conclusion that one of the two have a mental disorder. I’m sure radical adherents of other religions think that we Christians are off our collective rockers; in fact, 1 Cor 1 makes it clear that we are morons - i.e., low-functioning, mentally impaired dolts - in their eyes.
In a country - indeed, a world - where genuine Christians are a small minority, do we really want to give the majority the power to declare us mentally disordered because they disagree with our worldview? This is a dangerous path. A lot of people are morally depraved, but this is not the same as being mentally disordered: the former is a violation of God’s moral law, the latter is not; the latter is a result of Sin; the former a manifestation of sins.
But, even if we were in the majority, a difference in philosophical views does not constitute a mental disorder. It is perilous to mix philosophy with psychology and to judge one by the other.
(I am tempted to say that some of my clients, who are mentally disordered, would be offended at being lumped together with liberals - but I won’t.)
19. Spurgeonite
August 31, 2006
9:43 AM
I addressed A. C. in my blog, The Spurgeonite Tabernacle, back in June, entitled, “If She’s What a Conservative is, Count Me Out.” I have seen nothing to change my opinion in the last couple of months.
Like you, Tim, I’d probably agree with most of the positions which she takes. Unfortunately, her style and methods of argumentation can hardly be considered to be within the realm of “Christian” discourse.
Can one defend statements such as the following?
“I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.”
“And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren’t planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy…”
“These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”
“These women got paid. They ought to take their money and shut up about it.”
It is one thing to disagree with a political position and argue against it. But it is unbecoming a professing Christian, (I understand that she attends a PCA church), to utilize such personal and unsubstantiated slander. Statements like this should not be defended, but should receive universal condemnation from those who name the name of Christ.
Let us not put our politics before our commitment to righteousness.
20. vynette
August 31, 2006
9:50 AM
There really is nothing new under the sun!
Once, long ago, ‘religious conservatives’ received replies they disapproved of and they accused a certain other of being insane.
21. Bobs
August 31, 2006
10:20 AM
Let’s not mistakenly use the words “conservative” & “Christian” as if they are inalterably linked. Although I believe most true believers are politically conservative, I don’t believe most conservatives are true believers. If A.C. is a Christian, her testimony saddens my heart.
22. Mike
August 31, 2006
10:58 AM
Vynette:
Thank you for stating so pointedly and succinctly the argument I obfuscated so profusely.
23. Brendan
August 31, 2006
1:00 PM
Touche, Mike. The idea of judgment is something that I haven’t fully grasped, because we are not to judge and yet we are to correct and rebuke, leaving a very fine line that can, and probably was in my case, easily crossed.
However. I don’t want to get into a political debate, but I am a Christian who is a registered Democrat. So to have someone like Ms. Coulter who professes Christianity and attacks the member of the Democratic Party with blanket statements, then we have a Christian attacking a Christian, albeit in an indirect way. Her words in her columns belittle me and some of my beliefs, and this just seems uncharacteristic of the way people in the body should act.
Is that too judgmental to say? I certainly do not wish to be like that. I merely wish to learn what is right and wrong from the Bible and look for these things in peoples’ lives. I’ve read so much about unity within the body, and it seems that such extreme methods of writing do no unify those who are across party lines.
24. Gospeldrivenlife@gmail.com
August 31, 2006
1:31 PM
Thanks for reviewing the book, Tim.
I read and disagreed with her book — my greatest concern is the equation of conservatism with the Gospel when conservatism is just as idolatrous as liberalism.
The Gospel is neither conservative nor liberal — it is not red state vs blue state (as we say in the USA). It is greater and more glorious than both and sits in judgment of both.
25. billmelone
August 31, 2006
3:33 PM
Well said gospeldriven. And I really have to say, saying liberalism is a mental disorder is pretty ridiculous. If you meant that sarcastically, like the theo-doping scandal thing, well, i hope so, but I don’t think you meant it that way. Liberalism IS NOT a mental disorder. Disagree with it in general, fine, but Tim, you really are usually more sensible/thoughtful.
26. ariellion
August 31, 2006
6:58 PM
I am as politically incorrect as the next person. In fact I routinely emphasize my distaste for the pc-ization of disability (“disabled/challenged”), etc. But I must admit that it hurt my heart, the Republican cause and her Christian testimony (if any) for Coulter to continually refer to those she dislikes as “retards”, “retarded”, etc.
