-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 90 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
Eminentoes
Evangelical Peacemaking, Noam Chomsky Style
In his campaign against the U.S. “warfare state,” David Gushee takes no prisoners.
Evangelicals for Peace convened at Georgetown University last fall to ponder pacifism versus just war. Predictably, reflective of the Evangelical Left overall, nearly all the voices leaned pacifist. Acknowledging, sort of, the validity of just war was liberal Baptist David Gushee, Mercer University ethicist, and himself a prominent Evangelical Left theorist.
Gushee’s speech against the “warfare state” has since run in Jim Wallis Sojourners journal among other outlets. But with its reluctant nod to traditional Christian teaching about the state’s vocation for force, Gushee’s peroration echoed the angry paranoia of 1960s era New Left militants like Noam Chomsky. It also pretends that U.S. fiscal solvency can be achieved by merely curtailing the warfare state’s beast like power, while chiding Republicans for only favoring “dramatic cuts in the safety net for the poor.”
Complaining that inflation-adjusted U.S. military spending is twice 1950s levels and accounts for 40 percent of total global military spending, Gushee compares Pentagon excess with high unemployment and crumbling infrastructure and schools. He doesn’t mention that in the 1950s defense consumed twice today’s percentage of GNP and was over half the federal budget compared to today’s 20 percent. Quoting David Stockman, Gushee blames Obama defense spending on “neoconservative imperialism.” Quoting Andrew Bacevich, he suggests “military policy is slipping from democratic control” in favor of the military industrial complex, which prefers “permanent war.” Gushee does not suggest any similar conspiracy sustaining the much larger welfare and entitlement state. Nor does he worry that welfare and entitlement spending threaten “economic decline and imminent fiscal emergency,” as military costs do. Even as Iraq and Afghanistan involvements conclude, he frets about drones and covert actions.
Gushee complains that Christian witness in foreign policy is “entirely marginalized,” with no church leader or movement influencing either party. He does not consider that his own unserious Evangelical Left school of paranoia might explain part of the indifference towards religious voices. He also asserts that just war theory “does not seem to be functioning in any significant or constructive way,” instead becoming an “empty intellectual exercise divorced from any persuasive power to guide either state policy or Christian practice.” Again, he does not consider that the cause might be the Religious Left’s reinterpretation of just war standards as so impossibly high as to make the teaching functionally pacifist and accordingly inconsequential to policy makers.
Faulting “anti-Muslim and neo-Crusade thinking” on the right, Gushee tries to seem evenhanded by regretting that pacifism In “progressive circles” offers little other than “occasionally trenchant analyses of obvious excesses or wrongs in U.S. foreign and military policy.” He commends “just peacemaking theory,” which is actually mostly just pacifism lite, for stressing “grassroots citizen advocacy and action,” and as the “most relevant of all existing Christian peacemaking theories/strategies.” But he sadly admits it lacks “wide influence in U.S. foreign policy circles” even while creating a new coalition
“within the center-left of evangelicals.” He hopes this coalition, if effective, could surmount “the various political, civic, and economic forces that block needed budget cuts in defense even when foreign policy and governmental leaders believe those cuts are needed.”
Gushee suggests the entrance to political relevance means accepting the “right of self-defense and use of lethal force under certain specified conditions,” as well as accepting “at least provisionally, the stubborn existence of an entity called the nation-state, a world filled with an ever-shifting array of nation-states, and the internationally recognized right of those states to defend themselves.” He offers these hard admissions as “one price of admission to the conversation” allowing liberal evangelicals more effectively to lobby against U.S. military spending and actions. Gushee admits the state is not the church, and that “statespersons” have national security duties, for better or worse. At least granting that reality in theory gets anti-war activists into the conversation, he surmises.
Unsurprisingly, Gushee faults the political missteps of “center-left Christians” on the “increasingly obvious wrongs of U.S. foreign and military policy for the last 65 years, including the first use of nuclear weapons in 1945, the insane nuclear arms race with its Mutual Assured Destruction madness, the deployment and planned use of nuclear weapons in various theaters of war, the foolish conventional-but-devastating wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere, and the bloating of our military budget.” He also declares for added emphasis that U.S. foreign and military policy has been “potentially lethal to the planet, as well as bankrupting, unwise, and neo-imperialistic.”
So Gushee thinks the Evangelical and Religious Left can wrangle itself into political relevance by paying lip service to ancient church fathers on just war, even while denouncing nearly all U.S. military and foreign policy of the last 70 years as monstrous.
