This post was originally one of the spate coming out when Osama was killed. Now, in the midst of more turmoil directed towards the United States, I feel like they are needed once more.
Temper the Psalms with the Gospels, just saying, but when you are done with that, read this one:
Click to Order
And this one:
Click to Order
Skilled rhetorician John Loftus deftly demonstrates1 how poor Osama bin Laden was simply the victim of religion, like the rest of the silly theists:
Osama Bin Laden was probably a good man; sincere, devout and God fearing.
What’s John’s definition of “good”? ‘Cause mine tends not to involve planning to fly planes into buildings and killing thousands of people (but that’s just me).
THE ELABORATED – by Tim Ricchuiti – Debunking John Loftus.
Read th rest!!!!
Image via Wikipedia
Mike Slaughter is a pastor of a ‘mega-church’, one of several of the UMC variety.
To be perfectly honest, I am glad that Osama bin Laden’s personal voice for the mandate of hate has been silenced, but I am also reminded of the biblical mandate for our attitude of response: “Do not gloat when your enemies fall; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice” (Proverbs 24:17). As Jesus followers we are called to demonstrate a peculiar way, a radical way that runs counter to our instinctive demand for an “eye for an eye.” Jesus said that the children of his Kingdom would be living representatives of a higher moral law. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in Heaven. He causes his sun to rise on evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:43-45).
via here.
I remember 9/11 – I was 23 at the time, about the age, from what I saw, of the celebrants in front of the White House last night. I remember the anguish and the fear, and the casual sayings of ‘My God will kick your god’s butt’ and the such, from myself, but I also remember that I didn’t wave the U.S. Flag.
I remember when the U.S. launched the attacks into Afghanistan and I supported it. It was, in my opinion, a just act, although that justness has since vanished.
I remember the day that I withdrew my support of President Bush – when he invaded Iraq. I had prayed that we wouldn’t do so, since it was clearly a war of propaganda.
Further, I remember the election of 2008, in which then-candidate Barack Obama promised to pull us out of the war zones.
And now, I will add to that list the remembrance of watching Twitter announce that the President would be making an announcement at 10:30 EST, which, of course, was pushed back, further and further. And of course, the subsequent news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed.
But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! http://bible.us/Matt5.44.NLT
My joyousness was prevalent. It was more relief then anything, but I got the sense that people were actually enjoying the fact that ‘justice’ had been done to Osama Bin Laden (OBL). Justice? I have to ask myself if Justice is what we call it when, after ten years of war, with thousands upon hundreds of thousands of deaths from New York City to Iraq, Spain, and Afghanistan, OBL was shot through the left eye, and his body dumped at sea for fear that his followers would claim him a martyr and create a shrine? Is this really Justice?
In my flesh, I am joyful that this is over, but is it really? In the day light, apart from the 24 hour news-cycle, I am left to wonder about the fear for Americans now, world wide, and what will happen now that others may see themselves as the one to seek revenge. Revenge is a dirty cycle, you know. No one wins that one. In my spirit, I stand condemned because I know that the Scriptures speaks to this, in regard to loving our enemies, not focusing on revenge, and the such. It is not something I have always done, and I am struggling to do now. I struggle in view.
Even the psychotic Prophet Ezekiel wrote,
“Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.” Ezekiel 33.11
While I know that this is not a Christian nation, why are those who claim it to be so reacting against the very texts which they claim as the foundation of their faith? (yes, I know of the other passages of Scripture, but if we are to choose, let us choose what we know Jesus would have chosen).
Last night, I was searching for some words to express my internal struggle -
I do not celebrate, neither do I mourn. Tonight, I exhale. (ht – Christian Salafia)
I am not sure I can mourn for the death of OBL – nor do I rejoice at his death, but I can and will mourn for what looks to be the death of civility in our society. We rejoice when our enemy falls, and the more bloody it is, the better for us. We do not enjoy and will shout not for the homeless being fed, or the naked clothed, or the civil rights of some finally protected, but when one man falls, regardless of the result, we will issue a loud applause, a joyous shout, puff up our chests, and claim victory!
“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.” (Proverbs 24:17)
I wonder if any of the rights which have been denied, and taken away, from us these past ten years will be restored?
