Does Christian Doctrine support or condemn war?

[Quarkhead]

Do you feel that Christianity preaches a doctrine which justifies war? Specifically, the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror? Why or why not?

[Dilettante]

Scott Perry wrote:

Two meetings were mentioned between Hussein's government and Al-Quaida in the book Enemy Within. The information is at World Net Daily.

While meetings between Iraqi officials and Al-Quaida have been documented in a memo written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith for Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, what the memo established was that they had an agreement not to target each other. No operational ties were revealed, and the document came with several caveats. The evidence is vague, inconclusive and , at times, contradictory. The 9-11 commision recognized this. IMHO, while war on Al-Quaida is more than justified, the invasion of Iraq is harder to justify. If we adopt a consequentialist viewpoint, and if democracy takes root in Iraq, maybe the good consequences will outweigh the bad ones. But it remains to be seen.

The Saudi government has had a good relationship with many American administrations over the years. That they would be involved is unrealistic because of the wrath they would suffer for betrayal. Do you have any reason we should suspect them other than the terrorist's nationality?

Ideologically speaking, the Saudis’ wahabism is a lot closer to Bin Laden’s worldview than Saddam’s ever was. Bin Laden took his religious and political (the two go together) ideas from the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb. Besides, author Gerald Posner revealed in 2003 that Al-Quaida’s Abu Zubaydah, captured by the Americans in 2003, confirmed that Saudi royals were paying off Bin Laden as early as 1991. The information was published by TIME magazine in Aug.2003, I believe. Unfortunately I don’t have a link at hand, but it’s well worth looking into, don’t you think?
In any case, the war should have been conducted differently. Toppling Saddam was in itself good, but it resulted in chaos. The American government had been warned about this possible chaos, but for some reason failed to take steps to prevent it.

How do you prevent what other people are going to do? The Global War on Terror must be fought at some point. The earlier the better. What decent nation doesn't want to eradicate systematized terrorism from the world? How and when would you do it?

The answer is… good intelligence. I believe the War on Terror should rely more on intelligence and much less on military muscle-flexing.

So you think they knowingly withheld information to start a war? Or they ignored information? Wilfully?

Let’s put it this way: they gave the information a spin that ensured maximum public support for a war which was probably not nearly as urgent as tracking down Al-Quaida members. They also ignored intelligence warning of the possibility of widespread insurgency in postwar Iraq. Whether they sincerely believed they knew better I can’t really know for sure.

I understand all people have the capacity to lie, even "born-again" Texans as you put it, but the impression that the, yes, liberal media gives of George Bush is that he is a liar. All the while they praise Bill Clinton who told a bald-face lie to our entire country and the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. This is why I say our media is liberal. I,m interested to know if you distinguish between our democrat and republican parties, or do you see them as the same? Do you prefer one party over another?

I wouldn’t use the word “liar”. But anyway, Bush’s “lies” and Clinton’s “lies” must be seen in context. Bush misled the public about Iraq’s capabilities for attacking the US and then went to war. That’s a serious public affair. Clinton told a barefaced lie, but did so only when forced to reveal facts about his sex life which actually did not affect the American public, but only his wife and family. Wrong as it was, it was still a private affair. At least that’s how I see it.
And I do see differences between Democrats and Republicans. I was tempted to say it’s really none of my business which party is in office, except that my wife is American and my kids have dual citizenship. So I do have a direct interest when it comes to specific issues like are my sons going to be drafted in the future and stuff like that.

You know how we view Iraqis? You know we view them as "savages". Our troops give their lives for "savages." Come now.

Sorry, I shouldn’t have generalized. What I meant was that some American soldiers and politicians seem to believe they can treat Iraqi prisoners in a way they wouldn’t dare treat Canadian or British prisoners. I suspect this is due to prejudice rooted in the wide cultural differences existing between the US and Iraq. Others probably have a paternalistic attitude, and I fear that not as many see Iraqis as equals. That’s why people were so shocked by Abu Ghraib: they never thought Americans were capable of such abuses because they believed Americans to be above that kind of thing.

