Rejecting the Republican Party is not apathy
A few people have accused me of being apathetic about current politcal affairs. (See the comments under “I’ll take mine rare”, particularly #’s 7 and 13 ). Allow me to indulge in a few words of defense against this charge.
I do not consider myself apathetic. About ten years ago I came to realize that the Republican party is what it has always been – a warmongering establishment party that serves the interests of the elite. Sure there are a number of good grassroots Republicans, but these seldom get elected and when they do they typically sell out to Central Command. Christian Republicans especially.
I am not exhibiting apathy by refusing to support Republicans. Indeed, it is precisely because I am not apathetic that I reject the party of Lincoln.
Not meaning to sound like an elder-statesmen, but one day the coin will drop for many of you who frequent this blog. You may have to be beaten up a bit more before you too leave your abusive political spouse, but since many of you display an independent temperament, I have great hope that this will be happen sooner rather than later.
When you do, you will be able to view the political landscape from a different perspective. You will not, for example, get agitated at the prospect of President Hillary Clinton. For you will realize that it does not matter who is in the White House. All contenders (Republican and Democrat) are vetted by powerful interests way before the race even begins. And since both parties are controlled by the same interests, they are guaranteed to win and we are guaranteed to lose. So why get excited about it?
A good part of the solution to our political problems is for Christians to wise up. Take Don Corleone’s advice: refuse to play the fool by being pulled like a puppet on a string.
Abandoning Republicanism is not apathy. It is the first step (albeit a small one) in setting the direction of our nation on a different and better course.
Not sure exactly what you mean. I assume by Republicanism that you wouldn’t support the GOP financially. But even Ron Paul has seen the advantage of running as a Republican (for Congress), yet he doesn’t sell out to the $ interests or ruling elite. Yet I’m no apologist for the party of Lincoln. I thought Mike Farris (HSLDA) was nutty to support without discrimination Republicans (this was his Madison project–I think that was the name–a few years ago). McCain has brought on board Bret O’Donnell of Liberty University debate (who also helped GWB with speeches, etc.). Evanjellycal Christians will be sold a bill of goods about the “conservative” McCain.
Is it apathy or realism to say, “Anyone good enough to be our President will never get elected.” I believe it’s realistic. I’d love to see Ron Paul get in, but like B.B.Warfield, I’m a cessationist as far as miracles go.
Comment by ElizaF — January 25, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Dear MRB,
While you’re not politically apathetic, don’t you think it is fair to say that you are apathetic when it comes to selection between McCain and Clinton?
I’m sure I didn’t mean to say that your apathetic about the political climate of the U.S.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — January 26, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Hi Michael,
appreciate your comments as always.
Comment by Uri Brito — January 27, 2007 @ 8:42 am
When you do, you will be able to view the political landscape from a different perspective. You will not, for example, get agitated at the prospect of President Hillary Clinton. For you will realize that it does not matter who is in the White House.
Wow… so this isn’t a statement of apathy? I have a great reason why I would vote for an war-mongering, sold-out Republican before Hillary: Hillary is a socialist and therefore a fool. I’m not going to survey the political landscape, recognize that nearly everything is poison, and then just throw my hands up in the air and take the cyanide over the strychnine.
Ergo my comment that unless everything is going in a peachy postmillenial reconstructionist direction, who cares? Personally I’d rather see America die slowly rather than quickly, but you seem to think that even this is irrelevant.
Furthermore, I’d be interested in seeing where your hope does lie. Is it in the independents? Is it in the grassroots orgs? Is it in moving out of the US? What?
Comment by Keith — January 27, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Keith,
“Ergo my comment that unless everything is going in a peachy postmillenial reconstructionist direction, who cares?”
My main concern here is that you continue to attribute Mr. Butler’s apathy to reconstructionism. In the previous paragraphs before that which you quoted it appears that Butler is building his case off of the fact that the Republican party is no different principally from the Democratic party. I didn’t see where he talked about Postmillennialism.
Comment by JonathanB — January 27, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Keith,
Jonathan’s concern as mine as well.
Whether we call it apathy or not (and I did not mean to offend you, MRB), I prefer the R-s over the D-s whereas MRB seems not to care, yet I share MRB’s eschatology, from what I know of it.
I see a small but important difference between the two parties.
There is a reason why a Republican politician who is involved in a sex scandal is expected to resign, whereas a Democrat politician who is involved in a sex scandal is expected to carry on with the support of his party.
There is a real moral difference between the parties.
-Turretinfan
Comment by Turretinfan — January 28, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Turretinfan,
Do you really think there’s a moral difference between the parties? It’s just that when the R’s get caught they’re held to a different standard because they’re suppose to be “moral”, whereas the D’s get caught, it’s just who they are and everyone seems to recognize such. Both are immoral but the R’s pretend. Of course I generalize.
Comment by KKitchens — January 30, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Dear KKitchens,
Yes, I do think that there is a moral difference between the parties.
Tell me that the reason that Reagan, Bush, or Bush did not have a “blue dress” incident is because the R-s are pretenders. Of course that’s not the reason. I can’t imagine a more improbable headline, and I doubt you can either.
The R party attracts more moral people, its candidates are, on average, more moral people, and the party enforces its code of morality against its candidates. That’s one reason its the more attractive party to most religious conservatives.
Foley is a great example of the R-s policing mechanism. He committed no crime (unlike, say, Clinton I), but his mere incohate sinful behavior was a basis for him to withdraw in shame from further public participation in the party.
If a prominent Democrat Congressman had done something similar, the party line would be: he did nothing illegal, and his personal life is nobody’s business. Possibly an indignant Sen. Kennedy tell us that it’s “water on the bridge” and we should “get a life.”
Tell me that you disagree.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — January 30, 2007 @ 11:59 am
As painful as the saga with Miss Lewinsky was, we have to come to realize that causing the unjust death of 600,000 people is morally more reprehensible.
Comment by Tim H — January 30, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Sure, sure, when Clinton lied, nobody died. We’ve heard this before.
We can be objective about Clinton’s behavior. But you can’t judge President Bush’s character based on your idea of justice. You think it is an unjust war, that’s fine, you can have your opinion. But you are not in a place to condemn somebody who disagrees, when it apparently isn’t as clear as you portray. Clinton’s morals are much more reprehensible.
Comment by Scott — January 30, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Good point, TurretinFan.