I wonder, and I do with with as much sanctity that I can express in written form, because I do grieve for those who this will hurt – but I wonder if the death of OBL will bring back the thousands upon hundreds of thousands who have died in the past ten years? No? Are we expecting now to see them return and thank us for participating in their vengeance?
I support our troops, and I immensely proud of those who serve.
But I am speaking about those of us, today, who rejoice when our enemy has fallen when we gave him what looks to be more and more the only American justice system – death.
While others were celebrating at various places, I wanted to meet at the sanctuary to pray for the future of our country, and indeed, my own sinful flesh and participation in the death of an unholy man who, nevertheless, was created in the image of the Most High God.
I’m not sure my ultimate ethic here, maybe, but a blog is a public conversation, and I haven’t been afraid to share other details of my warped journey. Why start now?
Image via Wikipedia
The President is making the statement right now – on a Sunday night. And that is the news. David Gregory is finally reporting that there is an ‘incident’.
I remember where I first heard the news, and the name, of Osama Bin Laden, and now, I will remember where I heard the news that he is gone…
The President will announce, I assume, that the CIA operations a few months ago was successful. It was American personnel who pulled the trigger and the body is in our custody…
I don’t like to see anyone killed – no capital punishment, but I cannot help but rejoice that he is gone.
Image via Wikipedia
A local religious voice in Charleston has written an editoral which, no doubt, will some consternation among the populace. How dare she tell us that just as denominational differences exist among Christians, that the same thing exists in Islam… that lumping all Muslims, from liberal to moderate with extremists, is unfair.
The American press has built on the prejudice and fears of a population that knows nothing about the Islamic religion. We clearly make distinctions between Catholics, Baptists, Episcopal, Methodist, Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the various sects of the Jewish religion, but we lump all Muslims together with a total lack of understanding.
But, she goes on to note that we, and not the Muslims, have created the terror in the Middle East. I am not certain I can agree with her 100% on this one. Yes, we have propped up dictator after dictator, and with the end of colonialism by the European powers, borders were drawn haphazardly without regard to historical squabbles; however what has existed long before the United States are various inter-religious and social conflicts which have brought terror to the Middle East. Granted, what we do is to provide the resources to further that, if not at times instigate it, and at other times down right cause a re-ignition.
Anyway, take a gander at the editorial…
Click to Order
During our time, we are watching threats arise in North Korea and Iran as well threats emerging again in Iraq and other portions of the Middle East. Not only that, but the wars which prompted these essays have yet to subside and with each promise of withdrawal comes the passive acknowledgment that our children may not in fact see the end of these wars. This book doesn’t promise answers, and what answers it gives don’t always sit well with those of us to the political left who fight tooth and nail for the ‘pure’ doctrine of Just War. Of course, the political right will not find much comfort either in the idea of absorbing peace or the method of handling non-combatants.
This book, published by Eisenbrauns (here), is part of the Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement series edited by Richard S. Hess and Craig L. Blomberg. This particular volume is edited by Hess and Elmer A. Martens and includes distinguished writers, such as Daniel Heimback and Ian G.C. Durie. It is a collect of essays inspired by Denver Seminary’s annual Biblical Studies conference, help in 2004, which attempted to ‘address… the question of the teachings of biblical ethics regarding modern war.’ (viii) Often times, especially in the latest round of discussion concerning war, terrorism and the appropriate response to attacks, the Hebrew bible is mined extensively (well, not too extensively, I suspect) to support a violent and oftentimes, religious response in the form of a crusade. I remember the days after 9/11 when our rhetoric was a ‘our God vs their god’ type mentality, with phrases such as ‘we should go Old Testament on their….’ brought up repeatedly. Richard Hess, an editor of this series, shapes a response to those who do violence to the Old Testament by using it to justify a swift and brutal reaction. His purpose is twofold: to consider the issue of war in a then/now spectrum as well as to allow the modern Westerner to regard him or herself in this light allowing them to see how much the views have changed by examining recent contributions to the ethics of war.
