“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion” -- Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Came across this today. I think it perfectly describes the issue around opposition to the war in Iraq -- too much of it falls in the second category, not the first.
You can tell by the way those engaging in it continue to howl the same moronic lies.
About Me
- JBlog
- Things that amuse me. Things that annoy me. And things I write to amuse and annoy other people.
2 comments:
I am trying to look at this war, and most everything--though usually failing miserably at it-- from the WWJD(totally overused, but actually a very good question) perspective. I'm not at all sure Jesus would have invaded Iraq, and so as someone trying to follow him, I can't endorse a war. How would Jesus' call to "love your enemies" apply to these times?--Does it mean "kill them"? I'm not at all certain of the answer, and part of the result of being uncertain means I can not endorse or be supportive of a war--I must question if it was the best course of action. Too often I believe we approach things as "american christians" rather than global followers of christ.
The quote from Eisenhower referred to "disloyal subversion." So I think it is valid to ask ourselves, again through the lens of followers of Jesus, to whom does our loyalty lie? Are we to be loyal to our nation above our loyalty to Jesus? Is loyalty to america or democracy or freedom synonymous with loyalty to Jesus? I think the answer is no, but sometimes feel the american evangelical christian community actually believes it is "yes." Do you think there is any possibility these loyalties are sometimes co-mingled or confused when they ought not to be? J, I am trying to honestly ask these questions.
Look, I'm not saying there couldn't -- theoretically -- be reasoned, thoughtful, intelligent arguments why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. I just haven't heard them.
And I do think the majority of the protest about the war -- the ceaseless idiotic howling, the constant repetition of the same simplistic lies and the open collusion with the enemy -- fall in the category of sedition.
Knowing what we know now about what was going on in Iraq on just in regard to human rights alone -- accounts of barbarity against more than 1 million people, including the multilation, rape and murder of children -- was justification for intervening.
The sanctions weren't working -- more than 5,000 Iraqi children were starving to death every month under the sanctions.
How long should we have stood by and allowed that to happen? Would Jesus have approved?
When you factor in the global threat that Saddam posed -- the exportation of terror and his habitual use of WMD -- I'm not sure what other conclusion we could come to than that he had to be stopped.
It's easy for us, in our comfortable homes, seemingly so far from the threat, to take a posture of do not evil.
But we also know what happens when good, moral, decent, Christian people refuse to confront such evil -- in World War II the toll was more than 40 million people killed, most of them innocent civilians.
In reality, we were going to end up doing this anyway -- it was just a question of when and how long we were going to let this continue.
People were going to suffer and die either way -- we're just debating about how many.
I prefer fewer.
Post a Comment