catapult magazine

Want to put money down on when and where the next terrorist strike will be? Now you can. Sponsored by the US government:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/29/politics/29TERR.html?hp

. . . and the accusations have begun . . .
right, now where to begin. look laryn, like i said earily i am not a fan of the bush administration, nor do i believe that this administration or an for that matter is beyond criticism, nor i am i saying that is it arrogant to criticize specific activities that a person does or a group of people. but the bush administration bashing goes well beyond a reasoned critique of specific activities and long ago moved into moralistic, idealistic condemnation of everything and everyone associated/affliated with bush and company, i.e. it is one thing to critique ideas, but it should not be an attack on the person- it is like an attempt to condemn the soul because ‘they’ are soooo evil, something noone is allowed. ; )

much of the bush co. bashing that i have read falls into the latter camp rather than the former. thus, there is nothing wrong with commenting or voicing opinions but i am arguing that one needs to be careful with the tone used when doing so, because it is so easy to slip into a moralistic condemnation of the person.

as a side note, laryn you might want to be careful talking about all the people saddam ‘helped’ or talking like his daughters who say he ‘had a big heart’. bet that it was that big heart that excuses him from brutally murdering their husbands and all the kurds, shitites, and christians that were gassed, shot, and buried alive because they expressed different opinions than the baath party.

cheers,

what have you been accused of? i’m not sure i agree with your assessment of the “bashing.” could you give specific examples which show “moralistic, idealistic condemnation of everything and everyone associated with bush and co?”

in case my point was not clearly made, the saddam reference was more towards the tongue-in-cheek—to show that i don’t believe there is anything wrong with highlighting things about a person or their regime which is wrong; it wasn’t a voice of support for saddam (quite the opposite).

i was joking about the accusation thing. read grants last post, it should make sense. if not, i apologize for any confusion. :D

going back to what i argued in my first post; th nuanced approach, which you seemed to agree with in your initial response. in that post you poised the question of what is the junture at which a critique becomes arrogance, and i was simply fleshing out my thoughts on that topic in my last post. a critique is no longer one when it become pure assertion, ignoring the nuance such as, the actual breath of detail released to the public in war situations or the pharisaical manner that we are all guiltly of when speaking of others, ‘i can’t believe that he did that, it was so stupid’. well, place yourself in another’s shoes and see if you do much better. that is why i said is a moralistic and idealistic condemnation, because such carte blanc ascessments pass moral judgement for idealist reasons (unmovable ideas that blind one to one’s own sinfulness.

see i am not certain that if one attempts to allow for the breath and complexity of problems and life that one can say that something is definiatively a ‘bad’ decision because as a human you simply do not have the birds eye view or ability to be devoid of passions, opinions, or beliefs that might blind one to the truth. that is why i prefer the method critiquing with grace, rather than attempts to assess the moral weight of a decision, issue, belief, or person for that matter. cheers

i agree with you to a point there. but yet, even you seem to be willing to say definitively that saddam made a lot of ‘bad’ choices, even though you lack a bird’s eye view on his situation, and even though you are not devoid of passions, opinions, or beliefs in regard to him.

i didn’t say that saddam was going to hell, but it is easy to go to that extreme; to hate saddam, it is like saying one hates hitler, stalin, or pol pot. that raises a question in my mind about the way that i painted saddam’s actions in an earlier post and the way that the media discusses him and his regime, it is incredibly easy to take a shot at saddam and all other similar figures in history because of their crimes against humanity. it is one thing to calmly discuss critiquing with grace in analyzing the policies of a government, the arguments of a philosopher, or the beliefs of a theologian- allowing for the limitations of being a human, but what about when it comes to a person, non military related, that has either personally or ordered others to seek out and kill people? i want to know what others think on the issue of judgement, even allowing for a belief in total depravity and the grace of the Lord preventing us all from plunging to such depths, is it permissable to pass any kind of judgement? what is ths line between the activities of a ‘normal’ government or society, such as war, crime, or poverty, and those of a government like saddam’s that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people? is it only a matter of degree?

I’ve been arguing in the Adaptation post that it seems we are called to make judgments about art, individual and communal behavior, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Not because it’s our judgment, but because God is the ultimate judge.