Elmer A. Martens, a co-editor of this volume and a Professor Emeritus at the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, brings us the second essay which attempts to answer, somewhat, Regina Schwartz‘s book which called for the end of Monotheism. In this essay, Martens attempts to answer the charges against the Cross as a symbol of a violent and uncaring God, but doesn’t exclude the fact that their is violence in Holy Writ, and that God does at times cause it. What is interesting is first his notion of shalom, which while we tend to think that it fits neatly as ‘peace’, really doesn’t, and second, his view of the absorption of violence by the believers, but most notably, by the Cross. It is looking to be a timely discussion with tensions rising again around the Korean Peninsula, Rodas examines Isaianic impulses toward peace in a country at war. He first tells his story of how he came to his conclusions on biblical theology of war and the impetus of this search, followed by a thorough review of Isaiah’s prophecies dealing with Hezekiah, a king who in the midst of a war turned to human innovations instead of relying upon YHWH. It is not about what we can do, but about who we are that confirms what we should do.
Daniel R. Heimbach writes the fifth essay in this book, an essay which is immediately challenging to my political notions which developed over the past eleven years. He takes on the notion, developed during the lead up to the Iraqi War, that a Just War is in effect the same as a Crusade, making such a Crusade a morally righteous act. He tackles Plato, Aristotle and Augustine in (re)dividing Crusade from Just War, admirably. The final several move from a proper method of protecting civilians in a time of war to a just war theory in use against terrorism and ending with final essay in this momentous book by Christian ethicist Glenn H. Stassen. It pertains not to pacificism or the Just War Theory but to something different – to the Just Peacemaking Theory. Immediately, with that phrase, I think about the end of the Great War, and what might have happened at the peacemaking with Germany being in line with Christian precepts, but I digress.
These essays aren’t about mundane, rational logic or philosophy, but approaches the issue from the Christian Tradition with each author tying their essay in some way back to Christ and Scripture. There are thoughts aplenty in this book with questions being raised, some answered, but more importantly, it is a call to conversation about how to handle acts of illegal terrorism as a Christian nation, if that is indeed what we are or at the very least, what we desire to become.
Click to Order
For an introduction to the series, see here.
Major General Durie was a strong advocate of the Just War theory, and his essay is not less adamant that Just War can be maintained in the fight against modern terrorism. He notes, rightly, that terrorism is generally what the other person doesn’t like. During the period immediately following 9/11, Reuters, if memory serves, published a story stating that one’s man terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This was not received well by the American public who was still in the midst of subjective response. But, the statement is accurate. Durie writes,
…popular usage demands that we treat terrorism typically as an instrument of a resistance struggle. Whether or not it is unlawful depends on how it is used. (p115)
We should note that the same flip of meaning goes along with the words treason, traitor and the like. It depends, in the end, on who wins. Had the Founder Fathers lost, they would have been known as traitors. It is in this light that Durie tackles terrorism, asking for if terrorism is ever legitimate. It may surprise the answer, especially if we subjectively name it something else (p117). And while some terrorism may have been justified, rarely (Durie cites one instance where it was used solely against the military p116) did it not touch the noncombatants. Further, he notes, that it is justified, it will not work if the rules are completely followed (p117).
Durie is ‘big’ on the rules, especially in use of terrorism and response to terrorism. He writes,
The absolute necessity for governments to behave legitimately and accountable must be constantly reinforced and checked. If a legitimate government behaves illegally, wrongly, unethically, or immorally, it undermines its own authority and legitimacy and provides a precedent for its opposition to do the same. (p118)
If only, I think, that our Government officials consistently felt the same way, but you and I both know that they do not, not even ours. Durie’s essay is concerned with legitimacy, but I have wonder, that if as he even notes, legitimacy rarely wins, then what are we left with? How must ‘illegitimacy’ are we going to endure in order to ‘win’ any conflict, local, national, or international. In the War Between the States, Lincoln shredded the Constitution and treated fellow Americans as war-criminals, allowing a holocaust of sorts for Southern prisoners. Or, of Sherman’s scorched earth policy? If we follow Durie’s line, then we must re-examine Lincoln’s actions as well as our present course in understanding our guilt, first, and how our government as be effected by these things. One of his final sections is about holding national governments accountable. How do we do this if in doing this, we reveal the ugly actions we’ve undertaken to ‘preserve our way of life’?
But, it is in this accountability and indeed, in following the Just Peace and Just Rulemaking dictum’s of Christian theology that not only holds governments accountable, but neutralizes terrorism in many ways. Interesting enough is Durie’s appendix on Criteria on Justified Response.