Finally, the context came out on Abu Ghraib after the media interpreted the pictures for everyone for the first 6 months. Those men had caused a riot just prior to those pictures being taken. The pyramid is a common strategy so they wouldn't run. Also, they were naked so they would not be tempted to riot or escape, and the worst treatment they got was a woman pointing a finger and laughing at them? What about the terrorists who cut people's heads off? The problem I have is the constant emphasis on how bad a good Texan is who is trying his honest best to help people, and very little blame or emphasis is put on the terrorists.

From what I’ve read (and that includes Gen. Antonio Taguba’s report) what happened at Abu Ghraib was much more serious than you seem to think and what transpired could be only the tip of the iceberg. Such incidents greatly damage the US credibility in its effort to spread democracy and there is no excuse for letting that happen. You can’t really draw comparisons with the terrorists beheading people for two reasons: first, those detained at Abu Ghraib were not terrorists, and second, two wrongs don’t make a right, no matter how you look at it.

This is pretty good. Can I use it?

It’s not mine. You’re welcome to use it.

Our media generation has been liberal since the Vietnam War. They do not just report what happens. They have an agenda, and they promote it. A la Dan Rather.

The American media includes also Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and many others who cannot be characterized as liberal. The media are never objective, nor they should pretend to be. A good balanced diet of information should include sources on both sides.

I'm sorry, but a Lenin based, Atheistic government is evil. What did it do for its people besides kill all who disagreed with them and ship them to Siberia?

I agree that a Lenin-based government is terrifying. (I’m not sure about an atheistic government—depending on its members it could be fine). My point was that, in rational debates, labeling something as evil is not enough. You should show why it is evil using rational argument rather than emotional words.

By that I meant that it [the Bible]is harmonius. A person can understand it by reading it (Ephesians 3:4). Because the Bible has many interpretations is no fault of the Bible. Rather, it is ignorance, emotional attachment to deceased family members, apathy, etc. that causes people to remain divided since the great apostasy and reformation (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3) These cause the various denominations. The differences among these "Christian" groups involve contradictions, therefore either one is wrong or both are wrong. They are all sinful (1 Corinthians 1:10). The Bible speaks of one church and one faith (Ephesians 4:1-6, 13) not "many faiths" as you have pointed out that sadly, do exist everywhere.

The causes of division among Christians are probably very complex. It’s impossible not to read the Bible through your own lens. Short of Jesus coming back and giving his own interpretation, I don’t see how unity could be achieved. Ecumenism progresses very slowly.
What I mean by the problem of the hermeneutic circle is that...well, we we get to a vicious circle. We want to know what the text really means so we analyze the letter. But we can’t be sure to interpret the letter correctly if we don’t understand the underlying message first.

This is semantics to me, the principle regarding government was established by God. That was the apostles whole point. The principle Paul revealed applies to all government.

It may be semantics, but it’s important. Nothing is “just a matter of words”, because behind words you have concepts we need to make clear if we want a real debate and not just a “word fight”.

Dilettante, it has been a pleasure responding to you. I look forward to your response.

It’s been a pleasure for me too. I applaud your civility.


[/b]

[bernee51]

And this would be the freedom that is expressed at Guantanomo Bay would it? The freedom that supported the torture and degradation of Iraqi prisoners? The freedom that allows a country with only 250 million people (out of 6 billion worldwide) to contribute 29% of the gases responsible for global warming and to refuse to sign up to Kyoto? The freedom that still supports the death penalty?

I'd rather be a prisoner thanks very much.

And in the land of the free you would have a much better chance of that happening.

The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia (638), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447), Suriname (437) and Dominica (420).

The 'atheist regime' in China has a rate of 111 - about 16% that of the US.

Source

[Dilettante]

bernee51 and potwalloper:
While I agree with a few of the criticisms you have leveled against the current American administration, I have to say that your posts seem to me a bit too inflammatory.

