Christianity and the War by Laurence M. Vance

[MikeNearMcChord]

Never in my life did I ever think that I would find myself agreeing with Senator Ted Kennedy on anything. But what he recently said about the war in Iraq is right on:

In his march to war, President Bush exaggerated the threat to the American people. It was not subtle. It was not nuanced. It was pure, unadulterated fear-mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the American people that Saddam’s ability to provide nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda justified immediate war.

I find myself agreeing with more and more Democrats now-a-days, at least in their criticisms of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. Democratic Representative John Murtha, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has called for the pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq, labeling the president’s Iraq policy "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion." Another Democrat, Representative Dennis Kucinich, has strongly criticized the president for being responsible for the death and destruction that has taken place in Iraq.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance81.html

[Yollam]

1. Why would you not agree with Kennedy on anything?

He's one of our finest senators, with sound, rational positions on most issues. This is Democratic Underground, you know.


Are you aware of senator Kennedy's positions on ANY of the issues, or just that he "drowned that girl"?

[Random_Australian]

2. Big Umbrella. Anyway, looks like they are now close to us; be gentle.

This post was supposed to be snark free, do not take as admonishment.

[NobleCynic]

3. I don't know if that's the poster's position or

the position of the original author he's quoting.

[MikeNearMcChord]

6. Well my position on Sen. Kennedy, is that he has been a good guy in

my book, though there are some things I disagree with him on. I've never been one of those, who thought he was Satan unchained like some on the right seem to portray him.

[NobleCynic]

8. I figured as much

Not many people who would start off a topic by saying they agree with Kennedy on almost nothing post here.

Keep up the good work

[Yollam]

9. Using quotes or italics in the future will prevent misunderstandings...

I read your post, made my comment, then had to take off for a while.

For my part, I should have clicked your link and read a bit of it - so apologies for that.



I did take that as a bit of a slam on what I believe is one of our best Senators.

[MikeNearMcChord]

4. He is not a Conservative, if that is what you mean

he is one of those libertarian Christians, his archives are filled with such anti-war pronouncements.

[me b zola]

5. Self delete

[MikeNearMcChord]

7. Perhaps 10 or so years ago I would classify myself that, now I am

probably more little libertarian on some issues, populist on others, and yes I'll support liberals on others, I never supported this war in Iraq, it had nothing to do with 9-11. I never believed that WMD crap from the beginning.

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. Evangelicals speak out -- good

It's only natural that "radical" Christians would be more libertarian
in nature than most DU'ers, altho as far as taxation goes, I hasten to
add that bit about "Render unto Caesar"...

If there is any war in history that is contrary to the whole spirit of the New Testament it is this one. All adherents of Christianity, of any creed or denomination, should be opposed to this war.

So why aren't they? Much of the blame must be laid at the feet of the pastors, preachers, and priests who have failed to discern the truth and educate their congregations. We need ministers who are as concerned about killing on the battlefield as they are about killing in the womb.

Ouch!

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. Erasmus (16th century dutch humanist)

The early Christian aversion to war was revived and amplified in the Reformation age by the celebrated Dutch humanist, Erasmus. Although he lived many centuries ago, Erasmus' age was not unlike our own. Wars and international conflict were the order of the day. Contention was brewing between the West and the Muslim world.

According to Erasmus, the only just and necessary war was a "purely defensive" one to "repel the violence of invaders." And because he believed that war is by "nature such a plague to man that even if it is undertaken by a just prince in a totally just cause, the wickedness of captains and soldiers results in almost more evil than good," Erasmus insisted that "all other expedients must be tried before war is begun; no matter how serious nor how just the cause."

He chastised Christians for reproaches vomited out against Christ by nations of unbelievers "when they see his professed followers" warring "with more destructive instruments of mutual murder than pagans could ever find in their hearts to use."

Erasmus also recognized that rulers incite war "to use it as a means to exercise their tyranny over their subjects more easily." As our Founding Father James Madison has said: "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

The authority of the legislature and the force of law that thwart government power in peacetime quickly diminish during times of war. "Once war is declared," says Erasmus, "the whole business of the state is subject to the will of a few." He even noted how the issues of national security and public safety were used by the government to elicit support for war.

Although Erasmus had never heard of George W. Bush, he nevertheless remarked in his The Education of a Christian Prince that "it happens sometimes that princes enter into mutual agreements and carry on a war on trumped-up grounds so as to reduce still more the power of the people and secure their own positions through disaster to their subjects."

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. From the article - "A warped 'God And Country' complex"

Participants in this war violate the express teaching of the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." I have been told that this commandment does not apply to killing in war. Not to killing in a just war or a defensive war, but to killing in war.

The result of this warped reasoning is the teaching that even if the war in Iraq is unconstitutional, senseless, immoral, and unnecessary, Christians can still in good conscience join the military and go to Iraq to bomb, maim, interrogate, and kill for the state simply because the state says so.

U.S. soldiers killing for the state in Iraq cannot claim to be acting in self-defense because the war itself was not for self-defense. It was an act of naked aggression that was supposed to be a cakewalk, but it backfired with disastrous results for the United States. Is killing someone in a foreign country instead of on U.S. soil what distinguishes killing from self-defense and murder? Or is it the wearing of a uniform?

There has persisted throughout history, quite unfortunately, the idea among some Christians that mass killing in war is acceptable, but killing of oneÕs neighbor violates the sixth commandment. I have termed this the Humpty Dumpty approach.

"The more men they have afflicted, despoiled, and slain, the more noble and renowned do they think themselves; and, captured by the appearance of empty glory, they give the name of excellence to their crimes. Now I would rather that they should make gods for themselves from the slaughter of wild beasts than that they should approve of an immortality so bloody. If any one has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and wicked, nor do they think it right that he should be admitted to this earthly dwelling of the gods. But he who has slaughtered endless thousands of men, deluged the fields with blood, and infected rivers with it, is admitted not only to a temple, but even to heaven."

--Lactantius

...Charles Spurgeon has likewise said: Put up thy sword into thy sheath, for hath not he said, "Thou shalt not kill," and he meant not that it was a sin to kill one but a glory to kill a million, but he meant that bloodshed on the smallest or largest scale was sinful.

Supporters of this war also violate the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Many American Christians have a warped "God and Country" complex which inevitably elevates the state to the level of God Almighty. If the state dictates that an intervention, invasion, or war is necessary then by God we must support the president and the troops no matter what. But the government of the United States and Christianity is a most unholy alliance.

It has been soundly argued by the Foundation for Economic Education president, Richard Ebeling that "there has been no greater threat to life, liberty, and property throughout the ages than government. Even the most violent and brutal private individuals have been able to inflict only a mere fraction of the harm and destruction that have been caused by the use of power by political authorities."

--snip--