Can opposing the means of survival and victory in World War II, the Cold War and War on Terror really invite serious regard from any significant part of American polity? For all of the nation’s current confusions, there is still a national consensus for survival and self-defense, and considerably more than the pretend, theoretical self-defense that Gushee suggests liberal religionists might grudgingly accept, with fingers crossed.
The mind and word games that Gushee offers the Religious Left as tickets to political power are likely still too high a price for anti-American utopians who think true faith mandates absolute pacifism. Sadly, their delusion does, as Gushee noted, inhibit constructive faith reflection about and influence on U.S. foreign and military policy.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/18/evangelical-peacemaking-noam-c
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
John - The Mighty Fahvaag| 2.18.13 @ 7:31AM
Pacifism is the ultimate dead trap. It is the most dangerous philosophy of any age. Pacifism is fundamentally insane. It requires of it 100% participation, 100% of the time.
Nowhere in human history has 100% of the people, for all human time participated in non-violent, non-coercive, non-aggressive behavior. The irony is that pacifism does fail 100% of the time.
It is useful to remember that this is, despite all desires to the contrary, still the Kingdom of Man. The crucifix is a stark reminder that Mankind is cruel enough to nail its Redeemer to the cross. It is also useful to remember that He has been the only one to return from that action.
We are not God, and this is not Heaven. Pacifism is a fool's fantasy, and a deadly one at that.
r/John - The Mighty Fahvaag
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 7:36AM
The Founder and still Leader of my religion said. "Blessed are the peace makers. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. What you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me. Turn the other cheek. " The USA hasn't fought many just wars. Every war we did fight could have been avoided by sound policy and sane leaders. Just War theology is at least an attempt to bring peace to divided mankind. As the current Pope has stated with todays terrible weapons and all the civlian casualties there does not seem to be a just war around. Both John Paul the 2nd and Benidict the 16th condemned the Iraq as unjust, under just war doctrine. The whole propaganda buildup to the war was lies and nonsense. How could that ever be just?
Ryan| 2.18.13 @ 9:08AM
Several points here:
1. I agree that a lot of the current military operations need to be questioned, at least. Iraq and Afghanistan, at minimum, were fought with a poor long-term strategy. There were either poor intelligence as well as lies leading to the run-up.
2. We are and were burdened with the matter that there really are no good guys in power in the Muslim World (other than MAYBE Jordan).
3. Israel is not the villain you make it out to be. As long as Muslim strategy involves military assets within civilian populations, civilian deaths are on the heads of those who hide military assets within those populations. They are as culpable as if they pulled the trigger themselves. If you do not take this into consideration, you are missing something in your argument.
4. We need engagement in the Middle East. Militant Islamists will NOT cease to seek to spread their influence, even if we disowned Israel and brought every troop home.
Joellen| 2.18.13 @ 10:02AM
Jack, you're wrong on this.
JESUS expects us to fight the battle. Do you really believe HE would want us to allow the Stalins, Hitlers, Islamic Terrorists, Che's, Mao's, Chevez, Fidel's, etc. to go unchallenged? To allow them to brutilize and cause nothing but mass misery?
JESUS SACRIFICED HIMSELF to save mankind!
The least we can do Jack, is defend those who need and wish to be defended.
It is our moral duty to defend all life, and since we are human , we will make human errors, but please let's not do what the alinskinites do, try and jutisfy not fighting evil.
One more point, if we were to go with your premise "Blessed are the peacemakers", why do we need police officers Jack? Why not just turn the other cheek when being robbed, raped, and just allow ourselves to be murdered?
Is that really what JESUS would want?
Common sense tells me no - Common sense tells me to fight the good fight.
Drunken Sailor| 2.18.13 @ 12:06PM
Joellen,
Your efforts or valiant but Jack will not hear.
Jack = Evangelical left. Everything he spouts make sense if you look at it in his twisted light. It is easy to follow Jack's thought if you follow any of the conspiracy theory websites. He thinks if we just stay here and mind our own business everyone will leave us alone. He is delusional at best.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 1:30PM
I follow traditional Christian thinking. War is at best a necessary evil justified only as an extreme measure of self defense, which should stop the minute the threat is over. Every effort must be made to avoid casualties. There never was justification for the terror bombing of Japan and the dropping of 2 nuclear weapons, when the Japanese had been begging for terms for at least 6 months. They also were begging for a peaceful solution from the USA prior to the war. The peace party in Japan was overthrown when we refused to negotiate. See Herbert Hoover's great book Freedom Betrayed. It is all right in there.