Comment by razzendahcuben — January 30, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
TF -
“The R party attracts more moral people, its candidates are, on average, more moral people, and the party enforces its code of morality against its candidates. That’s one reason its the more attractive party to most religious conservatives.”
No doubt there are many decent Republicans, but let’s look at a few of its leaders and see how well the party enforced its moral codes.
Rep. David Dreier of CA (formerly Chair of House Committee on Rules) is a homosexual and lives with his “partner” who is also his chief of staff.
Former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, is almost certainly a homosexual.
Former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert lives with his chief of staff in a D.C. townhouse and his wife stays in a hotel when she is in the capital.
Secretary of State Rice swore in sodomite Mark R. Dybul as Bush’s Global AIDS Coordinator. First Lady Laura Bush looked on and Dybul’s sodomite partner, Jason, held the Bible.
Besides this, there are a number of strange things that happen in the White House. Here are just two examples.
James Guckert (aka “Jeff Gannon”) is a sodomite prostitute who, without credentials, got a press pass for the White House. He made about 200 appearances in the White House. There is no record of him either signing in or signing out in about 40 cases.
The June 29, 1989 edition of the Washingon Times reported that ‘call boys’ took a midnight tour of the White House. There was no investigation into this and the story just went away.
Comment by MRB — January 30, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Tim:
Major point:
a) Whether or not it was just, the war was bipartisan, and it continues to have bipartisan support. Thus, it is not that useful for comparing the relative morality of the parties.
b) My point was that the D-s have an anti-Christian moral leaning. The war is not a persuasive counter-example (even if it were a Republican war, which it is not), at least in part because it is not something that is clear-cut sin that most Reformed Christians would agree on, and at least in part because it can be dismissed as an aberration from the pattern, if necessary.
Minor quibbles:
c) The vast majority of the 600,000 deaths were not “caused” by the coalition, at least not in the usual sense of the word “caused.”
d) There’s nothing “unjust” about killing enemies of one’s nation in a war.
e) Sadaam’s Iraq was clearly our enemy.
f) If you find a Biblical standard for “just war,” please let us know.
g) When you do, I’ll find you a less reasonably debateable standard for both “adultery” and “perjury.”
h) In fact, I’ll go further and find you Biblical support for Congress nearly unanimous action in engaging in war against nations like Iraq.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — January 30, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Dear MRB,
Neither Dreier nor Hastert are “out.”
Lots of unmarried men or men who are routinely away from home have roommates without engaging in abhorent sexual practices.
“Gay rights” groups love to claim that their opponents are what they themselves are because that puts them in the politically undesirable position of either openly condemning sin (which is what both Dreier and Hastert ought to do) or admitting the sin and suffering the consequences (shame and departure from the party leadership).
I can’t speak for California Republicans, but I’m confident that if Hastert confirmed your accusation he would not be reelected as a Republican.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — January 30, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
Are you still a theonomist?
Now that you rejected the Republican Party, I was just wondering, what now?
I mean,as the cliche goes, you can’t beat something with nothing!
Comment by Jimmy Li — January 31, 2007 @ 1:32 am
TF (#13) — yes, please deliver on item (h). And be sure to include a rebuttal of the excellent points made by this poster.
Comment by Tim H — January 31, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Dear Tim,
I was offering (h) if someone will provide me with (f). Quid pro quo.
As for my linked post, as I said there:
“I think we can easily agree that the war against Iraq was without sufficient cause without buying into “just war” theory, the paradox of “international law,” the liberal criticisms of the war, or the libertarian criticism of the war.”
The war was not wise, at least as far as we can judge from the facts we have. Thus, we can oppose the war on that ground, without getting embroiled in deciding whether the war was just, whether there is such a beast as an “unjust war,” or even whether Congress had Scriptural authority to do what it did.
There is an important distinction between unwise and unjust.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — January 31, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
My case is summarized by the three points here, along with:
4. A lie cannot count as meeting the burden of proof that a war is justified.
5. By continually changing his proffered reason for his war, after each is shown to be inadequate or false, Bush shows that either (a) he has not really given a justification or (b) he is lying.
6. Ergo, his war is not justified.
That’s my [f].
Comment by Tim H — January 31, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
The upright moral character of our lovely representatives and their brilliant ideas exemplified
http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/010207Yoo.htm
Video Of Torture Master John Yoo Being Asked To Justify “Crushing Children’s Testicles” Comments
Infowars.net
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The Baker Institute Student Forum (BISF) hosted a discussion involving three panelists on November 3 2006, one of which was John Yoo, co author of the PATRIOT ACT and various controversial memos in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions. Yoo also decreed that it was legal to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
Comment by secret agent +J(o)>S~H** — February 1, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Yoo is asked by an Infowars reader to explain the moral justification for crushing a child’s testicles or raping a child in front of a parent.
Yoo backtracks on previous comments he made during a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.
Comment by secret agent +J(o)>S~H** — February 1, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Knowing that these heroes are doing whatever it takes to keep me and the millions of porn addicts in this upright Godly nation safe, just makes me sleep better at night. I’ve got to dash though; I’m off to my Skull and Bones meeting (hopefully Bush and Kerry will save me a seat right next to the grave adorned with old skulls) followed up by a weekend at the Bohemian Grove. This time I’m responsible for bringing the mock child sacrifice! I’ve had grandma sewing around the clock, boy does it look sharp!
Comment by secret agent +J(o)>S~H** — February 1, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Tim:
You gave as your Biblical standard of just war:
1) Granted.
2) Distinguish
(i)War is clearly an exception to (1), for although God does not sin:
Exo 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
and
(ii)Biblical war is war against any enemy nation
Deu 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
(iii)There are other times when the civil magistrate can lawfully kill, besides war.
3. Agreed, but objections noted.
(i) Although it is not “automatically righteous” just because the king does it, the “automatically righteous” position is a rather obvious straw man.
(ii) In fact, your (3) does not address the more fundamental issue of what decides whether the king sins when he goes to war.
4. Distinguished.
(i) Your (4) seems to assume that the king (civil magistrate/government/whatever) must “justify” the war.
(ii) That assumption seems to be based on your battery of the straw man in (3). However, just because the king is not automatically righteous does not mean that the default poisition is that a war is unjustified until proven justified.
