Posted by john on September 13, 2001 at 07:03:44:
In Reply to: Context (LONG!) posted by PS again (oh, no!) on September 13, 2001 at 00:01:33:
: OK, John, I think I can now see where a lot of the misunderstanding originates. Please try not to mix your views on the appropriate actions in the "national/international" political arena with your views on our "individual" responsibilities as Christians into some kind of well-blended stew. It is confusing and begs for misunderstanding to occur. The "national/international" and the "individual" considerations are two separate contextual arenas, and you can't just jump back and forth in your reasoning like you have a portal to another dimension. Deal with these as separate issues, and try to draw the lines clearly when possible.
: The concept of a holy war as you address it is a national/international issue. When, in the context of discussing "national/international" views, you go on to make reference to the martyrs' "individual" actions in detail (martyrs not fighting for their cause, allowing God's will, submitting to the true order of the universe, preaching to their captors, working to help their enemies, etc.) you clearly come across as if these "individual" actions have some specific relevance in this "national/international" context. They don't. For that matter, they don't even directly relate to our "individual" context. (It was the martyrs' own governments that persecuted them. They did not submit to their leaders or they would have necessarily renounced their faith in Christ and ceased to speak in His name. Instead they disobeyed these laws, hid from the local authorities, and worked to disciple others, who in turn did the same things.) So why must I make such a big deal about context? I fear that we do much to cloud the issues for Christians seeking wisdom in their world-views by using contextually-confused examples.
Okay, the confusion was in the martyr statement and I would have done better to leave that out. Again my purpose was only to sight an example of an attitude. As many people are crying out for blood, whether you've heard it or not, many people I have met lately are villifying and treating all arabs as demons. So it was a mixed message and the context was lost there.
: Fair enough. Of course we must look at the other side of the coin as well. One has only to interview some of the older Cuban Americans who fled Castro's regime in the 60's (they are all over this town) and find out what they think of the ideals of freedom that we as Americans embrace. (I have personally had this pleasure.) They love the distinctions that America stands for, and clearly appreciate the contrast more than we ever could, since we have never experienced life without real freedom. (They also have a more accurate view of what martyrdom really is.) To recognize that in this regard we in the U.S. are privileged (or "special in relation to the others") is also to realize we have a greater responsibility. This realization ought to produce humility and thankfulness, not arrogance. I too, as Jonvon mentioned, am sickened by "empty boasting, arrogant and lacking wisdom." I think we agree on this.
Of course America stands for Freedom, and I won't even begin to argue the difference in our views on this. Suffice to say, this freedom is the lesser of evils in my opinion.
: This is not the case with the references to God I have heard lately. Those leaders making reference to scripture or prayer seem simply to be attempting to walk in their faith in God in the midst of crisis, as all the fathers of our faith tried to do. Quoting from Psalm 23, as President George Bush did last night, is a perfect example: "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me." This does not alarm me; this reassures me. He speaks of comfort in God's presence, not some promise of revenge. (Lord knows he could have quoted a few of these verses instead!) I have heard no leaders using Christianity as a cover for nationalistic revenge.
As I said in the second post, I feel relativiely confident that the nation will not throw us into a conflict that could escalate to epic proportions... which is a possiblity without proper international backing.
: I'm not sure about this "enlightened" sense of God, but it sure initially sounded like you were saying that if we have this enlightenment we will necessarily agree with you and oppose retaliation. Well, feel free to call me unenlightened. ;-) In the national/international context, I believe retaliation is the only appropriate action. Anyway, then you later restated your views (thank you) and said,"...the perpetrators should be brought to justice." (Now please don't bother defining the difference between the words justice and retaliation--in this situation they are in harmony. To retaliate for such an atrocity is just, and justice demands some sort of retaliation.) So in trying to reconcile the discrepancy, I would suppose that perhaps you were initially trying to warn about harboring or fostering "individual" hatred. If so, good! I agree! But your language about "standing firm against the vengeful calls for retaliation" lost any sense of the peaceful and loving "individual" influence we can have, and put the focus squarely on the "national/international" outcry again, and really confused the issue by the mixing of contexts.
The enlightened comment was in quotes as an indication of sarcasm. If there is an emoticon to indicate, I don't know it. The reference was to the fact that people (including the both of us) tend to think their version of a belief system, in this case Christianity is more right than another's. This can be dangerous, and this was the lead to my point. That we shouldn't think this way. That we shouldn't feel righteously justified to hate and destroy innocent life (as would happen with large scale retaliation on harboring nations). I think the conspirators and the terrorists should be brought to justice, but not the type of justice that involves blowing up cities in other countries. Why couldn't it take the form of International trials, or if blood is called for and there is no provision for international death penalty, assasinations would be more just than attacking people who may or may not actually have had anything to do with it, that would just be reverse terrorism. And I am adamantly opposed to that. I am not an expert on international politics, but many nations view the US as a bully (I know first hand because I went to an international school and spent hours in debates on this very topic with citizens from everywhere)and to give them an excuse to wage war would only escalate the situation. Not to mention this nation ,or any for that matter, are hardly so egalitatrian and blindly just. This tragedy could easily be the excuse to effect some other end in the context of a justified action.
So if my initial post mixed the individual caution with the international caution unclearly I apologize, but I maintain that they are both valid.
: haven't heard anyone on my block staging a war against his neighbor, thank God!)
maybe not, but I would bet you could find them staging speculative wars against Afganistan, or any other aArabs or groups that they deem to be the culprit of the moment, and it was against this that I cautioned.