Bob K| 2.18.13 @ 6:56PM
Jack,
You are a historical illiterate!
Looked at from China's perspective Japan had already started WWII when they invaded Manchuria in 1931 and established a satellite state there. The next year they continued attacking the China coast which they had begun years before.
When war broke out in Europe in 1939 they controlled Korea and much of China. By the time of Pearl Harbor their rule extended to Indo-China. They considered options to move against Russian territory in Western Siberia or southeast against former French and British possessions in southeast Asia but they made the dumbest decision in Military history and attacked Pearl Harbor which brought the USA into the war immediately!
So much for their "begging for a peaceful solution!"
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.18.13 @ 10:14AM
Of course, Jesus was speaking about personal retaliation and personal charity, not about the foreign policy of states.
"There is…a time for war and a time for peace." (Ecclesiastes 3:8.)
"Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?" (Luke 14:31.)
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 1:52PM
The early Christians were extreme pacifists who would rather be martyred then fight for the Emperor. Just War Doctrine states that we must do all things possible to avoid wars. That includes negotiating with your enemies like Iran and Iraq, before we start bombing. The negotiations must be in good faith. We have never tried that. The Iranians have offered to negotiate many times. All we do is issue ultimations like Hitler. There is no justification in any way for an unprovoked attack on a peaceful Iran which hasn't attacked anyone in 300 years. It is time to send an ambassador, end sanctions, open diplomatic relations and negotiate in good faith. The price of oil would collapse and the world would be a far better plaace. I follow the Prince of Peace. You birds follow the pagan gods of war.
CJW| 2.18.13 @ 4:26PM
Jack
I have yet to read anything by you where you have something good to say about the USA or that you are proud of the USA.
You sound like Michele Obama who said she was finally proud because O was nominated. Of course, now that she vacations like a queen on our dime, she does not care about being proud, she cares only about partying and vacationing on our money.
Drunken Sailor| 2.18.13 @ 4:35PM
Keep reading. You won't find it. Jack is only impressed by Jack and Ron Paul. Everyone else he finds himself smarter and holier than. But he is a good practicing christian, just ask him.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 4:41PM
I am proud of the USA for the economic oportunties it has given me. Why should I be proud of a goernment which thinks babies are disposable like toilet paper and lies us into endless and stupid wars? The smaller the government possible is the best government. Think Switzerland. The US government hasn't given most of us anything to be proud of in my lifetime. Why do conservaties worship war and government? They are the main destroyers of liberty.
Drunken Sailor| 2.18.13 @ 4:59PM
At least I can agree with you on the babies comment and the smaller goverment. Don't worship wars but understand they are sometimes, rarely but sometimes unavoidable. Guess that's something.
CJW| 2.18.13 @ 5:00PM
Who said anything about the government? The USA is more than the government, it consists of the numerous insitutions and individuals.
So you are proud of the USA only because you made a couple of bucks? How about the freedom to say whatever you want, practice any religion you want, travel where you want, work and live where you want, etc?
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.18.13 @ 11:55PM
They were martyred because they wouldn't worship Caesar, not because they refused military service.
Remember that Jesus praised one of the Roman centurions as having more faith than anyone in Israel. (Matt. 8:5-13.) IOW, he praised a man of war, not a pacifist milquetoast.
Le Cracquere| 2.18.13 @ 1:12PM
"Hi! Here at Folger's, we've constructed a geopolitical scenario for Jack in which military inaction could realistically result in FEWER dead Jews, rather than more. Let's hide and see what happens!
"Jack? Jack! PUT THE BAZOOKA AND THE FLAG DOWN, JACK! No--no, I think you're probably too old to enlist. Look, can we discuss this rationally? Duck! For Christ's sake, DUCK! FIRE IN THE HOLE!"
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 1:40PM
Pat Buchanan wrote the definitive book on WW2, The Unnecessary War. John Charmley wrote another about Churchill, with similar conclusions. Most Jews in Hitler's empire could of been saved. He didn't start the Final Solution until 1942 when he figured it was a fight to the death. Before that he had avoided it because he had some hope of an armistice with Britain. Most Jews died and Hitler's partner in starting the war Stalin, got half of Europe and a lot of Asia. Then we had a 50 year cold war. What a victory?
Bob K| 2.18.13 @ 7:13PM
Jack, you are really ignorant!