PS On the judgment issue, JESUS said “Judge RIGHTLY with right judgment” and He spoke out in righteous indignation against the “whited sepulchres” and “vipers”, “hypocrites”…So don’t over play the sanctimonious “Let’s not judge” card (you shouldn’t be playing cards anyway, should you?!). But I never read of Him using the disability of another person as a way of referring to another person in a way that would hurt the disabled. “Blind leading the blind” is as close as He came and that is just a statement of physical fact (someone without sight will readily admit to not being the best guide to another blind person). Few people with mental or congitive difficulties would say that Coulter’s use of an ephithet about their condition was such a statement.
I read Coulter’s book and enjoyed much of it. I laughed, I cried. But I cried more than I laughed over the callousness of her disregard for those who had “no dog in this fight”, for how low political debate has sunk, and for the damage done albeit unwittingly perhapes to the cause of Christ.
Paul http://www.arielion.com
27. andre
September 1, 2006
9:21 PM
Tim
Thanks for the review but I do not share your view about Anne Coulter. A distinct lack of charity marks her writing and public comments.
Rather than applaud her, I shudder to think that to many in the world, she represents the Christian point of view.
We’ve lost the art of engaging our opposition with dignity and grace that befits followers of Jesus Christ. The culture war doesn’t give us an excuse to speak with a lack of humility or charity. I posted on the issue of gracefilled engagement in the culture war just a few days ago
http://everysquareinch.blogspot.com/2006/08/walmart-and-culture-war.html
Grace to you
Andre
28. Virginia
September 2, 2006
2:16 AM
While I do often read Ann Coulter’s weekly columns, and I agree with much of WHAT she says, I cannot agree with HOW she says it. I cannot forward her writings to Christian women friends or recommend them to my young daughters. We are not to judge another’s “salvation status,” but we are to use discernment (another form of judgment). She is smart, witty, and eloquent (at times), but she is also sharp-tongued, cruel, immodest, and does not seem to know her true place (in a Biblical sense of the word) as a Christian woman. She is, as I teach my children, “not being a good steward of the gifts God has given her.” I often shudder at some of the things she says, wondering how she has the nerve to publish her words for all the world to see.
29. Ryan Boomershine
September 2, 2006
7:58 AM
This is my second Coulter book (Slander). It?s a book to love and hate. It?s chock full of important truths about our times, especially how the heavy-handed liberals are distorting and supressing truth and writing history for their own aims/agendas. Among other things, the book touches government scandals, racism, evolution, science, and education. A lot of people will be put off by Coulter?s severe writing style. While the truths are solidly Reaganian, the style is rife with harsh sarcasm and includes some crudeness?though the cloak of wit may be the most becoming garb. On content?excellent. On style?the tender should avoid.
30. Scott Starr
September 4, 2006
5:30 AM
I have realized lately that part of what drives me to think about and comment about some of these things is a certain guilt that I feel in my own heart. Not only am I priveleged to be an American, but a Christian and God fearing person as well. As both American and Christian I am a member of a group that not only has proclaimed that it is right about the meaning of life on this planet…but that we, the chosen, are the ONLY ones correct on matters of religion and geopolitics. That proclomation bears a heavy weight and responsibility. It begs the question that if such is true..why all the chaos and confusion and injustice and disharmony in our own society and in our own churches and in the world at large to which we assume to be the arbiters of freedom and reason? How can we look upon the horrors we have both enabled and in some cases caused in this world with such equanimity? I know that America often regarded as the best hope for a safe and humane world that has ever been seen…this is the scary part…that this is as good as it gets.
As I see it, the problem lies not only with the liberals that Ann Coulter and her contemporaries and fans so eloquently demonize. The problem is also with Ann Coulter and those like her that spew vile, hateful spite that is actually antithetical to the spirit and tenor of everything that Jesus christ was about. For example read the Bible, which Ms. Coulter presumes to know something about as implied by her self righteous posturing and tagging her political opponents as “godless”.
For starters, Jesus lays out the beatitudes which plainly say that those that will see Heaven are not the arrogant, judgmental hate and fear mongers like Ms. Coulter..but the gentle, meek, merciful and loving.
Next, in Matthew 5:43-48 Jesus says.
43”You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Those are the words of Jesus in complete contrast to those of Ms. Coulter and all those like her- who have conveniently overlooked such teaching known as the Gospel.
Now, take a look at this. Glatian 1:7-12
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel? 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Now, having established what Jesus has to say on these matters. I think it is safe to say that Ms. Coulter and some of the rest of you as well are completely outside of christian doctrine and in no position to be calling someone else “godless”. In fact, I will point out that the name Satan means “accuser” in the ancient language of the Old Testament. Therefore, it could be concluded that Ann Coulter is in fact satanic. I truly do not understand how any of you who call yourselves christian could be so blind to this.