After reading “War and Peace”, I am even more inclined to think that we make too much of Bush’s position as a leader of the world. He, like everyone else, has very little power. In fact, he’s very much a slave of historical circumstances that limits his ability to enact his will. A Power much greater than Bush or Saddam, the American or Iraqi people, is at work. It’s the same Power that allowed Napoleon to become a great leader in the eyes of the world for several years only to be exposed as a criminal after his defeat in Russia etc. If the French movement that helped bring Napoleon to power ended up finally uniting the world under one happy order (say, in the year 2036), Napoleon may once again be judged “great” and will be considered by the world as a grand martyr for the worthiest of causes.

What I’m saying is that in order to make judgements about something happening in this time and place, we must be privy to the final end result. This is where the hope of The Book of Revelation comes in. The assurance of Jesus’ victory over death (and over the limitations of time itself) displays a radical Power that can be “tapped into” as Christians living according to the Spirit of God—the very Spirit that was there in the beginning of creation and in the creating that is going on here and now and in the future.

Do you mean ‘correct judgements’ grant? Because everyone can and does make judgements regardless of what information they are privy to. Are you returning to the grand Dordt debate about whether opinions, theories, and art can be trusted if they originate in the minds of non-Christians?

Hmmm, I don’t think I’m meaning to talk about what’s in the mind of non-Christians. In fact, I’m trying to avoid giving the individual too much authority when it comes to judging what is true or not. The question should not be “Which human beings, as mere human beings in their own cultural contexts, have the right to judge?” If we believe all people have forfeited their rights to judge by sinning against God, then the only way anyone can judge at all is by the power of the Holy Spirit given by Christ Jesus.

What makes the Holy Spirit more authoritative than, say, the Spirit of the Enlightenment—which bases its judgements on human reason or scientific evidence, is that the Holy Spirit is given by One who has demonstrated greater power by raising Jesus from the dead. Granted, it’s necessary to believe that such an event took place to believe that God has shown the ultimate power and authority by which all Creation is judged. If you believe that it is biologically impossible for resurrection to take place, then you acknowledge that, as the “natural” end of mankind, death has the final say. Based on the authority of scientific proof, empirical evidence, or whatever, you are therefore making a judgment that resurrection is not a true event. Such a judgment finds its authority somewhere other than in the Holy Spirit.

The temptation, then, would be to say that, “So what! All judgments are made according to different authorities. You choose that authority. I choose this one. Can’t we just agree to tolerate the different authorities?” But Christians will not go along with this because, in contrast to the Spirit of the resurrected son of God, no other spirit has demonstrated the authority to make judgments (especially not human Reason or the scientific method) because such “pretended” authority is undermined by death. Death always wins over human beings who try to overcome their own mortality (this is effectively demonstrated again and again in the Greek tragedies) by their own power. Only God, the creator of life, the victor over death, who has the future already in His grasp, can judge. And only those who conform themselves to the Spirit of Christ, can speak “as one speaking the very words of God”(1 Peter 4:11).

.

That all sounds lovely, but most of us instinctively cringe when someone claims to be a direct mouthpiece for God. And for good reason. From your recent posts, it sounds like the authority of the Holy Spirit has become the answer to all questions. Now that may be so, but the Holy Spirit seems to say different things to different people. Same questions, same authority, different answers. Is your task then to find out whose Holy Spirit is the false one? Or is it ok that the same spirit is telling different people different things? Or is it not for you to worry about whose spirit is God’s, but just to act according to what the spirit is telling you?

grant, I agree that in the final analysis, we’ll understand better than we do now. i think that your talk of the Spirit leading us to our judgements is important, but you seem to paint it as though we will all be arriving at the same answers, when (as dan points out) we just don’t.

i think you’re focusing too much on the NOW of the kingdom and not enough on the NOT YET.

we are called to make judgements about art and behavior (with the help of the Spirit) using what information and discernment that we’ve got, but those judgements may not be proven right or wrong until judgement day (or 2036, whichever comes sooner). in the meantime, we do our best with the above, and that shouldn’t stop us from trying to make those judgements (whether it’s about a corrupt dictator or a president or our own lives).