Good vs. evil
This is not GOOD. When we use tactics that are not good, we are losing the battle. What moral basis do we have to name particular countries as the axis of evil? What moral basis do we have to conduct a war on terror whem we employ terrorist tactics.
Jesus Christ, Son of God have mercy.
posted by Brian Miller @ 4:07 PM
3 Comments:
At 11:19 PM ,
Ted M. Gossard said...
Brian,
Pretty strong statements by you. From their perspective, most of this makes good sense. But from Christ's perspective, and from the perspective of the kingdom of God, as in the Sermon on the Mount, well that's quite a different story.
Thanks, and Amen.
At 8:39 PM ,
Brian Miller said...
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "from their perspective", but I am not necessarily even holding the U.S. government to the standard of the Sermon on the Mount. I would settle for upholding the guidelines of the Geneva convention in regards to ethical treatment of prisoners. I don't expect the U.S. government to make policy decisions on the the teachings of Jesus. I do believe that if we want to continue to use rhetoric that presumes that we are Good, we must have actions that are consistent with that claim.
Why is their no outcry from Christians on the mistreatment of prisoners by the United States government? Is this not a moral outrage? Certainly we cannot assert that it represents the moral values of Christianity. Yet, by and large, there is not much volume in the protests coming from the Christian church--calling our abuses of power to account.
At 4:48 PM ,
Gecko Girl said...
First of all, labels are rarely or never helpful.
Bush claims that using terrorist tactics to fight terrorists does NOT produce more terrorists. How more absurd can one be in thinking or rhetoric???? The truth remains (in my mind) that the ends to all the rhetoric is purely to justify the war and the crimes committed therein.
The US government was looking for a scape goat or diversion to the 9/11 incident. They chose Afghanistan. Then because we weren't doing well there, moved on to Iraq where the President did his best to link it with terrorism to scare the American people into believing we were doing the right thing. Using rhetoric that makes the picture look black/white...good/evil was the only way Bush could get the country to buy into the war and all the atrocities and evil the US has performed since, including this at Guant Bay. Euphemisms and labels like collateral damage, "them," axis of evil, haters of democracy, etc. are all words that have been indoctrinated into even the minds of Christians. Christians are now holding the crusade crosses - we justify evil actions by our military because "they (Muslims)" hate us because we are Christians. It has become a holy war on boths sides.
Finally, the waters get muddier and muddier - reasons for what we do have gotten more twisted.
We don't see our own war crimes for what they are because we have been indoctrinated to believe we are on the side of good ... good intentions cover a multitude of sins.
So did the war REALLY start because we are Christians? Did it start because the US was really afraid Iraq could destroy the Middle East or attack the US? Or maybe it started over our desire for control over oil? Was 9/11 really an attack on democracy or on a country that has oppressed/bullied much of the world in the last century with its manipulative foreign policy?
I think it is obvious why the Christian community does not speak out. Because we have either been dooped and are ignorant, or we are ashamed that we were dooped. Or, even if we do recognize what has happened, we are afraid to ask the hard questions and are even more afraid of the answers. We are overwhelmed by the fact that the US had dug its own grave and we don't know where to begin to suggest digging ourselves back out. And to speak out is still often attacked as being unpatriotic, so we keep our mouths shut.
So I ponder the question, is not the sin of ommission just as bad as the sin of commission?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home