Now, before you quote me verses about being judgemental from the bible- take note that it is not I that judges you but the Word itself. There is no way you can turn this around and call me judgmental and at the same time maintain that Ms. Coulter’s entire body of work is abaominable in comparison.
As I reflect further upon the whole debate between liberals and “conservatives”…
I remember when my public school teachers first began to indoctrinate me and my peers in the early 1970’s (I started kindergarten in 1969). Our country was engaged in an unpopular military conflict then as now. The Viet Nam war and the war in Iraq are not the same exactly…but there are a good many paralells. One paralell for sure is that we have a huge miltary machine engaged in a theater of guerilla warfare. So, far it does not appear that the outcome is going to be much different this time around. My schoolteachers saw fit to try to explain to us concepts like “Utopian ideals” and why we should not ever expect to see them work because the world was so full of evil and selfish people. They explained that anarchy would surely ensue…if certain utopian ideals were played out in the real world of “civilization”. They were of course talking to a bunch of 3rd and 4th graders that would have believed that the earth was pyramid shaped and the moon was an enormous glowing spitball coughed up by the Supreme Being if they had insisted so and provided some slick graphics to drive the point home. I am pretty sure in fact that most of my peers and I all still believed in Jolly Old Saint Nick back then too.
The teachers further explained to us how carpet bombing Viet Nam so that people would stop being communists or dropping atomic bombs on non- military targets in WW2 actually saved more lives than it snuffed. The same would be true of the fire bombings of dozens of Japanese cities full of men women and children- hundreds of thousands in fact- that were burnt to smithereens although the only thing they may have had to do with the miltary machine-states waging war across the globe was perhaps their desire to maintain a lifestyle…i.e. continue being Japanese. As I have gone on through life I have noticed that not too many people ponder or question the conventional wisdom of all of this geopolitical generalization and indoctrination and actually determine if these ideas and/or methods are philosophically sound and morally correct or even historically accurate or not. To do so invites instant derision.
I have actually dared to read up on the dropping of the atomic bomb, for instance, instead of just figuring that whatever my fourth grade teacher contended was golden gospel- and guess what….there actually are some folks that contend that Japan was on the verge of surrendering before the bombs…they were in fact strategically defeated already and within months the conflict in the Pacific theater would have concluded…without opening pandora’s box of atomic/nuclear weapons. I cannot say whether or not this is true…who knows? Precisely…nobody can say for sure one way or the other…but the debate is not over and done with because some teacher or some author or some commentator said so.
Practically no-one endeavors to answer the question of, “even if a world free of strife (Utopia) is not possible- shouldn’t we be trying to get as close as possible?” It has been done- this getting very close. Tribal Native America was as peaceful, God -fearing and stable of a place as ever existed (still not sin or violence free I acknowledge)…and it existed for tens of thousands of years…as opposed to any other known empire you can name. So it got wiped out by a group that eventually became the United States. Fair enough… a liberally idealistic society gets wiped out by a more heartless and greedy group, the only thing that this proves is that a “Quasi-Utopian” system of direct democracy cannot co-exist with the existing paradigms of western thought..yea, though it pains me to say so…Western Judeo Christian thought- or more specifically still- what this brand of thought has become.
It often puzzles me how the masses in this country can fail to understand that when the rest of the world sees America engaging in acts of “sanitized” warfare, bombings (shock and awe), WMD’s, mass violence, manipulation, fear, intimidation, coercion and so on they see TERROR tactics. They see us as living by a double standard. Listing the litany of good, humanitarian things the U.S. has done does nothing to erase this point in the minds of much of the rest of the world whether you and I “get it” or not. The bloodshed leaves more of an impression than the noble things we are trying to do. This concept is now being bitterly debated in the media. It is duly noted that the ongoing violence and the knowing, willfull slaughter of innocents in Iraq is being perpetrated mainly by insurgents (or terrorists if that makes you more comfortable) and not our people (even though our bombing campaigns and sanctions have killed untold numbers of innocents). The fact is that they are reacting to our presence there and our foreign policy…we are part of the equation.
So…is warfare the ONLY way to deal with this situation? To even suggest such a thing..to even enter into this discourse is all but squelched in the mainstream.
People who ask these types of questions and seriously grapple with the answers are often labled as liberal (read as socialist=communist) seditious (read as aiding and abetting the enemy=terrorist), politically motivated (read as democrats seeking power) or lost in fantasy. Now that the media is beginning to wake up (after being totally on the “Operation Iraqi Freedom and Shock and Awe bandwagon at the start) and ask hard questions and put all the carnage in perspective…they too are being attacked as anti-American and accused of sensationalizing the bad news. Does it make sense for the media to attempt to undermine the system that enpowers and enriches them …undermine the world by default…just to make some political hay and/or sell newspapers? If you believe that the media is actually doing just that…tell me again who the pessimist and unrealistic idealist is…I am getting confused. The definitions of conservative and liberal are all a blur.