: On a lighter note, when understood in a national/international context, "standing firm" in our enlightenment did seem pretty comical. I wondered, should we tell Bush or perhaps our senators, "No, I don't agree with retaliation! I am for love and peace! Remember the martyrs!" Or could we just tell everyone we meet that Bush is wrong to retaliate and is just being vengeful, and try to sway national opinion that way? Hee hee... ;-) Obviously it is only in the "individual" context that this exhortation to adhere to the principles of love and peace makes any real sense; here we can really have an effect as agents of God's grace in other individuals' lives.
Exactly, I was urging readers to not be associated with the wrong attitude. And silence can be a form of consent. So in this I was urging all of us, including myself to stand up for what we beleive.
: The president's comments did not disturb me, nor did they disturb most Americans, nor did they disturb most of the International community (the radical Muslims excepted). On the contrary, most Americans were reassured. They do not want a war; they want justice, in the form of well-planned and effective retaliation, to assure that this kind of thing will not happen again. Most Americans fear the devastating effects of inaction and/or ineffective action in this situation, which we have seen over and over again in our recent history. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember some of the pitiful U.S. retaliatory actions in the past few decades that have caused the radical Muslim community to have little respect for our ability to retaliate and little fear of our ability to bring them to account. One has only to think of Carter's helicopter attack force against Iran during the hostage crisis to imagine the middle-east Muslim community howling with laughter.
Here I think our political views differ at the root level. I am not a nationalist. That means that I do not recognize, or at least try not to, the political affliations that run along national lines. Therefore, a "US" blunder is nothing for me to get upset about any more than anyone else's. I choose not to define myself along these national lines and the philosophy behind it is extensive. Suffice to say I am not alone in this view, although I may appear that way in this arena. And I am a citizen of this country. But what concerns me more is humanitarian justice and not national status, or politics. I understand that this is not how the international real world context works. But unless people hold to it, the situation will never change. (sorry, a little private soapboxing) And it has carried the Red Cross a along way, as well as many other organizations.
: Regarding the international community: Many international leaders (even Cuba, Libya and Russia) have publicly decried this outrage, and many prominent nations have have offered assistance to help the U.S. retaliate against terrorism in its various forms world-wide. Not only the international leaders, but the citizens of their countries are appalled and stand with the U.S. in this crisis. I have many emails I've read from people all over the world whom I know from my Bengal business, and the messages are strongly in support of the U.S. The international community is not consensually against retaliation, as you suggest, but rather seems overwhelmingly supportive of effective action to bring the (surviving) killers to justice. Quick and effective action is the best way to try to avoid a war.
Good, one fear averted.
: The possibilities of a real war on our hands? Afghanistan's perceived harboring of bin Laden and his activities has been emphatically denied by their government in an international press release, so it would seem there will be no war there (unless strong evidence later shows that their statements are false and they are indeed still assisting the terrorists). There may be a partial invasion into the more remote areas looking for bin Laden camps, which I expect Afghanistan will permit with very little resistance, as they will realize this is not an attack on their country or their government, and they really do not want to turn it into that. History bears this view out; Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan after bin Laden and the government basically did nothing.
Again, new developments since the time of my posting, or at least I hadn't heard at that point.
: I heard the man speak. President Bush did call for justice (just retaliation!), and he did not appeal to mass indignity. Did anyone else get this "appeal to mass indignity" impression? If so, I must be blind, deaf, and stupid.
I know this is just your style of communication and it doesn't personally offend me anymore, but please know that it is possible to percieve the "If so...blind, deaf, and stupid." line as condescending in that it implies that if I held that interpretation, I would be blind, deaf, and stupid.
: Nobody here believes that holy elect stuff, and nobody is talking about God retaliating with Armageddon. I'm not sure who or what you are responding to.
Originally I wasn't responding, but initiating the subject based on this jackass behind me at work who hasn't stopped his arrogant threats since the first news flash and still continues, I fear a showdown soon, and every person I have seen in the elevator all week. I work in a very public context and get a chance to see and hear many people, so it isn't unreasonable that I would assume that it was representative of the views of at least some of the greater populous. When I saw Kat's post, it opened the door to discuss the issue there. The mixture in my contexts is the result of a too rapid post that attempted to caution toward our individual responsibilities, as well as touch on those idle thoughts that each individual transfers to the national arena despite their being completley powerless to affect them. I'm sure you've noticed how people do this in many contexts. So I was trying to speak to that and didn't clarify.
: I very much agree! Healing on our local scale is what we as should be focused on, as we minister to individuals who have been wounded by this. Healing on the large national/international scale will not take place without some semblance of justice. God's gift of eternal forgiveness did not signal the end of the punishment of evildoers on this earth, nor did He intend it to. Jesus never preached thus, nor did his apostles. (I know you know this--I'm just restating.) We as Christians are called to forgive these killers if they repent, and in any case to release them from our eternal judgment upon them. We know and believe that only God is righteous to judge, and the blood of Jesus can cover all sins. But we are not called to let mass-murderers go free on this earth and forsake our responsibility to protect the innocent.
Still nothing is gained from expressions of our personal hatred or pain in the form of international threats. This is ultimately a blame game, and it is very easy for us to make these threats as we don't have to back them up with our own actions. Similar to trash talking for your favorite professional team- we as individuals have absolutely no power to decide the outcome of this tragedy...we can however maintain the Christian context that we adhere to and demonstrate those to help ourselves and others heal.
Honestly, I know my politics are not popular and I expected this sort of response from someone. Hopefully this clarifies the issue for any others who may be reading this. Why are you guys not jumping in? Steve and I are not the only two with opinions I am certain.