(iii) Your burden of proof statement comes from thin air, or perhaps from your battery of the straw man in (3).
(iv) Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the accuser? Isn’t that the Biblical model?
(v) And, of course, no one suggests that a king’s lie can make his otherwise “unjust” war “just.” Thus, (4) also contains something of a straw man.
(5) Strongly objected to.
(i) “Continually changing his proferred reason,” is not an objective characterization, but an emotional characterization. If we view Bush’s twin reasons for the war as national security for the U.S. and liberty for Iraq, then the proferred reasons are unchanged.
(ii) “After each is shown inadequate or false,” is also not objective but emotional. The most that has been “shown” by the most outspoken Bush-bashers is that certain details of the reasons for viewing Iraq as a national security threat were based on inaccurate data from Bush’s spies.
(iii) Your “either (a) or (b)” constitutes a false dichotomy. Not only is “both (a) and (b)” a logical possibility, so is “neither (a) nor (b).” And “neither (a) nor (b)” is also available under the facts we have.
6) Does not follow.
As for (g), as promised:
I) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
II) Having sex with someone who is not one’s wife, when one is married is adultery.
III) Ergo, Clinton and Kennedy who notoriously had sex with people who were not their wives were adulterers.
IV) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
V) Clinton bore false witness against a woman who accused him in Arkansas.
VI) Ergo, Clinton was a perjurer.
As for (h), as promised:
VII) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
VIII) Respect for the roles between superiors and inferiors extends to nations.
IX) Iraq was an inferior but rebellious nation.
X) Romans 13:1-7 explains that the king is God’s minister to execute wrath upon evil doers, i.e. those who “resist the power.”
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 1, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Nice job TurretinFan!
4. A lie cannot count as meeting the burden of proof that a war is justified.
5. By continually changing his proffered reason for his war, after each is shown to be inadequate or false, Bush shows that either (a) he has not really given a justification or (b) he is lying.
I refuted this in the comments of the very post you link to… I’m still waiting for a reply. No, Bush did not lie. How convenient that you forget that virtually every last liberal wanted to take up action against Iraq a few years ago! Virtually every liberal agreed that Iraq was a threat with WMD’s or WMD building capabilities.
Comment by razzendahcuben — February 1, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
TF -
Okay, you have had your fun. Now please provide us with the promised h.
Razz -
A comment does not necessarily constitute a refutation.
If you still don’t believe Bush lied, then there isn’t any point in further debating this issue. So let’s grant that Bush was telling the truth. Now that we know there were no WMD’s, how should this effect how we evaluate the war?
At the fundamental level, what if Iraq did have WMD’s? How does this give our “superior” nation a justification for waging war against them?
The fact is, the current wars have nothing to do with WMD’s. Both you and TF have not yet grasped that the real issues are not the ones bloviated on Fox News and Sean Hannity (or the NY Times and Washington post, for that matter). Their job (whether they realize it or not) is to distract the goyim into phony debates. It works like a charm every time. The comments on this post are a testimony to this.
Comment by MRB — February 1, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
I think TF thinks he gave us [h] at the bottom of #22.
See if I have understood correctly:
1. Whatever country develops the best weapons of mass destruction is allowed to regard itself as the “superior” to countries that have weapons of lesser destruction.
2. This superiority is analogous to the superiority of a parent over a child.
3. Therefore, whenever that “superior” country thinks the “inferior” country is misbehaving, it is allowed to spank that inferior country.
TF, if I have grasped your argument correctly, I suggest you can capture it more elegantly with a simple three word expression: “might makes right.”
Let’s strive for brevity.
Comment by Tim H — February 1, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
MRB and TJH,
* Yes, items VII through X were supposed to be my (h).
* That stronger nations are superior is clear from the light of general revelation.
* That relationships of superiority and inferiority are governed by the fifth commandment is WLC-type material, which I know you can easily check for yourself.
* The mockery of my position as being “might makes right,” is misplaced. A superior nation can sin against an inferior nation, just as parents can sin against their children. The fact that the U.S. is a superior nation does not end the analysis, as it would under your mockery of my position.
* Your emphasis on WMD and supposed lies is mystifying to me, given that I know you (TJH and MRB) well enough to know that you are not encaphalic liberals who belive whatever Michael Moore and MoveOn.org puts out.
* I don’t follow Rush Limbaug or Sean Hannity, nor do I regularly read the NYT or the WP - and certainly never read the political articles in those left-leaning papers. I’ll admit I’ve read a few Coulter columns, but only for the entertainment value. Don’t assume that if I disagree with you on some point out beyond our three-sigmas of agreement that I’ve been duped by a - how shall I say - ah yes - “vast right wing conspiracy.”
* Nevertheless, I’m an opponent of continued presence in Iraq, because I think it’s unwise - based on the information I have. I’ve written as much to my Congressman, and asked for the troops to come home. I got a courteous reply that said that my Congressman knows better than I do about how and when the troops should be withdrawn.
* As for political parties, I continue to seem important differences between the parties. I think the differences between the parties are why, so far, I’ve never found that the Democrat was someone I’d rather have to rule over me than the Republican.
* Rooting for a woman to rule over us? I doubt brother Knox would join your hollers. And I’m with Knox.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 1, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
On the sexual morality front, do you think that the recently revealed infidelity by Sodom SF’s democrat mayor will either disssuade him from continuing his reelection campaign or dissaude SF’s democrats from reelecting him? Do you think that the answer would be different if he were a Republican in Idaho?
Remember what happened to Helen Chenoweth (perhaps I’ve misspelled her name)?
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 1, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
TF– your position is based on a huge equivocation on “superior.” Having bigger guns and muscles is de facto superiority; the WCF is talking about de jure superiority. This is grotesque!
Comment by Tim H — February 1, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Dear Tim,
You perceive grotesquery, yet:
WLC
Question 124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
Answer: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.
How is someone’s superiority in age or gifts de jure superiority?
And, supposing you can answer that, in what way, pray tell, did Caesar have de jure superiority to the Nation of Israel of Jesus’ generation?
Whether you find it grotesque or not, I will gladly affirm that military might is a gift from God, whether it be Caesar’s might or the might of the American empire.
Was Nebuchadnezzar the de jure empororer of the East?
But God said:
Jer 28:14 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him: and I have given him the beasts of the field also.
And moreover:
Jer 27:11 But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the LORD; and they shall till it, and dwell therein.