Now, this brings us back around to a point I have been working up to concerning how CHRISTIANS should feel and react to the situation at hand. I think this is relevant because this whole Iraq-war enterprise has been sold to us as a primarily “conservative”, hence, Western- Judeo- Christian- ideological- exercise in military humanitarianism. Let me paraphrase some thoughts of other Christian writers (credits to Lee Camp and his book Mere Discipleship) in this arena of warfare and utopian dreams:
“…Underneath the end justifies the means” logic lies the assumption that the way of Christ is simply not a relevant social ethic, lest injustice reign and the violent vanquish the righteous. Christians cannot take the way of Christ Seriously, or society will fall apart, will sink into a spiral of unmitigated violence. Civilization itself is at stake. Jesus cannot have meant that we take him seriously in the realm of social and political realities- after all, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERYONE DID THAT?! Consequently, “Jesus”, “Christianity”, and even “discipleship” are reduced to mere “spirituality”, a realm that has little if anything to do with the concrete realities of culture, civilization, and politics. To use different language- Christendom (the blending of religion and empire) has seperated doctrine and ethics into two seperable categories, rather than seeing them as two sides of the same coin. Numerous times the book of Acts describes the Christian faith as “The Way”, a designation that strikes one as remarkably different than our word “religion”. “Religion” often connotates a set of beliefs and practices seperable from everyday life; as such, “religion” is in a sphere distinct and seperate from things like politics and society and culture. But if the claim that Jesus is Lord is “a Way or The Way”- then we cannot so easily seperate his “Way” from every facet of life.
Note that the Jews expected a MILITARISTIC style Messiah…that is not what they got.
One of the most ardent pagan critics of the early church posed the “what would happen if” question to the early Christians’ refusal to either employ violence or venerate the empire as the primary means through which they might contribute to society. Castigating second century disciples, the pagan Celsus angrily maintained that “if all were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent [the emperor] being left in utter solitude and desertion, and the affairs of the Earth would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true wisdom’. I.E. Celsus asked, What if everybody did that? Answering himself he stated that the empire would fall apart, we would be overcome by our enemies and on top of that you would not get to practice your religion! But the response of the early Christian theologian, Origen, demonstrates that the “commonsensical” nature of Celsus’ attack was not always seen as a trump card.
First off, Origen realized that the one who asks the “what would happen if everybody did that” question does not, of course, mean for us to take the question literally. If everyone loved their enemies then Jesus’ teachings would not be problematic. If everyone shared their wealth, then Jesus’ commands would not be seen as a stumbling block. If everyone forgave offenses “seventy times seven”, then Jesus’ insistence would fail to disturb us. So, Origen responded to Celsus, if in folowing Christ “they do as I do” then it is evident that even the barbarians, when they yield obedience to the Word of God, will become most obedient to the law, and most humane. But the reality, of course, is that not everyone “does that”. And thus when face with the “reality” of a world in which people appear to always “look out for number one”, when our world proclaims “take care of yourself or no-one else will”, when our culture surrounds us with a message that we should “go for the gusto”, “acquire as much material welath as possible”, and to make sure that WE are happy and secure- then the call to discipleship sounds quite threatening. The “reality” of sin, the “reality” of injustice and oppression, the “reality of “market and economic drives, the “reality” of “how things work” are thought to trump the serious calling to follow Jesus: “Many people will not love you in return”, “and some people’d just as soon kill you as look at you” and “you just can’t reason with some people”, and some people are just taking advantage of you and/or the system”. “Jesus’ Way works in an “ideal world” but not in the “real world” where you must “get your hands dirty” if you’re going to “make a relevant contibution to society”. But we must question as Origen did whether the logic of Celsus was very realistic after all. To the unbliever, Origen maintained that it is not the warring and self seeking peoples of the Earth who preserve society- instead, it is the people of God who are “assuredly” the salt of the earth: THEY preserve the order of the world; and society is held together as long as the salt is uncorrupted.