For example, potwalloper, when you say that the US is supporting a dictatorship in the Middle east, I hope you are not referring to Israel. Heavy-handed (and yes, outright cruel) as their treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is, Israel is still a democracy, the only one, in fact, in the entire Middle East. Also, do you really think Michael Moore, the egocentric author/director of shoddy, inaccurate bestsellers and misleading, sensationalist pseudo-documentaries has anything of value to offerthe American public? Isn't he every bit as dishonest as the White House officials you criticize? The regeneration of American political discourse is certainly not among Mr Moore's objectives.

And, bernee51, when you favorably compare China to the US because of the incarceration rate in both countries, you seem to forget that the execution rate in China is way higher than in any other country (US included) and that the death penalty in China is administered after brief mock trials where there is no hope whatsoever for the defendants to be treated fairly.

Is it possible that you're getting carried away by gut reactions and emotion?

[keltzkroz]

And in the land of the free you would have a much better chance of that happening.

The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia (638), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447), Suriname (437) and Dominica (420).

The 'atheist regime' in China has a rate of 111 - about 16% that of the US.

Forgive me if I'm a little hasty (its dinner time, so I did not get a good look at the entire source you cited), but I would like to ask something: are these numbers proportional to the actual crime rates? Is crime rate related to these numbers? What if most of the perpetrators are never caught or prosecuted?

[bernee51]

And, bernee51, when you favorably compare China to the US because of the incarceration rate in both countries, you seem to forget that the execution rate in China is way higher than in any other country (US included) and that the death penalty in China is administered after brief mock trials where there is no hope whatsoever for the defendants to be treated fairly.

That's very true Dilettante - and I in know way support capital punishment - but that is a different topic on this forum.

That said, according to ACLU "A United Nations monitor investigating the American use of the death penalty has noted that the United States has done more to expand the use of the death penalty than any other nation, with the exception of China. This despite evidence that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent."

The fact remains that the incarceration rate is as it is.

In fact, the most populous of the 'evil' muslim nations has an incarcertaion rate of 28 - about 4% of the USofA

Is it possible that you're getting carried away by gut reactions and emotion?

Justifying the killing of innocents based on mythological writings - no matter who is doing it - is rather medieval don't you think. I certainly admit to finding it stirs the emotions somewhat.

[bernee51]

Forgive me if I'm a little hasty (its dinner time, so I did not get a good look at the entire source you cited), but I would like to ask something: are these numbers proportional to the actual crime rates? Is crime rate related to these numbers? What if most of the perpetrators are never caught or prosecuted?

Sorry - the incarceration discussion is a little of topic - I guess if we want to continue it we should perhaps start a seperate thread.

I have no idea Keltzkroz. I'll see what I can find.

[potwalloper.]

Dilettante wrote

bernee51 and potwalloper:
While I agree with a few of the criticisms you have leveled against the current American administration, I have to say that your posts seem to me a bit too inflammatory.

Well sometimes the truth hurts I'm afraid. The USA is not some heavenly state carrying the torch of freedom for the world and American's need to appreciate just how they are perceived by many who have not fallen under their spell.

The greatest threat to world freedom is not, in my view, Bin Laden it is Bush. Only yesterday his representative implied that the USA would carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran unless it cancels its nuclear programme. Another Islamic state in America's gun sight.

The greatest threat to the world per se is not terrorism it is environmental damage and the USA is one of the worst offenders who appear to have no intention of addressing the issue. They have thumbed their noses at those countries that are at least trying to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions by their refusal to engage with Kyoto.

For example, potwalloper, when you say that the US is supporting a dictatorship in the Middle east, I hope you are not referring to Israel. Heavy-handed (and yes, outright cruel) as their treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is, Israel is still a democracy, the only one, in fact.

Israel is a dictatorship. Not to jews perhaps but certainly to Palestinians whose lands they have stolen. Israel has a history of torture, murder, theft and the disregard of basic human rights that I have no doubt is driven by their religious hatred of Islam and everything that it stands for. America supports Israel and has done nothing in any material sense to alleviate the suffering of oppressed Palestinians and by this position makes it clear that America is anti-islamic both by the actions it takes directly and by the regimes that it supports.