But, since you insist that superiority be de jure, it’s only reasonable for me to ask you to set forth some Biblical method for establishing the de jure relationship between nations, whether of superiority or equality.
Suprise me … I’m expecting a mocking off-handed dismisal, not a serious handling of the Biblical issues.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 2, 2007 @ 9:49 am
You clearly reject the de jure/de facto distinction!
As Calvin said, that which is ridiculous ought to be ridiculed.
Comment by Tim H — February 2, 2007 @ 10:36 am
And, “Turretin fan,” if you really have come to expect mocking off-handed dismissal, I suggest you find a site that is more compatible– such as a neo-pagan power-religionist, gussied up in scholastic jargon. No one is holding a gun to your head– though I guess if someone did, you would instantly recognize him as your superior and show proper biblical submission.
Comment by Tim H — February 2, 2007 @ 10:42 am
However, nothing I have written is mocking. Your view is, quite simply, “might makes right.” The Bible teaches “might makes right,” you think. There is an answer– but it would require a book, not a quick blog comment.
Comment by Tim H — February 2, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Dear Tim,
I apologize for characterizing your comments as mockery. Tone is hard to convey on this medium, and I should not have leaped to the conclusion that your glossy mischaracterization of my position was mockery. While that may be an easy leap (especially see #30), I should have restrained myself.
As to #32:
My first point was that the WLC does not distinguish between de facto (of fact) and de jure (of law) relationships.
My second point was that de jure is an unworkable standard as applied to nations.
My third point was that Scripture suggests submission to rulers whose rule is not de jure by most standards I can imagine.
Thus, your summary is in accurate and misleading.
The distinction between de jure and de facto can exist when there is a king to make law. Thus, a powerful highwayman can be your de facto, not your de jure, superior. Why? Because he has violent, not legal authority over you.
However, a police officer is your de jure superior. Why? Because he has legal authority over you. Unless you take the 2nd Amendment seriously, he is probably also your de facto superior.
Unless you believe that the UN (or some other body) has super-national authority, or unless you believe God has established some form of international law, trying to make the de facto / de jure distinction in the international context is infeasible, as I have demonstrated.
As for #31:
Your comment: “neo-pagan power-religionist, gussied up in scholastic jargon,” is a matter of res ipsa loquitur. I do reject your implicit false accusation of neo-paganism, with disgust. As for power-religionist, if all you mean is that I believe that God raises up and brings down nations, or that God’s law should and ought to be the law of the land, that the Christian religion should be established, or that God was in control of everything - ok - fine. But I though I was among fellow adherents to those Reformed tenets here.
A brave fool might refuse to submit even with a gun to his head. A wise man will turn the other temple.
As for #32:
My position is not simply “might makes right.” Nor did I say that the Bible teaches “might makes right.”
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 2, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
I see that I left out one key thing:
“might makes right” is different from what I have presented in that both I (and the WLC) explain that superiors can sin against inferiors.
Among the many reasons for rejecting that cliche, foremost is that it assumes that everything done by the stronger party is automatically right. That is not my position, as I have made clear.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 2, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
I think most people who frequent this site do so because they respect the qualifications & biblical viewpoints of the owners, though they might disagree on non-essentials and applications.
Comment by ElizaF — February 2, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Re: #35, I am glad not to be an exception to that rule.
Comment by TurretinFan — February 2, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
And TF, I apologize for the intemperance of my response. Your contributions are a valued aspect of this site.
They used to advise Americans traveling to Europe to avoid talking about religion, politics, or the war.
Obviously, we do not avoid any of these– on the contrary. But perhaps we get a glimpse for why the advise was given. Let’s all take a deep breath and get ready for more iron-sharpening in the months to come.
Comment by TJH — February 3, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Now that we know there were no WMD’s, how should this effect how we evaluate the war?
This is wrong. Saddam did have WMD’s. The fact that he moved him into neighboring countries is well documented.
http://www.google.com/search?q=wmds+saddam
At the fundamental level, what if Iraq did have WMD’s? How does this give our “superior” nation a justification for waging war against them?
I don’t know, Mr. Butler, why did America arrogantly think that we were justified in stopping Hitler’s march across Europe? Why didn’t we wait until we were actually getting attacked?
It works like a charm every time. The comments on this post are a testimony to this.
And in the mean time I’m wondering why a terrorist-harboring, WMD-toting nation is not considered a threat. I’m also wondering why you side with so many of the hypocrites and liars in Washington.
Comment by razzendahcuben — February 3, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
MRB/TJH,
On the public justifications for the war:
Can we agree that it is well documented that Saddam was notorious for paying rewards to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, even if we do not agree that such action justifies war?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Can we agree that it well documented that Iraq sought WMDs and had working relations with anti-American terrorist groups, even if we do not agree that either of those acts justifies war?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html
Can we agree that the absence of WMD in Iraq post invasion has been explained, even if we disagree over whether the explanation is correct or satisfactory?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml?s=lh
Can we also, RDC, agree that just because a country doesn’t like America and has WMDs doesn’t mean that we can automatically justly attack them?
(Otherwise - watch out France!)
Can we agree that a country has a right to arm itself as well as it wants to?
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 3, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Thanks for the post (including that part). I hope we can explore our points of divergence, at least so I can better understand why we (who both oppose America’s continued presence in Iraq) can disagree so explosively over why we agree.
I think you phrased it before “violent agreement.”
Pax vobiscum - in the best sense of that phrase.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 3, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
“I don’t know, Mr. Butler, why did America arrogantly think that we were justified in stopping Hitler’s march across Europe? Why didn’t we wait until we were actually getting attacked?”
Umm… actually we did wait until we were getting attacked. But maybe you were being sarcastic?
Comment by JonathanB — February 3, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
On August 11, 1954, at a Presidential news conference, Dwight D. Eisenhower said:
All of us have heard this term “preventive war” since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it…A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn’t preventive war; that is war. I don’t believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.
Comment by ElizaF — February 3, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Ike’s criticism is a bit like saying “preventative maintenance” isn’t “preventative” because it’s “maintenance.”
The point of preventative war is:
a stitch in time saves nine.
-Turretinfan
Comment by Turretinfan — February 4, 2007 @ 11:20 am
Not to re-stir the pot, but I read a good quote the other day that aptly described our frustration with the GOP by describing twenty-first century Republicans as those who run for office by calling Washington, D.C. a cesspool, and then think of it as more like a hot tub once they get there.”