So, the question ought not be “what if everybody did that”, but, “what will happen if Jesus’ “disciples” refuse to act like Jesus?”. For Origen, if “disciples” refuse to act like disciples, there will be no salt, there will be no light, and then indeed there will be no “order”, “justice” or “civilization”. and if the salt has lost its saltiness, so Jesus said, it is foolish, insipid, good for nothing, but to be thrown out in the mud and be walked upon. Nonetheless, the pagan logic of Celsus ultimately won over a large number of adherents among christian tradition ( a legacy which continues to this day in the “conservative” movement in geoploitics). The percieved need to run the world, or the empire, or the market economy, or the nation-state gives rise to the apparent “commonsensical” basis of the pagan’s logic: if you take Jesus seriously, things will simply fall apart. And so in varied, nuanced and subtle ways, the “Way of Christ” has been set aside in favor of other authorities, which would show us what we should do and how we should do it…when we’re out here kicking around in the “real world”. “
So to close out these thoughts let me say that insofar as I can tell by the contemporary definitions (which wil state are often restrictive and insufficient) Jesus IS A LIBERAL. Therefore if you wish to call me one…I will accept it as a compliment…not that it really means anything relevant in any holistic sense. Also, if you wish to call yourself a Christian you cannot do so realisticly and also be someone who primarily espouses the values of the WORLD. You cannot serve two masters. You can respect civil authority and abide by the laws of the land so long as they do not contradict God’s laws.
31. Scott Starr
September 4, 2006
5:50 AM
p.s. sorry about the typos….that is what happens when I try to type when so deeply disturbed by the likes of AC.
32. Brian Thornton
September 4, 2006
9:11 AM
Scott,
Two things:
1. When you post such a large volume of comments, as you did in post #29, chances are good that most people will not read all of what you wrote. It is simply too much material for a comments section of a blog.
2. “For starters, Jesus lays out the beatitudes which plainly say that those that will see Heaven are not the arrogant, judgmental hate and fear mongers like Ms. Coulter..but the gentle, meek, merciful and loving.”
-I am not going to do as you suspect and quote the Bible back to you about not being judgmental…what I AM going to do is suggest that you make sure you quote Scripture in context and in the way in which it was intended to be read.
-For example, your statement above about what Jesus says in the beatitudes is NOT prescriptive…in other words…Jesus is NOT saying that IF you are gentle, meek, merciful and loving that you will see heaven.
-The Beatitudes are not PREscriptive…they are declarative…that is…they are DEscriptive. Jesus is making a declaration about those who truly are children of God. He is not laying out guidelines or a list of things one can do to be a part of the family of God.
Finally, as to your other comments…I must admit that it was just too much to read through all of it to make a response (except for your final remark that Jesus is a liberal).
Regarding that comment, I would just remind you and others that Jesus made enemies of ALL parties of His day, Pharisees, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, etc. And I am sure that, if His incarnation had occurred now instead of in the first century…that same thing would be true.
33. Lance Roberts
September 8, 2006
9:58 AM
You can’t be a democrat and a christian, because the Democratic Pary supports abortion.
34. Lance Roberts
September 8, 2006
10:05 AM
Tribal Native America was not god-fearing (at least not the one God). They didn’t start accepting Christ until the Pilgrims and Puritans came over.
The one thing consistent about both Vietnam and Iraq, is that we were saving people under severe attack and oppression.
It was estimated that we would have lost 1,000,000 men if we had to invade Japan. It was already planned out (Operation Olympic).
35. Jerry Morningstar
September 8, 2006
10:45 AM
The issue of the morality of dropping the bomb on Japan during WW II came up in one of our church discussions on Sunday evening. It is interesting that more people today seem to question the decision - but one thing I have noticed is that among those who were alive during that time - you will rarely find someone who questioned it - mainly for the reasons Lance gave above. The liberal slant is the US is the problem - they developed the bomb and used it, etc.
That is extremely simplistic and naive given the wickedness in our world
Christians can be peace loving and fight in wars. In fact - the Bible even portrays some warriors as heroes of the faith. Abraham in retrieving Lot, David fighting Goliath, Jonathan, etc.
36. Scott Starr
September 8, 2006
9:43 PM
BACKGROUNDS TO ETHICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKE IN TERMS OF THE “JUST WAR TRADITION”
John Howard Yoder, unpublished, 1997. Overview subject to further editing as of spring 1997.
CALENDAR OVERVIEW
2 August 1939 Albert Einstein letter to FD Roosevelt suggest that nuclear technology could produce a new kind of weapon.
7 January 1943 FD Roosevelt says Japan should be bombed “heavily and relentlessly”
24-29 July 1943 Bombing of Hamburg, fire storm, 50,000 dead, 1,000,000 refugees.
