The Limits of Obedience (by Logan Laituri)
In my last post, I illustrated my intention to participate in a collective type of confession from members of our Armed Forces. I am of course speaking of the upcoming Winter Soldier hearings in Washington, D.C., from March 13 to 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Springs, Maryland. Many readers expressed no small amount of confusion in interpreting my motivation for doing so, and for not being more clear, I apologize. Let me state unequivocally that my allegiance to Christ infinitely trumps my allegiance to our country. Upon clarifying that, I might need to express the extent to which I remain in submission to our nation.
Our government, in affirming the rights of its citizens, forfeits the claim to unconditional subordination. While I am eternally grateful for the freedom I enjoy, such gratitude must never demand that one surrender the sacrificial cross of enemy love, because the cross of our King is uncompromisingly nonviolent. In fact, if some perverse form of gratitude (fueled by what Mark Twain called 'martial dreams' and 'the holy fire of patriotism') insists that I yield blindly to the status quo, it is not appreciation at all, but coercion in disguise. We need to move away from reflex loyalty and adopt a mature, informed awareness in response to the threat of terror. First and foremost, we must know our enemies - if we even insist on having enemies at all - for they are only brothers and sisters we have failed to see as our neighbor.
To be quite forward, I am fully aware that I make oft-unwelcome allusions to WWII and Nazi Germany. This is calculated and purposeful; it serves as a response to the innumerable implications myself and countless other conscientious objectors face in stating their refusal to participate in modern combat. In fact, every GI I have counseled has had to answer questions in their CO process about how they would respond to the threat of Hitler and the Nazis. I agree that WWII makes for an effective measure of justifiable war, but we must also accurately and objectively consider how it also delegitimizes our violence (after all, don't you think Germany demanded a bit of unconditional subordination couched in patriotic fervor, and don't you think if the German army had more CO's the course of the war could have been altered dramatically?). We indeed have much to learn from that conflict, but let's not inappropriately insist that it must affirm our own preconceptions in order for such an appraisal to be valid.
From the perspectives of the Gospels, imperial Rome offers another rich context to view our current environment of terror and terrorism. Don't Rome and the U.S. both have intimate experience occupying lesser nations, ruling through the façade of a weak indigenous power structure? Just to be clear to fans of Romans 13, we must remember that Paul neither affirms the moral legitimacy of the state (only indicating that when operating in moral manner, they must be obeyed), nor lends moral authority to Rome. In fact, the same "authority" to which he was submitted later executed him! Do I detect tragic irony? Peter too states that "everyone" must be honored, whether they like to call themselves kings or not. The tax question in the synoptic Gospels ( Matt. 22, Mark 12, & Luke 20) is a thinly veiled satire of the Roman figurehead; if you look closely in the Hebrew scriptures, ALL the earth belongs to its creator ( Deut. 10:14 for example), leaving nothing owed to the emperor save love.
Despite all this, if you ask my closest friends, I remain quite pro-military. I do not believe in the abolition of the military, nor do I believe that Christianity and civil service are mutually exclusive. I respect the oath I swore and the values instilled in me in training - all of which are good and right - and in today's political atmosphere they all direct me to oppose the war of terror. One value that is absent from this list is the divine virtue of love, which is the fulfillment of God's will, and which directs me to oppose all wars. In my opposition, far from distancing myself from the duties of citizenship, I hope to bring about the end of hostilities, as the early Church did through similar intercession and prayer. David Thoreau was known to have said that a creative minority could serve the state by resisting it with the intention of improving it, and an ancient idiom reminds us that it is a nation's warriors who pray most passionately for the absence of war, since it is the battlefield that makes widows of their wives and orphans of their children. We all must discover the sense in nonviolence and realize the nonsense of violence, then we might know peace.
Logan Laituri is a six-year Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He is an active member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and has co-founded a faith based veterans assistance initiative called Centurion's Purse, which seeks to provide financial and spiritual relief to fellow service members in need. He blogs at courageouscoward.blogspot.com.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
If you oppose all wars, I’m not sure military service was the right career move for you.