Sorry - but democracy is relative. If a democracy stole your country, tortured your people, murdered their opponents and effectively removed your basic human rights would you describe it as a democracy? I, for one, could not.

In the entire Middle East. Also, do you really think Michael Moore, the egocentric author/director of shoddy, inaccurate bestsellers and misleading, sensationalist pseudo-documentaries has anything of value to offerthe American public? Isn't he every bit as dishonest as the White House officials you criticize? The regeneration of American political discourse is certainly not among Mr Moore's objectives.

Moore is a clever man with his own agenda - I am aware of that. What he has to offer of value is a challenging of the status quo and the accepted view of events, the movement of Americans out of their comfort zone and the stimulation of Americans to think for themselves rather than accept what their deceitful politicians and weighted media have to say. If they accept Moore at face value then they are just as naive as those who believe Bush or Fox.

Is it possible that you're getting carried away by gut reactions and emotion?

It is difficult not to be emotional when we are faced with the murder of innocent civilians by a country that appears to see itself as being on a crusade to forceably apply its views and values upon others until all we have is a meaningless homogeneity rather than the rich diversity of cultures, views, values, ways of life and religious belief that currently exist worldwide.

Thirty percent of Americans are obese. Every 15 seconds a child in the third world dies of lack of clean water or lack of food. America yesterday stated that they were not interested in the proposals for the alleviation of third world debt.

Draw your own conclusions...

and an interesting link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2814417.stm

[Dilettante]

potwalloper wrote:

Israel is a dictatorship. Not to jews perhaps but certainly to Palestinians whose lands they have stolen. Israel has a history of torture, murder, theft and the disregard of basic human rights that I have no doubt is driven by their religious hatred of Islam and everything that it stands for.

Sorry but I can't agree with you here. Arabs are represented in the Israeli parliament. They are Israeli citizens entitled to the same rights. You don't get thrown in jail for criticizing the government in Israel. What Arab country tolerates that? If someone is to blame for originating the conflict perhaps it is the British, who promised that territory to both Jews and Arabs, a recipe for disaster. Palestine was never a state. Palestine was a geographical expression, one of the names given by the Romans to Judea. This said, I'm all for partition and for creating separate states (but that's another debate). My point is that a democracy does not stop being a democracy because its government acts unethically. Democracy is not the name of a moral code, it's the name of a type of government. By your logic, are there any democracies in the world? "No true democracy..." sounds like a variant of the "no true Scotsman" argument.

There may be religious hatred of Islam on the part of a number of israelis
but there's also raging islamic antisemitism in many Arab countries. Perhaps both are unjustified, but hatred of a religion cannot be equated with hatred based on ethnicity. Strong disagreement with a religion is OK as long as you don't physically persecute its followers.

I'm under no illusion that the US is perfect in any way. In fact, I consider US idealism to be dangerous. And of course I acknowledge that often the US is driven by self-interest. But I fear idealism even more (I'll explain if you care to know why).

The greatest threat to world freedom is not, in my view, Bin Laden it is Bush.

I'm no Bush fan but, boy is that an exaggeration!

Only yesterday his representative implied that the USA would carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran unless it cancels its nuclear programme.

What I heard Ms Rice say on BBC world last night was significantly different.
And Kyoto might not be the best way to deal with the greenhouse effect. At least not just because many nations think so.

However:
I do agree with your statement about not taking M. Moore at face value and I concede to you and to bernee51 that it is hard not to get emotional about tragic conflicts such as the one in the Middle East. I understand that.