24 December 1944 intelligence reports indicate that in Japan a “peace party” is forming and that there will be a new cabinet headed by Admiral Baron Suzuki charged to prepare to surrender. (Baldwin 96, Fogelman 97)
13 February 1945 Bombing of Dresden, 2,750 British and USA aircraft, est. 35,000 dead
25 February “test” fire bombing destroys one square mile of Tokyo.
9-10 March fire bombing to “wipe [Tokyo] off the map” (Gen. LeMay) (Selden xivff) 100,000 dead, similar number wounded, 1,000,000 homeless
16 March obliteration of Würzburg, small city of no military significance
7 April: New Japanese cabinet appointed, prime minister Suzuki, with the mission from Emperor Hirohito to negotiate peace. Former foreign minister Shegenori Togo recalled from retirement to assist.
12 April Harry S. Truman becomes President on the death of FDR.
25 April War Secretary Stimson first informs Truman about the existence of the Bomb. No question was raised about whether to use it.
27 May: presidential aide Harry Hopkins cables President Truman from Moscow: Peace feelers are being put out by certain elements in Japan
20 June: Supreme War Direction Council: Emperor Hirohito, Premier Suzuki, Foreign Minister, Navy Minister argue for suing for peace; Army Minister and two chiefs of staffs for continuing war.
10 July: Emperor asks USSR to mediate surrender.
12-13 July formal notification of Moscow by Japan Moscow envoy.
17 July, Alamagordo NM successful test of the first atomic bomb. Several Manhattan Project scientists (led by Leo Szilard who had been the initial liaison with Einstein) petition President Truman not to use the bomb except subject to serious restraints and prior warning (Harwit 234). Truman apparently never saw this petition.
26 July: Potsdam ultimatum (Truman, Churchill, Chiang Kai-Shek) states terms for surrender. “We will not deviate from them.” No reference to possible retention of the Emperor (although all major policy-makers in the US - Truman, Stimson, Grew - were on record as favoring that). The communiqué made no specific mention of a qualitatively new level of weaponry, although the ultimatum ended: “The alternative for Japan is utter destruction.” Stalin was present in the Potsdam negotiations, and was informed about the existence of the new bomb, but did not sign this declaration because USSR was not yet at war with Japan.
27 July Togo leads a discussion in the “Supreme War Direction Council” Togo advocates acceptance of the ultimatum, and that is agreed upon, but then reversed. Togo wrote, “To my amazement, the newspapers of the following morning reported that the government had decided to ignore the Potsdam declaration.” He learned that a rump meeting of chiefs of staff and war ministers had swayed Suzuki. (Fogelman 74) This news got mistranslated into English as “unworthy of public notice,” which was taken by the pro-bomb parties in the US as an insult an a reason to go ahead with the bombing.
6 August 8:15 AM Hiroshima bombed. Truman announces by radio that it was a military target. Immediate deaths 85,000
8 August: USSR declares war against Japan and invades Manchuria. Stalin had been pressed by the allies to enter the Pacific war, and at Potsdam he agreed to do so within three months of the end of the war in Europe, which was May 8. Japan’s ambassador at Moscow is informed of this but his telegram never reaches Tokyo, where the news is learned only later by monitoring Soviet news radio.
9 August Nagasaki bombed, immediate deaths 45,000
9 August President Truman: “… the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in the first instance to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” (Fogelman 104)
9 August: Suzuki and Hirohito decide to accept the Potsdam ultimatum. A rump meeting of the Army Hawks opposes this.
10 August: Government accepts Potsdam terms subject to the condition that “said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as Sovereign Ruler.”
14 August The War council being deadlocked, with the hawks still wanting to continue the war [i.e., the two atomic bombs did not change their minds], Suzuki convenes the emergency Gozenkaigi [council of elder statesmen] which agrees with Hirohito’s longstanding desire to surrender: formal acceptance of the ultimatum is announced.
2 September formal signing of surrender
1 November: Projected earliest possible date for the US invasion of Kyushu (southern island) if there had had to be one.
Spring 1946: Projected earliest date for US invasion of Honshu (main Island)
MAJOR EARLY CRITICAL EXPRESSIONS
Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith; Report of Commission on the Relation of the Churches to the War in the Light of the Christian Faith, Federal Council of Churches; Chairman Robert L. Calhoun (Professor, Yale Divinity School); March 1946:
* The march toward total war, which this commission and other theologians have judged irreconcilable with Christian principles, has been advanced a giant step further. ….atomic weapons clearly belong with the tools for obliteration, not precision attack.
…As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. … whatever be one’s judgment of the ethics of war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible. …As the power that first used the atomic bomb under these circumstances, we have sinned grievously against the laws of God and against the people of Japan. Without seeking to apportion blame among individuals, we are compelled to judge our chosen course inexcusable.