If I were going to make fun of a freshman college freshman that is trying too hard to impress his Political Science 101 professor, I would write sentences like this:
“Don't Rome and the U.S. both have intimate experience occupying lesser nations, ruling through the façade of a weak indigenous power structure?”
and this:
“We indeed have much to learn from that conflict, but let's not inappropriately insist that it must affirm our own preconceptions in order for such an appraisal to be valid.”
Posted by: DontImmanentizeTheEschaton | March 10, 2008 11:13 AM
If it is clear that Romans 13 is not for every context for all time, why is the same not true for Romans 1:26, 27? Why can't we see those verses as written for a specific time and place? Why is it thoughtful exegesis to recognize the limits of Romans 13 and Scripture twisting to recognize the limits of Romans 1?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 10, 2008 11:28 AM
Can we criticize/disagree with this young man for what he is actually saying and not by what he is "not" saying.
DontImmanentizeTheEschaton: there is more to military service than waging war. And why don't you take your own advice and read over what you write Mister "freshman college freshman". At least Logan Laituri didn't go to the "school of redundancy school."
Ashpenaz: once again your comments make no sense to the topic at hand. You seem to want Scripture to twist to your ideologies more than anyone else who posts on this entire site.
The bottom line is that war should never be the solution to any problem. Our "holy fire for patriotism" should never "out-fuel" our passion to see the Kingdom of God manifest on the earth as it is in heaven.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 10, 2008 11:57 AM
Ashpenaz: once again your comments make no sense to the topic at hand. You seem to want Scripture to twist to your ideologies more than anyone else who posts on this entire site.
Further, and more importantly in my view, Ashpenaz misrepresents what Logan wrote. Logan did not say Romans 13 was not for every context for all time; he said that Romans 13 could not be used to justify unquestioning obedience to government or to lend moral legitimacy to any particular government.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 10, 2008 12:02 PM
"and don't you think if the German army had more CO's the course of the war could have been altered dramatically?"
No, but there would have been more lampshades. The Nazi government was in a position to distribute power, and anointed the military with a special privilege over its citizens. Invariably, they were going to find plenty of takers. The American military operates under a different paradigm.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 10, 2008 12:06 PM
Considering how few actual concientious objectors there are, they are not much of a problem. I'm reminded of an apocryphal story of Ronald Reagan when the Catholic Bishops were going to come out against nuclear weapons. He responded to an aide, "Not a problem. We have plenty of Baptists willing to replace them."
Posted by: Charles Cosimano | March 10, 2008 12:09 PM
Much of what Logan rights is correct and good. Despite how hard it is, we should and must try to see our enemies as human beings. We should resist attempts to make them into less than human. We should make all attempts to avoid violent conflict, and when it comes to it we shouldn't do it out of vengence or thrill seeking.
I am confused though how Logan can say that he opposes "all wars" but doesn't see a conflict with Christians serving in the military or the existence of a military at all. The primary duty of the military is to protect the citizens of a country from foreign threats through the threat, and sometimes, the use, of violent force. If all wars are wrong, then I don't know how one could support the existence of a military or say that "I think war is wrong, but not for all Christians, just for me". It's either morally wrong for all, Christians and non-Christians alike, or it's morally neutral and the morality depends on the situation.
DontImmanentize...just a note. I think Logan came to his conclusion about war and the military after he had left active duty. I don't think it's his career anymore.
Posted by: Eric | March 10, 2008 12:14 PM
Logan Laituri wrote:
To be quite forward, I am fully aware that I make oft-unwelcome allusions to WWII and Nazi Germany. This is calculated and purposeful; it serves as a response to the innumerable implications myself and countless other conscientious objectors face in stating their refusal to participate in modern combat.
Okay, so the references to National Socialist Germany are "calculated and purposeful", but are they honest and realistic? Do they help you convey what you have seen and what you believe, or are they merely rhetorical devices used to excite your political allies and put your opponents on the defensive?
What are those "implications" anyway? That you are breaking your commitments? That you are disloyal to your country? That you are a coward? I don't know if any of that is true, but do you really expect those questions to go away just because you invoke the ghost of Adolph Hitler?