Hitler did not have to invade Russia. He could have controlled Europe and kept Russia as an Ally. He invaded Russia betting that the USA would not enter the war. Which was the second most stupid act in WWII's history. He lost that bet after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor which was the most stupid act in WWII's history!
If you think nothing would have happened to the Jews in a Europe dominated by Hitler you are nuts!
Even Buchanan knows that Hitler would have gone after the Jews when the opportunity was best for him to do so.
Jack in Wi| 2.18.13 @ 7:35PM
Read Freedom Betrayed by Herbert Hoover. He was there and talked to virtually everyone in trying to stop american entry in WW2.
Bob K| 2.18.13 @ 10:48PM
Jack,
There have been several thousand histories and studies of Hitler written in all major European Languages since WWII ended. And there will be many more of them to come. Most of them, likely 99.8% of them, except for those like Hoover's and Buchanan's, who are foolishly wrong on this issue, and David Irving whose allegiances are suspect, concluded that World War II was not only inevitable, but necessary and just. Chamberlain did not want it but found it necessary before he died to change his mind. Other "statesmen" like Jack Kennedy's father did not approve of it. Even the American Communist Party, before Hitler invaded Russia, advocated staying out of the war. But they changed their mind after the invasion.
That leaves you and Buchanan left to defend staying out of the conflict because Hoover died, foolishly leaving behind him the history you mention above to sully his legacy forever.
To be honest, I hope you keep coming on here to post your arguments because it does the readers here much good to see how people who are invincibly ignorant pose their arguments in the face of all facts to the contrary.
Alan| 2.18.13 @ 9:27AM
"Those who live by the sword will die by the sword"
One of the most useless, nonaccurate, nonsensical tired cliches in History.
Hannibal, Alexander, Jinghis Khan, Napoleon, Tamerlane, Mao tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Attila, Charlemagne, Rameses the great, Cortez, Augustas Caeser, Trajan, Patton, Subetai, Rommel, never died by the sword.
How many more do you want me to list? Idiot.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.18.13 @ 10:18AM
It's a general proverb Alan, not a specific claim about what happens to everybody in war. Most people who die today in war don't die as a result of a sword. But the point is that personal violence begets personal violence. See the history of criminal enterprises in America and Mexico, where bloodletting is the order of the day.
Alan| 2.18.13 @ 10:46AM
I'm not arguing one's life choices can't lead to increase certain kinds of ends, but sword wielding has proven to be one of the most if not the most effective and efficient way to achieve power, glory, profit, infamy, fame without the consequences of dying from it and judging by the magnitude of that list the cliche and proverb is meaningless as a deterent.
JP| 2.18.13 @ 11:07AM
The quote from the Gospels:
"Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. "
Christ, who was about to be crucified admonished his favorite disciple, Simon Peter. Christ, when he uttered these words, took the long view. He wasn't admomishing Saint Peter because of his violent act (cutting off the ear of the temple guard); his frustration arose because none of the disciples understood anything that was going on. Christ knew that the path for Peter did not include combat; Christ reminded Peter that the end for most soldiers is death on the battlefield.
Saint Peter himself would also die violently at the hands of Rome. But, his battlefield was a mystical one; and his enemy was not an earthly one.
Pacifism is a material philosophy; for it only considers our earthly existence.
Alan| 2.18.13 @ 11:32AM
"for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword"
David and Joshua did pretty well with the sword and died old men in their beds.
Job| 2.18.13 @ 1:26PM
Are you a Christian ?
Alan| 2.18.13 @ 1:44PM
Doesn't matter if I'm Christian, its not about me. Its about 100% historical fact.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.18.13 @ 11:56PM
No, he's a literalist.
Appleby| 2.18.13 @ 9:37AM
People like this who admonish Christians for their failures are just exactly like wealthy Ladies Who Lunch, who crusade against "sugary drinks" and calls white pasta and bread "junk food", and look blankly at the mother of four who points out that "Healthy Choice" pasta is three times as expensive as KD and that her kids get precious few treats in their lives and she's glad to be able to eke out enough for the occasional can of pop. They just cannot pop the bubble in which they live and see that the world outside is a whole different ball game.
JP| 2.18.13 @ 11:17AM
All Christians sin. Many if not most Christians are Great Sinners (Saint Peter was one; and Saint Paul often wrote about his own personal trials and temptations). Saint Augustine, was a North African citizen of Rome who, as a young man, lived a very senusous, libertine life (he loved Latin poetry, wine, and the intimate company of many women). His conversion, however, was great as his sins. Christ, one wise man said, works not against our Nature, but through it. Perfection may be the enemy of the Good; but, it also shows us the path. You find many great Saints, and you will find that their sins were legion. Saint Thomas Aqauinas stopped studying philosophy at 26 not because he thought he knew everything, but out of a profound sense of humility. Like Saint Paul, he concluded his intellect was rubbish.