… these two specific bombing sorties cannot properly be treated in isolation from the whole system of obliteration attacks… We are mindful of the horrors of incendiary raids on Tokyo, and of the saturation bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, and Berlin. … the policy of obliteration bombing as actually practiced in World War II, culminating in the use of atomic bimbs against Japan, is not defensible on Christian premises.
Memorandum of seven nuclear scientists, led by Leo Szilard, who had originally carried to President Roosevelt Einstein’s suggestion that atomic fission might be militarily used, 11 June 1945:
* …the military advantages … achieved by the sudden use of atomic bombs against Japan may be outweighed by the enduing loss of confidence and by a wave of horror and repulsion sweeping over the rest of the world and perhaps even dividing public opinion at home…. If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments and prejudice the possibility of an international agreement on the future control of such weapons. (Borchert 89, Jungk 175)
William Daniel Leahy, Admiral, Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt:
* …the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
“Bomb” is the wrong word to use for this new weapon. It is not a bomb. It is not an explosive. It is a poisonous thing that kills people by its deadly radioactive reaction, more than by the explosive force it develops.
These new concepts of “total war” are basically distasteful to the soldier and sailor of my generation…. These new and terrible instruments of uncivilized warfare represent a modern type of barbarism not worthy of Christian man. (I was There 1950 pp. 439ff. in Fogelman 30f)
Toshikazu Kase, diplomat:
* One of the first questions asked me by the American war correspondents who swarmed into Tokyo…was: “Was it the atomic bomb or Russian participation in the war that was responsible for the surrender”?….. to us who knew the inner development it seems that neither of the two basically changed the course of the war. It is certain that we would have surrendered in due time even without the terrific chastisement of the bomb or the terrible shock of the Russian attack. (Journey to the Missouri 1950 212ff in Fogelman 79ff.
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey; established 1944 by USA Secretary of War Stimson:
* …it is the survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (pp9-13 in Wilds, 83-87 in Fogelman)
Harry Truman:
* …”I wanted to make sure that it would be used as a weapon of war in the manner prescribed by the laws of war. That meant that I wanted it dropped on a military target. I had told Stimson… (Memoirs 1955 419f in Fogelman 10)
Hanson W. Baldwin (Former Naval officer, military analyst and journalist):
* …We were … twice guilty. We dropped the bomb at a time when Japan already was negotiating for an end of the war but before those negotiations could come to fruition. We demanded unconditional surrender, then dropped the bomb and accepted conditional surrender … the Japanese would have surrendered, even if the Bomb had not been dropped, had the Potsdam Declaration included our promise to permit the Emperor to remain on his imperial throne.” in Great Mistakes of the War Harper, 1950, 88-114 (Fogelman 95ff.)
Chester W. Nimitz, Admiral, 25 January 1946:
* “The atomic bomb merely hastened a process already reaching an inevitable conclusion…” (Baldwin 94, Fogelman 97)
Admiral Noel Gaylor (then) Pacific Commander in Chief:
* however much it may be justified in the aftermath as military necessity—incorrectly—[the attack] was nonetheless genocide.” (Linenthal 16; testimony to the National Air and Space Museum Research Advisotry Committee October 1988).
Minimal summary: did the bombs hasten the end of the war?
Yes, in the sense that by strengthening the hand of Hirohito, Togo, and Suzuki, over against the hawks in the high command, the capitulation may have been facilitated, may have come a few weeks sooner than otherwise, and the capitulation made more abject, so that the occupation would go more smoothly.
Certainly No, in the sense of deciding that the war would end. The surrender process was already running, and would have run faster if Potsdam had promised that the surrender could be conditional, with Japan retaining the Emperor, which in fact the Allied authorities wanted and did ultimately accept.
Yes, in the sense that US contingency plans for invasion several months later were in the works, so that the US soldiers and sailors who knew that they were in those plans could feel that they were saved from that future jeopardy. Prisoners of war in Japanese camps credited the Bomb with the rapid collapse of Japan, without which some thought they might be killed by their jailers.
No, in the sense that in view of the total economic exhaustion of Japan that vision of a full-scale invasion would never have been needed. No in the sense that even if that invasion in November 1945 had been needed, the estimate of its cost in lives was 50,000, and not the worst-case estimate twenty times that large which came up in the later literature(Stimson in Fogelman 16). “The source of the large numbers used after the war by Truman, Stimson and Churchill to justify the use of the atomic bomb has yet to be discovered… The large estimates first appeared in their postwar memoirs”(Skates p. 77)
37. Scott Starr
September 8, 2006
10:01 PM
“Tribal Native America was not god-fearing (at least not the one God). They didn’t start accepting Christ until the Pilgrims and Puritans came over.”