Their lips drip with honey, and their speech is smoother than oil…
Are the principles in Proverbs 5 applicable to our voting. Perhaps not, but if they are, I would ask “if the forbidden woman was the last woman on earth, should we give her our honor?”
Comment by Greg — February 4, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Mr. Butler,
HOw many WMD’s would constitute WMD’s to you? I mean, would one shell of Chemical warhead? Two? Three?
I have to wonder sometimes if we have redefined WMD not as Weapons of Mass Destruction (or its specific military snyonym of Nuclear, Biological or Chemical Weapons [NBC]) but “Massive Weapons of Mass Destruction”
I have much respect for you Mr. Butler and your ministry…
Comment by Jimmy Li — February 5, 2007 @ 4:08 am
There are definitional differences between “anticipatory war” and “preemptive” or “preventive” war. This is not the forum to discuss it, but it is worthwhile to study the differences, as well as the history of the Cold War, and the fact that it ended without a major war with the Soviet Union.
Comment by ElizaF — February 5, 2007 @ 8:27 am
#38: The “move to Syria” is hardly well documented. What is well documented is the chirping about it by the ultra W amen corner.
In any case, here’s what even David Kay admits: “We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,” he said.
I have heard W. several times admit he was wrong about the WMD’s, that there weren’t any. So when was he lying, then or now? For once, why don’t we take his word for it?
#45– Good question. The answer is that the very term, which is cartoonish, is part of the neo-con propaganda. There is nothing wrong with having weapons, even big ones; if there is, then the USA as the greatest offender should be wiped off the map too.
There is something wrong with certain weapons, such as biological– because you can’t use them without violating just war theory. So (1) the USA is again the biggest offender, and (2) no one who rejects just war theory has the right to criticize even this class of WMD.
Comment by Tim H — February 5, 2007 @ 8:34 am
Dear Tim,
Can you recommend a book or author (other than the Bible) on the topic of just war that presents what you view as the correct theory?
I know ElizaF has mentioned some authors on here before …
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 5, 2007 @ 9:57 am
TF -
A good place to start is IVP’s War: Four Christian Views. The title, of course, is a misnomer. There can be only one Christian view. It surveys four views that have been held by Christians. The book is helpful in that in canvasses the different positions out there and so it is a good place to begin.
Comment by MRB — February 5, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Thanks, MRB. I suppose it should be titled “Four Christians’ Views.” Is any one of the contributers’ views close to the Christian views of the owners/authors of First Word? If not, is there any Christian author out there that is close to the point where you’d be comfortable saying so-and-so basically presents what we believe? I recognize that Tim has hinted that there is a response to my arguments, but it would require a book. Perhaps the book already exists, and I’ve simply overlooked it so far.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 5, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
No, I said that if you read the Bible and conclude, “might makes right,” it would take a book to answer that– not because the subject is difficult, but because so much in the way of hermeneutical foundations not to mention basic intuition would have to be reconstructed point by point.
Comment by Tim H — February 5, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
My misunderstanding of what you meant, Tim.
However, is there a book out there (or a position within the book MRB mentioned) that already describes your view of correct just way theory?
I hope I have now made it clear that my position is not: Just because a nation is stronger anything it does is automatically right.
To put it more positively: A stronger king can sin against a weaker king. I simply haven’t seen a persuasive case made that we sinned against Iraq in what we did. (Even though I find plenty of ground for opposing the war, and especially the quasi-occupation, for other reasons.)
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 5, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Turretinfan,
Should we withdraw American troops from Iraq right now? Is this what you want?
Comment by Jimmy Li — February 5, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Jimmy Li,
Based on the information I have, I don’t see the wisdom of maintaining a large military force in Iraq.
I want our leaders to do what is best. I have asked our leaders to withdraw our troops from Iraq immediately. As I see it, the war is over: we won. Saddam is dead and most of the worst members of his sadistic regime are dead. The remainder are in hiding. There is a new, friendly Iraqi government. Time to go home.
Perhaps someone wiser than myself has found a good reason to keep such a vast number of troops there. If so, I’d feel better if I knew what that reason was.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 6, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Jimmy Li -
“Should we withdraw American troops from Iraq right now? Is this what you want?”
Though not addressed to me, I’ll take a crack at it.
Yes, U.S. and the “alliance of the willing” should leave immediately. So should the thousands of hired thugs from Blackwater. But much more should be done.
(1) The U.S. should pay for the repair of all the damage done to the Iraqi infrastructure. This should be a cash payment directly to the Iraqi gov’t not to Haliburton and other corporations who have been fattened off this war.
(2) Reinstate the Baathist government. Acknowleding our crime in invading a soveriegn nation without justification, the U.S. government should do all in its power to restore Iraq to status quo ante bellum.
(3) Though a token in comparison to the loss of loved ones, the U.S. should give family members of those killed by U.S. munitions (”collateral damage”) a cash settlement.
(4) The U.S. government should make a formal apology to Iraq, begging forgiveness for not only the death and destruction but the calumnies raised against them. The apology should include a pledge never to wage war with Iraq again unless it engages in hostilities against the U.S.
(5) Along with this apology, the U.S. should repent of its support of Israel and promise never again to do its bidding in Middle Eastern affairs.
(6) Build an Iraqi War Memorial to be a perpetual reminder of the injustice done to the Iraqi people. It’s motto could be, “Never Again.” This memorial should be funded by the architects and propigandists for the war.
(7) Try those responsible for the war as traitors and, upon conviction, mete out the maximum penalty for such a crime.
I’m sure I’m missing many things, but this would do for starters.
Comment by MRB — February 6, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Wow, that’s kind of crazy your suggestion but I’m glad you shared it Mr. Butler.
Do you think that the Baathist could be reinstated into power? Somehow, I really do not think that reflects reality on the ground. I’m just thinking about the difficulties of implementing this. Would we have to install them into power and back them militarily against the various factions today in Iraq?
I myself question the wisdom of adding more Combat troops–what we need is more units that train the Iraqi military, or at least that’s what I understand the direction of the Marines and Army generals wanted, as can be documented in the Marine Gazette (Marine professional Journal) and else where, instead of adding more combat troops
I fear pulling out troops would mean large amount of more bloodshed if not a full blown civil war
Is there any theonomists that have written anything about how to leave Iraq in some kind of biblical and orderly fashion? Just curious.