Progressives love the game of sophistry. They turn our desire for Christian Perfection against us, and in turn make us into hypocrites. But, Chesterton once replied to such criticisms thusly, "There are only 2 types of Catholics; Saints and Sinners. And Saints are already dead."
Job| 2.18.13 @ 1:39PM
"There are only 2 types of Catholics; Saints and Sinners. And Saints are already dead."
Pacifism shouldn't be practiced from behind mummies skirt. Hop a plane to Iran or somewhere just as tolerable, tear up your passport, preach the gospel and when it hits the fan don't go running in to the American Embassy, don't stop until they stop you. Is this the equivalent of what many early Christians did?
Not up for carrying the cross that way...so guess like myself you're the other kind of "Catholic".
Petronius| 2.18.13 @ 11:45AM
There's a pudgy puke of a dictator in North Korea who can introduce these weenies to a thing we call Reality.
Jacob McCandles| 2.18.13 @ 12:18PM
It's easy to be a pacifist when you are, and have been since birth, protected by brave men willing to die for you.
Drunken Sailor| 2.18.13 @ 2:01PM
Exactly!! The sheep complain about the sheepdog until the wolves show up. Then watch and see who they hide behind.
Alan| 2.18.13 @ 2:17PM
Bingo. Ghandi's pacifism worked in part because he understood public opinion and media images and Britain was a civilized country with laws. If he would have tried that in Stalin's Soviet Union, he would have ended up floating in the Volga.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.18.13 @ 3:03PM
We have become a warfare state of which a Republican president (and WWII general) Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about. What is wrong with following the teachings of ancient Christian fathers regarding war? If we are a Christian nation then following the Christian just war doctrine should not be an issue. The just war doctrine is traditional Christian teaching it is not left-wing or right-wing. I believe WWII was just war, it wasn't always waged in a just manner but very few wars ever are. During the Cold War I believe we did what we had to being the only superpower that could counter the Soviet Union, that also doesn't mean that we always waged the Cold War in a just manner, but we were realists as were the Soviets. We could have avoided having boots on the ground in Vietnam, but our intervention against the Communist forces in Korea in the 1950's is undoubtedly the reason there is a free and independent and prosperous South Korea today.
During the Soviet-Afghan war we saw a chance to give Moscow their own Vietnam, but in doing so we also created a Sunni Islamist machine that has set the post-Cold War world on fire.
In the Post Cold War world I think that we must be non-interventionists to salvage what is left of our Constitutional Republic. We were never meant to be an empire, neither should we act like one.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.18.13 @ 3:03PM
We have military bases in 134 countries (maybe more now) and Cold War era military alliances that could very well one day end up in an actual conflict with Russia or China over Taiwan or a small Baltic republic.
The Islamists simply want us out of Muslim lands and unlike Russia or China (who both have Muslim territories) we can actually leave the Middle East especially being that we will soon be the largest oil and natural gas producer in the world and Canada to the north and Mexico to the south are also large energy producers.
What I'm trying to say is. We don't need the empire, we can't afford the empire, we can't afford the defense spending, we can't afford to prop up dictators anymore, we can't afford the Cold War era alliances anymore, we can't afford to be the world's police anymore. Now it is time to return to our Constitutional Republican roots and be that beacon of freedom on the hill that we are meant to be and you can't do that with a Teddy Roosevelt's big stick or gun boat diplomacy.
Ryan| 2.18.13 @ 3:38PM
Militant Islamists have historically been expansionist. They were in SPAIN until booted in 1492, and looking to go further.
I'm for a certain degree of pullback, but your perspective ignores history.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.18.13 @ 10:57PM
Unlike Russia (Caucasus and Tatarstan) and China (which has Turkic Muslim Uyghur people in the West bordering the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia) we do not have any predominantly Muslim territories. The fight against militant Sunni Islam (which we helped create with the Pakistanis and Saudis during the Soviet Afghan war) does not have to be nor should it be our fight.
It is Russia's fight, Serbia's fight, and the fight of Christians, secular minded Arabs and yes moderate thinking Muslims (they do exist especially in the former Soviet Union).