The TSA is getting more evasive, and while making a point not to profile, has starting scanning very ‘American’ looking people for other reason, I suspect, than to get them scanned. Now, Wal-Mart has been enlisted in the fight…
At least 200 Wal-Mart stores will roll out security announcements within 24 hours, Walmart spokesman Dan Fogleman said. By month’s end, 588 stores in 27 states will be participating in the program. A short video featuring Napolitano will appear on TV screens at select checkout lanes, asking Walmart shoppers to contact local law enforcement to report suspicious activity.
“If you see something suspicious in the parking lot or in the store, say something immediately,” Napolitano said in the video. “Report suspicious activity to your local police or sheriff. If you need help ask a Wal-Mart manager for assistance.”
Is it me, or are we turning into a paranoid society nearly 10 years after 9/11? And, is the Government turning our neighbors into domestic spies?
Ugh.
I’m starting to sound like others. I ain’t namin’ names or anything…
I am getting more political, but I hope, less so.
There is a need to tell certain stories which may not impact believers, but impacts us as citizens. This is one of them. It seems that our Government has been caught ‘red-handed’ using informants who were hired after they had committed other crimes to infiltrate mosques. Why? To incite terrorism so that they can find the real terrorists. Or, something like that. Jason has two posts up, here and here, which calls attention to something that is barely, if at all, getting any attention in the MSM.
“This is Farouk al-Aziz, code name Oracle,” he said into the keys as he sat in his parked car in this quiet community south of Los Angeles. “It’s November 13th, 4:30 a.m. And we’re hot.”
The undercover FBI informant – a convicted forger named Craig Monteilh – then drove off for 5 a.m. prayers at the Islamic Center of Irvine, where he says he spied on dozens of worshipers in a quest for potential terrorists.
Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI has used informants successfully as one of many tactics to prevent another strike in the United States. Agency officials say they are careful not to violate civil liberties and do not target Muslims.
But the FBI’s approach has come under fire from some Muslims, criticism that surfaced again late last month after agents arrested an Oregon man they said tried to detonate a bomb at a Christmas tree-lighting ceremony. FBI technicians had supplied the device.
Tension grows between Calif. Muslims, FBI after informant infiltrates mosque.
Essentially what is happening, it seems, is that criminals are being hired by the FBI to infiltrate Muslim communities and incite violence, even going so far as to supply the ‘tools’ to blow up buildings. (Granted, they are not workable.)
Is this really justice?
Click to Order
For an introduction to the series, see here.
Another one? Another essay which takes a different slant than I want on war and terrorism during our time?
Written by Lt. Col. Tony Pfaff, a former philosopher teacher at West Point, this essay tackles the issue of noncombatant immunity in our pursuit of terrorists. What I didn’t know was, was the distinction between Police Action and War, and how civilians factored into the decision of force.
This distinction is easily summarized when Pfaff writes,
By enforcing laws, police maintain peace; by fighting wars, soldiers establish it. (p98)
Pfaff then goes on to structure his argument of when police is need versus the use of soldiers around the idea which we might associate with Ex parte Milligan. The point that he makes (97-100) is essential in understanding his essay and his view on the biblical response to terrorism. He goes on to differentiate between Criminals, Enemies and Terrorists, and does so within the tradition of ‘Nation of Laws’ approach we often hear about. This is a vital element missing in our national discourse on the pursuit of terrorists, and one which must be approached by our leaders. I had never really thought about the legal nuances, which is generally portrayed as a means of circumventing the Law, of terrorism. Instead, these little differences amount to the culmination of much speculation not only of international law but so too the Christian Just War Theory. The differences also amount to the immunity or damage afforded to noncombatants.
“It is important”, he writes near the end of the essay, “to remember that noncombatants are not subject to unintentional harm because they somehow deserve it. Instead, they are subject to unintentional harm because they are citizens of a state against who act of aggression the government must move in defense. (p106)” It is difficult at best for a rational population who professes the Christian attitudes of peace and compassion to all to watch as seemingly innocent populations undergo such military strategies as ‘Shock and Awe‘, but it would behoove us, according to Pfaff, to know our goal, the reasons of that goal, and how such actions are determined by law. The reaction to terrorism is dependent upon many things; it is important to understand the reason for the reaction, and that not all terrorists are the same. I believe that a reconsideration and a reminder of the War on Terror may help to solidify our current strategy, if one buys into what Pfaff is arguing. And if the buy in is made, the stance against total war is equally assured by the consumer.
 |
 |
 |