Comment by Jimmy Li — February 7, 2007 @ 4:54 am
I agree that there is no difference in the Republican party and the Democrat party, they work for the same shadow bosses. 2004 I was going to vote Constitution Party but I let Gore scare me so bad I voted Bush. I will never do that again. The leading contenders for the 2008 season on both side are the ones that the shadow bossess want. The American voter is being led by the nose and it will not make any difference which party gets the nod, it will not be good for the REPUBLIC. I will be voting for a real Constitutionalist.
Comment by Roy Oaks — February 7, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Roy Oaks,
If it would not put your life in danger to tell us, I - for one - would like to know who the shadow bosses are.
Would you mind telling us?
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 7, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
By some of the comments that I have read it is no surprise why this nation is headed down the tubes an a pair of roler skates. There isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two wings of the same bird of prey. Seems to me that Foley was a republican soliciting young pages for homo sex and that was only the tip of the iceberg. Neither party has any claim to being more moral that the other and shame on any one that thinks there is a difference. All are owned and controlled by the new world order elitists and international bankers. Do any of you really believe that you, the working class in this country, actually account for the millions that these fascists and commies raise? Get real please. There is no moral standard in the District of Criminals until they get caught. With very few exceptions and I do mean few, they are nothing more than full blown traitors and everyone knows what needs to be done to traitors.
Comment by Richard Selfridge — February 7, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Thank you for the article. Your one of the few Americans that actually have a brain. Or at least one that hasn’t been washed. America at one time was a different place where Governors of the states held a lot of power. When the radio came along things changed a lot. Now we have a vehicle owned by those very Big interests groups you mentioned called television. Mostly own by certain robber baron families in the guise of diffuse corporations. They will not soon be investigating themselves NBC, GE, Raytheon, Maritn Marietta would be an example of the Rockefeller family for one. The ones that object to your article of course are the true believers the neophytes that think they know it all are very patriotic and mostly brainwashed. Like small children that are allowed to be a part of something. The saturation of the propaganda shows in some of these responses. Indeed if you mentioned the fact that all the news is the same on all the different channels. They wouldn’t get it. Same stories same subjects on the same day. Oh what a coincidence. Since they are not told by their masters they are propagandized they cannot think for themselves therefore don’t know they are propagandized.
Nothing worse than a true believer. In anything. Of course for me Jesus would be the exception. Abortion is legal through all nine months for the last 40 years now. We have been jerked around. Given justices that are worthless and lied to continually. Given what’s at stake you think they would exercise more care. But people like the writer of this article understand.
So when they put up that woman with a background that would make a hedonist squeal. You followed all you demagogue’s. Who are paid to be that way. They all recommended her. We fought like hell. Guess what we got her done away with and received a descent justice for it. All the while you true believers in all of this slept lulled by the demagoguery of your demagogues.
So here is a question. Why they heck would you trust any words out of the mouths of a government that’s allowed abortion on demand through all 9 months for the last 40 years. No debate advise or consent. What’s to talk about? Its pure evil.
Comment by George Roy — February 8, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Council on Foreign Relations(CFR), Trilateralist, these are financiers that actuallly runs this country or for that manner the entire industrialized nations. These are the shadow bosses. They could care less if Republicans or Democrats are in control since all candidates are pawns to the CFR/Trilateralist. As long as the CFR/Trilateralist control the money, that is all they care about. Check it out. You can find out that all the major people of the media, industry, and the financial world are members of one or both of these organization. A person the caliber of our Founding Fathers could not run for dog catcher without these people vetting them first and putting them before the public. In another words the American people only think they vote for the President. The Presidential election is strictly a vote for the best talking candidate that is put forth by the CFR/Trilateralist. There is your answer Mr/Ms Turretinfan.
Comment by Roy Oaks — February 8, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
R.O.,
Thank you for providing the information.
Like yourself, I’m a man.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — February 8, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Now I will address TF’s comment #22. However, hopefully the subsequent posts have already addressed many of the issues, so I will be brief and selective.
Right away, by saying “You gave as your Biblical standard of just war” you read something more than what I was asserting. I was giving a “proof” that this war is unjust, or at least unjustified. It did not claim to be a full-orbed “just war theory.” (As a general rule, the more comprehensive a theory is needed, the more it will itself come under question, thereby weakening its use as an engine to defeat the enemy it was meant to subdue.) My six points were meant to be a minimally sufficient way to see that the W war is unjustified.
Your (2)(ii) “Biblical war is war against any enemy nation” is misleading. No, “war is war against any enemy nation,” and that is tautological and thus unhelpful. “Biblical war” means war that can be justified from the Bible, and that is certainly not accomplished by citing Deut 21:10.
My (3) is not a straw man; it is the other side of the coin that hedges in (2). It is a premise that I stand by; it would only be a “straw man” if I was erroneously imputing that statement as an adequate summary of someone else’s position and neglected that position’s complexity or nuance. In fact, your calling it a “straw man” is actually a straw man.
Of course the magistrate has the burden of proof that his wielding the sword is justified. Otherwise, there would be no basis for saying that any tyrant any time in history was… a tyrant. He could always say, “I had my reasons, and they were sufficient.” Thus (to repeat myself) to your 4(iv): of course the burden of proof is not on the victim, but on the aggressor. And others may certainly speak for the victim.
However, my (4) did not even depend on this, though it could have justly. I was only affirming that lies can certainly not count as meeting a burden of proof.
5(i) you say “’Continually changing his proffered reason,’ is not an objective characterization, but an emotional characterization.”
No it’s not. It’s an objective characterization.
A man says,
“We’re going there because Iraq supported the 9-11 terrorists.” Then later, (no, not that, but)
“We’re going there because he has weapons of mass destruction that he plans to use against us.” Then later, (no, not that, but)
“We’re going there because the people of Iraq deserve to have a democracy.”
and I’ve left out three or four of his other “reasons.”
As each reason comes up empty, he doesn’t miss a beat. He just goes on, giving a different reason.
That means the previous reason wasn’t really the reason.
That means he’s liar.
To show that someone is a liar, one needn’t prove that something believed to be false was asserted as true in order to deceive. One need only show that things are asserted that subsequent attitude shows wasn’t intended sincerely.