Regards

[Dilettante]

To get this thread back on track, I'll quote Paul Johnson's "History of Christianity" (p. 241-242)

Eastern Christians tended to follow the teachings of St Basil, who regarded war as shameful. This was the original Christian tradition: violence was abhorrent to the early Christians, who preferred death to resistance [boldface added]; and Paul, attempting to interpret Christ, did not even try to construct a case for the legitimate use of force. Again, it was St Augustine who gave western Christianity [the fatal twist in this direction. As always, in his deep pessimism, he was concerned to take society as he found it and attempt to reconcile its vices with Christian endeavour. Men fought: had always fought; therefore war had a place in the Christian pattern of behaviour, to be determined by the moral theologians. In Augustine's view, might always be waged, provided it was done so by the command of God. This formulation of the problem was doubly dangerous. Not only did it allow the existence of the "just" war, which became a commonplace of Christian moral theology; but it discredited the pacifist, whose refusal to fight a war defined as "just" by the ecclesiastical authorities became a defiance of divine commands."

So it looks like Bush is not following Paul but Augustine...

[potwalloper.]

Dilettante wrote

Israel is a dictatorship. Not to jews perhaps but certainly to Palestinians whose lands they have stolen. Israel has a history of torture, murder, theft and the disregard of basic human rights that I have no doubt is driven by their religious hatred of Islam and everything that it stands for.

Sorry but I can't agree with you here. Arabs are represented in the Israeli parliament. They are Israeli citizens entitled to the same rights. You don't get thrown in jail for criticizing the government in Israel.

Well I have to disagree with you here. I have treated a number of Palesitians for PTSD following interrogation and torture by the Israeli secret services. One comes to mind particularly. A woman I saw last year had spoken out against the actions of the Israeli government. She was 22 years old. She was arrested in the middle of the night, taken to an interrogation centre, sleep deprived, told that the screams she could hear from the cells next to her were those of her five year old son who would "continue to be tortured until she admitted her guilt" and those of her mother who was also being tortured because of her failure to cooperate. This was psychologcal torture (neither her son nor her mother were harmed directly and were at home at the time, but she did not know this). This woman was permanently scarred by her ordeal. She had no reason to lie to me. There are many other such cases.

Democracies do not torture minority groups...

If someone is to blame for originating the conflict perhaps it is the British, who promised that territory to both Jews and Arabs, a recipe for disaster.

Well we can agree on that one!

Democracy is not the name of a moral code, it's the name of a type of government. By your logic, are there any democracies in the world? "No true democracy..." sounds like a variant of the "no true Scotsman" argument.

I disagree - democracy in a true sense carries with it a number of principles including that minority groups will not be tortured for speaking out against the current government.

There may be religious hatred of Islam on the part of a number of israelis
but there's also raging islamic antisemitism in many Arab countries. Perhaps both are unjustified, but hatred of a religion cannot be equated with hatred based on ethnicity. Strong disagreement with a religion is OK as long as you don't physically persecute its followers.

But the Israelis do physically persecute Palestinians...sorry Dilletante but you can't look at the situation in Israel through rose tinted specs.

The greatest threat to world freedom is not, in my view, Bin Laden it is Bush.

I'm no Bush fan but, boy is that an exaggeration!

Have a quick look on Google.

Compare how many people the Americans have killed in the last 50-60 years.

Now look at how many people Bin Laden has killed.

America spent more money on arms last year than the next 8 biggest spenders combined.

Bin Laden has a few Kalashnikovs and some explosives - Bush has enough nuclear capability to destroy the world and has expressed a wish to further develop bunker-busting and strategic nuclear devices.

Bin Laden is a nutter

Bush is a nutter

I fear the nutter with a nuclear bomb more than the nutter with a gun...

Only yesterday his representative implied that the USA would carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iran unless it cancels its nuclear programme.

What I heard Ms Rice say on BBC world last night was significantly different.

Perhaps you should listen again. On four separate occasions Rice was challenged on the issue of a pre-emptive strike against Iran. She refused to rule it out on all four occasions. That implies that the USA will carry out such a strike, otherwise why refuse to rule it out?

And Kyoto might not be the best way to deal with the greenhouse effect. At least not just because many nations think so.

And continuing to give out 29% of greenhouse gases with impunity is?