Ryan| 2.19.13 @ 1:05PM
I would disagree, particularly in light of 9/11. They simply don't like us, and it's driven by religion. If we withdrew from every place you desired, they would still seek to attack and convert the US. We would be just too hard to reach.
Would you support extensive intelligence resources to predict attacks in lieu of military pullback?
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.19.13 @ 1:41PM
Ryan you give the Islamists too much credit. If expansion by the sword was happening right now the first to fall would be Armenia, Georgia, the Christians of the Russian Caucasus and Kazan, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia and Bulgaria. Given there have been recent conflicts between Christians and Muslims in nearly every region I have mentioned with extensive aid for Muslim forces by Pan-Turks and Sunni Wahhabists from the Gulf if expansion and conversion of Christian peoples is an overall Muslim goal it has been an abject failure. Those above mentioned countries would be the first to go before the United States.
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.19.13 @ 1:50PM
I'm of the opinion that if there had been a sustained Islamist assault on the United States it would have continued after 9/11 up until this very day. We would have suicide bombings on at least a yearly if not monthly basis. Instead what have we seen. The Sunni Islamists are focusing their energies on gaining control of predominantly Muslim territories and accept for Afghanistan under the Taliban, Mali and the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in the Arab Spring elections (Egypt, Tunisia, etc.) there is still no Caliphate and the only places where Wahhabist (Sunni Islamists) seem to maintain a foothold is in Saudi Arabia and war zones where Muslims are in conflict with non-Muslims. Even earlier Wahhabist victories in the Caucausus have been largely reversed by war weary Chechens and other Kavkaz who are looking to Moscow to bring back some sense of normalcy to their lives. The Islamist expansion is largely aimed at expanding their base within Muslim territories themselves (including Syria where we are aiding the Islamist FSA against the secular nationalist regime of Assad).
cicero| 2.18.13 @ 3:58PM
Pacifism as a philosophy is great, as long as everyone else buys into it. An anology from the animal world may be in order. Rabbits and chickens are paragons of pacifism.
This is a dangerous world, and it always has been. To claim pacifism when your civilization is being threatened is no virtue. The only reason this country spends so much on defense is that we have assumed the role of defender of Western Civilization. Is that so bad? If you think so, show me another that is better. Islam? Sino-Soviet Communism? The Buddhist and Hindi of the 7th century pacively sat by while the Muslim armies approached. After enough of them were slaughtered, they all were persuaded to adopt Islam. Live and let live is great, unless the other guy doesn't but into that creed.
Burke| 2.18.13 @ 6:17PM
"Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists. In the liberal society, the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not. If not, you have done nothing. If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbor who does not. Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists."
-C.S. Lewis
Marc Jeric| 2.19.13 @ 3:11AM
When I hear "evagelican peacemakers" I puke. Thesee guys are precisely the ones inviting war on us.
Mark30339| 2.20.13 @ 11:32AM
The best sources for freedom of the press testimonies are those places where exercise of such freedom is a life and death struggle -- Russia and Venezuela, for example. Perhaps a comfortable cleric in fortress America is far from ideal when delivering wisdom on the merits of armed conflict. If Gushee were a Christian evangelist in Egypt or Iran, I might be more inclined to believe he really understands what is at stake. This is not to say that I endorse US defense policy, there are just too many places in the world crying out for intervention. And I'm not saying that we lead with our guns, but having forceful options in reserve is way too important; such options shouldn't be tossed away because the principles of academics living in secure luxury can no longer maintain the incongruity. No doubt it is a glaring incongruity with sermon on the mount wisdom; when we descend into armed conflict, it is a serious human and Christian failing. But military capability is not per se wrong. For example, maintaining troups in Japan, Germany and South Korea peacefully preserved order and prevented bolshevik styled takeovers by militant minorities that govern with brutality. And US defense postures clearly contributed to implosion of the Soviet system. Does anyone believe that if the US adopted unilateral disarmament in the 1980's, the Soviets would still have succumbed in the 1990's?
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.20.13 @ 12:34PM
The world has changed since the end of the Cold War. However neoconservatives and liberal interventionists still find enemies wherever they look. The problem is you are thinking like Trotskyites, you cannot force the rest of the world to adopt Western style democracy and market capitalism at the barrel of a gun like the Soviets and Maoists spread their versions of Communism. Face it as Americans we have no natural enemies and yes that includes Islam which we share no borders or long history of conflict with unlike the Greeks, Serbs, Armenians and Russians. There's no reason for us to be the world's police and the world will not fall apart without our presence it will simply gravitate smaller countries toward larger ones that share common religion and culture.