You see TF, if W had said, “we must wage war against Iraq for national security reasons that I must keep secret,” there would be a bit of plausibility to your evasions. But he didn’t. He professed to give us the reason. He volunteered to meet the “burden of proof” if you will. But as each one proved false, his flippant attitude toward it, and effortless generation of new ones, shows that his is a conclusion in search of any reason whatsoever that people might accept as a reason. That is what liars do.
Comment by Tim H — March 1, 2007 @ 7:57 am
Tim,
It seems to me that all of those reasons are good reasons that went hand in hand. It doesn’t seem that when Bush gave those reasons one at a time that he was saying “this is the only reason at the present.” I realize that you probably know more than I do about this, but from what you’ve written, I don’t think you’ve proved that he was insincere or a liar. I’m not saying everything was handled perfectly, but the three reasons you listed were all reasons at the outset. Harboring terrorists was one strike, and then when Sadam Hussein would not comply with the U.N. regulations, our intelligence told us that WMD’s were a concern (admittedly a debatable point, but Sadam’s noncompliance was enough to convince me that something was going on). Providing democracy to Iraqis was at least an implicit goal from the beginning (again, debatable, but does this make the man a liar?). Because so much of this is debatable, I’m not saying that I know you are wrong that he’s a liar, just that I don’t think it is a fair judgement based on what you’re provided here.
Another point concerning the politics of this and how the war (with all its reasons, strategies, etc.) was presented to the people, I’m not convinced that Americans could handle it if the government was entirely open about all that they know. There is certainly much that we still don’t know, so this further convinces me that to call Bush a liar assumes too much.
Just a layman’s view.
Scott
Comment by Scott — March 1, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Dear Tim,
You wrote:
There is an important difference between unjust and unjustified. It’s clear that W has not justified this war to your satisfaction, but why should he?
You also said:
I can’t agree with you that a definition is tautological. Furthermore, it is a useful definition because it distinguishes between real war, as Biblically defined, in contrast to the “War on Poverty” the “War on Terror” or even the Branch Davidian debacle. It’s not that the “War on Poverty” is an unjust war, it is just that the “War on Poverty” is not a war at all, as Biblically defined. The use of “war” in that situation needs to be recognized as figurative.
Likewise the Branch Davidian debacle, while an armed conflict, was not a war, because nations were not involved.
Once we have determined whether something is a war, then we can determine whether the war is just.
You also said:
It is unusual in debates to spend time arguing over points of agreement, but let us say that we can agree that the “automatically righteous” position is not a position held by either of us, and - in fact - is not a position that is held by virtually anyone.
You further said:
It looks as though you are saying:
The king must justify his actions to me, because otherwise, how could I properly judge him.
I guess the more fundamental question is, why do you suppose that it is your place to judge kings? Normally, in the American tradition (following the principles of general equity set forth in the OT), the burden of proof is on the accuser, which - in this case - would be you. It is not on the alleged aggressor.
You also say that:
The non-objective addition to what W has said is the “(no, not that, but)” portion. Of course, I could be wrong, perhaps W did provide that negation of the earlier reason, but I don’t recall that. Instead, it looks like Bush offered a variety of different reasons that can all be lumped under the umbrellas of national security and spreading democracy/freedom.
I’d love to see if someone has provided a timeline to back up your claim that he has waited until the proferred reason came up empty to assert a new reason (serial excuses) as compared to multiple reasons at the same time (parallel justifications).
Furthermore, we do need to distinguish between the justification for fighting the Republican Guard, as opposed to the justification for fighting the terrorists/rebels.
I’m not trying to convince you that W is not a liar. I don’t think I could convince you of that. I do think I could show you that you have not met your burden of proof to sustain your accusation that he is a liar. And shouldn’t that be enough?
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — March 2, 2007 @ 9:03 am
In Christendom, kings have always had to justify their wars. When they haven’t, they are identified by history as tyrants.
Moreover, presidents are not kings.
Comment by Tim H — March 2, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Dear Tim:
To whom? To their nobles? To their soldiers? To their citizens/subjects/peasants/serfs?
And why? As a matter of morality or as a matter of practicality?
“History” as you use it is simply a way of saying that historians label them that way. Of course, whether historians so label them does not have the slight whiff of moral significance.
That’s a formal matter that would be significant if your argument was based on the American system of government. If your claim was so based, however, the response would be that the Constitution clearly does not require the President to justify a war, nor does it require the Congress (who actually declares war) to justify the war. Nor is there any statute passed by Congress that forces themselves or the president to justify the war.
So, what we see is that we are back to the position where you are asking the king (or call it “the government” or “the president,” if you like) to justify his actions to your satisfaction, and declaring his actions “unjust” if he fails to satisfy your claim.
Or so it appears.
It wouldn’t be the first time I misinterpreted you, though. So, I await your clarification/rebuttal.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — March 2, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
TF: Your bottom line, mentioned now several times, seems to be that he does not need to justify his war to anyone except (presumably) God.
If that is so, then that is a trump card that wipes out all the other discussions, and makes me think this is just a tea-time exercise in chatter for you.
It is a premise of my stance that he does need to justify it. That can be argued for; but not everything always needs to be argued for.
It is like this. We are (I think) arguing: is this green lump on the table a cabbage? You come back with, “you haven’t convinced me that there is such a thing as vegetative matter.”
Fine; but that question is for the Metaphysics class, not for the biology class.
Therefore, I request that you not post any more on this subject unless you open by acknowledging, and acknowledging truthfully, that the President must justify, to the citizenry or (at least) their representatives, his waging of a war.
Otherwise, this discussion is simply sound and fury signifying nothing.
Comment by Tim H — March 2, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Dear Tim:
Please endulge me a clarifying question, brought on by your use of “must”:
Do you mean: “the President must justify, to the citizenry or (at least) their representatives, his waging of a war” …
in order to avoid being labelled a Tyrant by historians?
in order to avoid sinning against the nation he wars with?
in order to avoid violating the Constitution?
I think I could be onboard with at least the first of those. I can’t see how I could be on board with the second one. I’m a bit at odds with the third, since it seems to me that - in principle - the President wages war at the behest of Congress.
