catapult magazine

Depending what channel you’re tuned to, you may be hearing a lot of chatter about Nixon/Watergate and Clinton/Monicagate in relation to Bush/WMDgate (yes, the names for these things keep getting worse and worse). Occasionally the word “impeachment” even pops up.

It seems to me that with all the apparent contradictions between the intelligence and the public assertions that brought us war as well as the indications that the administration pressured the intelligence agencies to “find” support for their position, at the least an independent, public investigation is in order.

Surely this is a much more serious issue than the circus around Clinton?

i think one of the “sturdier” reasons for war would have been hussein’s brutal oppression of the iraqi people. more folks on the left could have been convinced of the war’s “necessity” if the bush administration had gone that route.

Sure, that reason is better than the WMD that don’t exist, but a war waged solely to ‘liberate’ a people from their government is still not legal according to international law. And people on the left want international protocol to be respected, more or less.

This is from an ex-CIA analyst RE: the pressure from Cheney.
http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-cheney0627.artjun27.story

What laurencer said is what I was referring to as “sturdier” reasons. But sturdy is probably not the best word because much of the world, especially Europe, does not recognize moral reasons as sturdy stuff, not when compared to tested and approved scientific evidence.

And this is the point I’m trying to make. There’s nothing wrong with moral reasons. The problem comes when people think they’re doing God’s Will when they aren’t. There’s nothing wrong with people thinking they’re doing God’s Will when they are.

Historical examples of Christians doing bad things in the name of God (burning witches, bombing countries, killing Jews) are not reasons why trying to do God’s will is dangerous. Unfortunately, this is the conclusion Europe came to after Imperialism and the Enlightenment. And this is also the same conclusion some of you have reached, it seems. The kind of sentiment dan conveys with his preference for international law over people trying to do God’s will is very much the same post-Imperialism ideal that says, “Now NATIONS should be sovereign over the church because the church is too dangerous”. What was dangerous about the church, though, was not that it was trying to do God’s Will. What was dangerous was that the church wasn’t doing God’s Will: it messed up and didn’t CONFESS its loyalty to God over its own will. It wasn’t being THE CHURCH.

What I’m holding out hope for in this day and age is that God’s Word will be obeyed, that moral reasons will be considered valid in the international court of law and that all nations will be still and know that God rules over all creation, even above and beyond international laws and pretended sovereignty.

That’s all well and good, Grant, but the fact of the matter is that we live in a very pluralistic society. The idea of international law came about because we couldn’t get everybody in the world to sign on to the same ‘moral reasons’ that we do. Therefore, we try for a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach, which is international law. This is necessary, in my opinion, to prevent international relationships from devolving into a battle of competing moral laws and moral and religious legal codes. That’s true on a global level and, to a slighly lesser extent, on a national and local level as well. Which is why I’m a pretty firm believer in separation of church and state, both domestically and internationally.

That isn’t to say that your religion can’t shape your policy, but I think it has a tendency to be dangerous when a particular religion becomes the basis of official public policy. Not only do people of other religions become essentially excluded from public debate and policy decisions, but the principles of that religion will inevitably be co-opted for political power. I don’t think it’s much different than state churches in Europe pre-enlightenment or islamist governments of today. When something becomes institutionalized to that degree, it’s bound to stray from its core principles. Then it can become really dangerous, both to people that don’t agree with that religion, and to the religion itself.

Laryn,

I’m afraid I don’t have the political knowledge to speak intelligently about the details of this situation.
I believe in doing what’s right just like you do. The question is, how do we know and how do we ensure that we do what is right?
Like Grant said, the Enlightenment/Humanistic movement would say that we should rely on reason, intelligence, and our hearts to lead us to truth.
The Bible says our hearts are deceitful above all else, and Godly wisdom is foolishness to the world. I believe that fixing the world’s problems will not come from human intelligence, reason, or effort, but only from following God.
God cares more about our heart than our intelligence. If we rely on ourselves instead of God, God will use someone else to accomplish his will.
So the key is not necessarily unifying the world together (God clearly wasn’t impressed with the Tower of Babel), but unifying the world with God.

Jason, so practically speaking, how does following God lead to a fixing of the world’s problems? I’m sure you don’t believe this but you sound like you’d rather sit back and wait for God to do something. Don’t you think God want people to use their brains to solve problems? Can you explain how being a fool for Christ might solve the world’s problems, as you suggested?

There’s a real difference between using your brain (not as a tool, but as an instrument of worship) in obedience to Christ and using your brain believing it’s the one true salvation for humankind. This is a religious difference that can be seen in very practical ways—postmodernists have already displayed the many ways a belief in the sovereignty of Reason has worked itself out practically with very bad results.

My response to jonner is that it is impossible to separate religion from anything. The very idea that the State could be separate from religion is a religious conviction that was manifested as early as 1648 in the Treaty of Westphalia. This treaty, which is the basis of international law, was not designed to accomodate a pluralistic society (as jonner suggests) but was formed by European rulers who wanted to establish their independence from both the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire. The treaty came about because men put their faith in the law and the State, believing this was a better way than the Church. Indeed, the treaty did put a stop to the Holy Wars but contributed to wars of a different kind: wars of nationalism. Wars in the name of God were just replaced with wars in the name of the State.

So, eventhough many think we’ve removed the dangers of religion from politics, the problem remains that human beings do not conform their lives to the pattern of Christ. Battles are still fought on the basis of religious convictions, whether those be moral or political convictions.

Clearly though, Grant, the problem we are dealing with here is not so much “people who want to do God’s Will” versus “People who don’t want to do God’s Will.” The problem is when more than one person sincerely believes that they want to do God’s will but those two postions conflict with each other. I think President Bush may well believe that it was God’s will to go to war with Iraq. Sometimes I think he also believes that the Godly ends justify the sometimes corrupt means. There are other Christians though, who seem to have just as much faith, who believe that we should have sought other means to address the situation.

I don’t think we have come up with international law and diplomacy so that we can interact outside of God or morality, but as a means to do so semi-amicably even though our interpretations of his Will come into conflict.

Let’s discuss historical examples of times when church and state were not separate. Or when states were ruled by overtly religious leaders.

Take Ghandi, a highly religious man. In his case it worked well because his religion was one of inclusion, tolerance, and non-violence. I can’t think of any other examples when it worked out well. Just tragedies and catastrophes. Maybe someone else can help me think of some.

I’d especially like to find an example of a Christian leader who in the name of God invaded another country, and that we could all agree that he was really doing God’s will.