Obviously you don’t know much about Native American spiritual tradition so I won’t waste time on you…. other than to say that all they needed was the Gospel of Christ…too bad the “Christians” of that time were generally horrible examples of the religion they professed - not unlike many a fundamentalist of this day…like Ann coulter and probably you.
“The one thing consistent about both Vietnam and Iraq, is that we were saving people under severe attack and oppression.”
Making the world “safe” for democracy…right.
“You can’t be a democrat and a christian, because the Democratic Pary supports abortion.”
That’s pretty ridiculous. I know some fine Christians who are democrats and also do NOT support abortion. BTW I am not a democrat so your point is moot regarding me…
What if I were to say you can’t be a republican and be a Christain because you do not love your neighbor as yourself and do not follow these scriptures;
Matthew 5:43-48
3”You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
1 Timothy 6:10-20 (10 For the love of money is a root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have been led astray and have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves through with many [a]acute [mental] pangs.
11 But as for you, O man of God, flee from all these things; aim at and pursue righteousness (right standing with God and true goodness), godliness (which is the loving fear of God and being Christlike), faith, love, steadfastness (patience), and gentleness of heart.
12 Fight the good fight of the faith; lay hold of the eternal life to which you were summoned and [for which] you confessed the good confession [of faith] before many witnesses.
13 In the presence of God, Who preserves alive all living things, and of Christ Jesus, Who in His testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I [solemnly] charge you
14 To keep all His precepts unsullied and flawless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Anointed One),
15 Which [appearing] will be shown forth in His own proper time by the blessed, only Sovereign (Ruler), the King of kings and the Lord of lords,
16 Who alone has immortality [in the sense of exemption from every kind of death] and lives in unapproachable light, Whom no man has ever seen or can see. Unto Him be honor and everlasting power and dominion. Amen (so be it).
17 As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be proud and arrogant and contemptuous of others, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches, but on God, Who richly and ceaselessly provides us with everything for [our] enjoyment.
18 [Charge them] to do good, to be rich in good works, to be liberal and generous of heart, ready to share [with others],
19 In this way laying up for themselves [the riches that endure forever as] a good foundation for the future, so that they may grasp that which is life indeed.
20 (Timothy,) guard and keep the deposit entrusted [to you]! Turn away from the irreverent babble and godless chatter, with the vain and empty and worldly phrases, and the subtleties and the contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge and spiritual illumination.
38. Jerry Morningstar
September 8, 2006
10:43 PM
Scott - thanks for all the information on the decision to drop the bomb. However - I still disagree with your overall position. When a nation is treacherously attacked the way the US was at Pearl Harbor - dragged into a war they were not seeking - they get to choose how to end the war with the smallest cost in lives of their own soldiers. The reality is that Japan was dragging its feet in surrendering - there is documentation that even the women were trained to to fight to the death with spears should an island invasion occur. There is no question - more Americans would have died. Your information cites the fact that US pow’s believed they may have been killed if the Japanese govt. had not collapsed so quickly.
I sympathize with pacifists from the standpoint that there is much that is abhorrent in any kind of war.
But - in a sinful world where there are struggles for power and domination - God says a state has a right to defend itself however that must take place. Oftentimes that will involve the use of force and violence.
One illustration:
Suppose you are sitting upstairs in your house and you hear a young woman scream - you look outside and two thugs are accosting a woman in the street - you run outside and tell them to leave her alone - they refuse and push you to the ground giving you a bloody nose.
You have a choice:
A) you can continue to try to talk some sense into them - but they will only strike you more and more
B) You can say to yourself - ‘Now I don’t believe in violence - I better stay out of this - and go call the police’ - of course it will be too late by the time they arrive
C) You can go to the garage and get a baseball bat and subdue the attackers
I think choice C - is the more Christian position
It is possible to elevate the virtue of peace to the expense of justice
Being a peacemaker - means as far as a situation depends upon us - our actions are in accord with peace. i.e. we do not start fights - we do not go around trampling others’ rights, etc. It doesn’t mean to sit by and let thugs carry out their wills.
Many people thought the way you do in Europe in the 30s - We can’t go to war with Hitler - it’s not the right thing to do. We are to love our neighbor after all. Meanwhile - he is systematically exterminating our other neighbors who we are also supposed to love.
Turn the other cheek is a great verse - and a difficult one to apply. I believe Jesus intended for us to use it when it came to how we are treated personally - but not when others whom we are responsible to care for are mistreated. In those situations we protect - we show courage - we defend.
I appreciate your arguments - I have to stand on the other side of the fence though
39. david
September 8, 2006
10:48 PM
Found on Scott Starr’s blog:
It does not require many words to speak the truth.
~Chief Jospeph [sic]