If you will clarify, I will either acknowledge (and continue) or politely decline to continue the discussion (through your web site), as you have requested.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — March 2, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
TF — “being labelled a Tyrant by historians” can be misleading. My sense would emphasize you might say the “ideal historian” at work; in other words, (1) the concept “Tyrant” is a clear and distinct one, and (2) it is possible to apply this predicate to a person based on actions and words that are observed.
And clearly “Congress” is “waging” this war at the behest of the President, not vice-versa.
Let me suggest this way to proceed. Make your argument for the magistrate being beyond criticism in principle under the thread “Long live the Ephor.” But on this thread, make your arguments on the hypothetical assumption that the magistrate’s actions can be criticized by the citizenry (or their representatives, or their constitutional protectors, or however you want to hedge it in).
Comment by Tim H — March 12, 2007 @ 7:49 am
In 1828, Webster defined “tyrannical” thus:
I agree that a magistrate that fails to justify its decisions to the satisfaction of the governed (even upon their request) will quite likely be considered:
-primarily arbitrary;
-secondarily imperious; and
-perhaps even despotic
I also agree that Bush acts as civil magistrate in his role as President.
Thus, he can be evaluated by his citizenry as to whether or not he is a tyrant, at least de facto.
While I can, with Virginia, affirm sic semper tyrranis, for me the “is he a tyrant” debate is not an important one, because it is of political/historical, not moral, significance. It is a political/historical, not a moral, label. Thus, I will leave it to those who find such labels interesting. I will look forward to reading your “Long live the Ephor” thread.
-Turretinfan
Comment by TurretinFan — March 12, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Yes but TF you are the one the made the “tyrant” question into the rabbit trail that it became. I stand by post #18.
Comment by Tim H — March 12, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Scott (#64) — If a defendant in a murder case continually gives a different alibi every time he takes the stand, then even if you can’t prove that a single one of the alibis is false, you already know he is a liar.
That is why the “burden of proof” that some people are demanding is misconstruing the nature of the case.
The reasons were certainly given seriatim, with discussion and rebuttal ensuing after each one. It therefore looks an awful lot like the changing alibi.
Note that I’m not even claiming that each of his reasons {R1, R2, …} is a false assertion. What is false is the complex, “Rn is a valid justifiction for waging war, and Rn is my justification for doing it.”
What I tried to assert in point 5 of #18, is that for each proffered reason R, (R fails to justify waging war) OR (R is a lie — in the sense that R is not Bush’s actual justification for waging war, though he presents it as such).
Inclusive OR is used (i.e. any reason R could be both inadequate and ungenuine).
Comment by Tim H — March 17, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
I accidently left out the third term in the premise, probably because it seemed too obvious:
For each proffered reason R, {(R is FALSE) OR (R fails to justify waging war) OR (R is a lie — in the sense that R is not Bush’s actual justification for waging war, though he presents it as such)}.
Comment by Tim H — March 23, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
TF said (comment #13):
c) The vast majority of the 600,000 deaths were not “caused” by the coalition, at least not in the usual sense of the word “caused.”
d) There’s nothing “unjust” about killing enemies of one’s nation in a war.
e) Sadaam’s Iraq was clearly our enemy.
f) If you find a Biblical standard for “just war,” please let us know.
g) When you do, I’ll find you a less reasonably debateable standard for both “adultery” and “perjury.”
h) In fact, I’ll go further and find you Biblical support for Congress nearly unanimous action in engaging in war against nations like Iraq.
Here is somebody who has no clue about biblical just war theory. He has no idea that the Bible distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. He thinks that he can find biblical justification for the war even though he is ignorant about just war theory.
We live in a day in which ignorance reigns among those who call themselves Christians. Many are more familiar with the latest spin on Fox News than the contents of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Until the church returns to the basics, we will continue to see her cheer her adversaries and gulp state-approved Victory Gin.
Comment by MRB — March 27, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I heard Don Carson of T.E.D.S. speak early on about the war in Iraq, and he could see how it could fit in with just war theory. Cannot remember the details…
Comment by ElizaF — March 27, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
Eliza — If you can find the details, let us know. I’d really be curious what such a defense wd look like.
Comment by Tim H — March 28, 2007 @ 8:57 am
http://www.chbcaudio.org/2004/03/10/just-war/
Hope this link works.
Comment by ElizaF — March 28, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Eliza– I listened to the speech. No where did he provide a justification for our war against Iraq.
His claim that the Eleven was genocide is preposterous. Why does he do this? In order to claim the N-word as the catch-all justfication. He resorted to it time and again. He makes statements such as,
“In response to the destruction of Coventry, we took out cities like Dresden.”
“In response to the bombing of London, we fire-bombed Tokyo.”
These statements are both false; and the second is absurd even as an abstraction.
The truth is, however, that the US had no business declaring war on Germany in 1941. I would like to see just once someone explain this position without reverting to the N-word.
Carson is a good man, I think. But this speech was just another typical tenured-academic mouth full of mush.
Comment by Tim H — March 29, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Excellent post. Neither party has the moral high ground when it comes to aiding and abetting the teachings of Jesus the Christ, yet both love to claim that they are in some way serving His interests. They are whores enough to turn up in churches from time to time during a political contest. They may even make Christian sounding noises, but that is about the extent of their commitment to Christian principle.
It is a shame that the vast majority of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who get in a sweaty lather whenever Republicans speak don’t understand this simple principle.
Brother Ed
Comment by Edward Hara — June 3, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
George Carlin agrees with much of what I said in the above article; only he uses more colorful (vulgar) language.
He is naive at points and does not understand all that is going on. But his primal sense is quite correct. And the truths that he does hit upon touches people at a primal level.
Women should not view this. (The same goes for children. But if their parents are so derelict that they allow their children to surf the internet, a warning will be of no use to them.)
And while I am commenting on an old post, let me remind everybody what TurretinFan said on comment #27:
“On the sexual morality front, do you think that the recently revealed infidelity by Sodom SF’s democrat mayor will either dissuade him from continuing his reelection campaign or dissuade SF’s democrats from reelecting him? Do you think that the answer would be different if he were a Republican in Idaho?”
The answer to the last question seems to be “no”. After Larry Craig, Senator from Idaho, was arrested for lewd behavior (soliciting fag sex), The Idaho Statesman reported: “among conservatives, 42 percent say he should resign, 43 percent say he should stay.”
Comment by MRB — November 8, 2007 @ 11:17 am