I think you would be better off just talking about your experiences and let us figure out if the US occupation in Iraq is comparable to the deeds of one of the most evil regimes of the 20th century.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 10, 2008 12:27 PM
If I were [sic--should be "was"] going to make fun of a freshman college freshman [redundancy] that ["who" not "that"] is trying [excessive use of "to be" variants--should be "tries"] too hard to impress his Political Science 101 professor, I would write sentences like this.
But doubtless, DontImmanentizeTheEschaton intended his comments to be ironic.
Posted by: bud duncan | March 10, 2008 12:54 PM
Logan: "and don't you think if the German army had more CO's the course of the war could have been altered dramatically?"
kevin s: "No, but there would have been more lampshades."
I'm aware of some thousands of Jehovah's Witness CO's who were imprisoned by the Nazis and forced to do alternative forms of service. Does anyone know precisely how many there were and why they weren't simply shot or gassed for refusing military service? I can't find a handy source and don't care to rummage through the campus library for half a day.
Posted by: carl copas | March 10, 2008 12:57 PM
"Knowing our enemies" - as you suggest, if enemies that we largely created for ourselves is really a fair and accurate use of the term - was one of many omissions of the state dept neocons in their war planning. We didn't exactly go over there with lots of experts on the culture or even speakers of the language.
Paul - Original Faith
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | March 10, 2008 1:02 PM
Paul - To which neocons at the state department are you referring?
Posted by: Eric | March 10, 2008 1:12 PM
The military is always going to exist, to some extent, within a context of the unsaved world, as an expression of man's reflexive alienation from God and from each other. Moreover, it might be that until the end of time, even in a world where the Kingdom rule has been expanded by a yet-to-come concensus for Christian non-violence by those called by His name, a military transformed into a purely police function of keeping peace and upholding law within a system of justice would continue to have a basis, until He returns.
However, what the unsaved world does is not a command from God for me to do the same. People build structures of sin over long periods and any particular conflict does not exist in its own moral vacuum. Hitler would not have existed as a force without our own complicity in prior events, nor did we actually fight Germany principally for other than self interest, else we would have bombed the railway tracks to those places where the "lampshades" were harvested - and we never did, despite full knowledge by our leaders for many years, just as Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel tragically learned.
Christians are called to be a peculiar people. That calling is made clear to those of us who are his disciples in Matthew 5, 6 and 7. It is not the calling to rule over the world in the manner of the world, but to live in His Kingdom, which transforms the space we live in for others. If we attempt to use just the same means that the world keeps trying and failing, because we believe our end is just, we will never reach that end, for the world's sinful means are exactly its ends, as we can see by where we are.
I am deeply moved by the truths Logan is speaking. I am astounded at the harmony that is possible, which I could not conceive of, between being truly committed to Christ in the way that I believe, which is found in Matthew 5, 6 and 7, and being called to be a loyal soldier. Truly, one must live in His Spirit to be so called and I am truly humbled.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 10, 2008 1:39 PM
I'm reminded of an apocryphal story of Ronald Reagan when the Catholic Bishops were going to come out against nuclear weapons. He responded to an aide, "Not a problem. We have plenty of Baptists willing to replace them."
Posted by: Charles Cosimano |
Besides the humor , this makes much sense . This view by Logan is obviously sincere , and he seems to have thought it out with his Faith and personal understanding . But in the over all scheme of things , it has little impact because unless you share his theology , it has little consequence . More to the point , he is singing to his own choir .
If barak becomes president , this argument of Logan's in meaningless . The president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States against enemies . Soldiers also promise to do the same , and the majority of the American people who elect our leaders believe that is thier responsibilty also . .
War should always be the last alternative , and using logical debate against a war will go farther then a religious dogma that is only shared by a small minority . Paul said it better I believe in his letters teaching to be all things to all people , he appealed to the romans as a Roman . If he appealed to them as Christian , much of the Bible would have not been written .
Posted by: Mick | March 10, 2008 1:43 PM
Carl -
I don't have the specific information you want, but the widespread success of nonviolent resistance to the Nazis is discussed in Walter Wink's "Engaging the Powers," (Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 254-55. I would particularly draw attention to the following:
B. H. Liddell-Hart, widely acknowledged as the foremost military writer of our time, discovered in his interrogation of Nazi generals after World War II that they had little trouble dealing with violent resistance except in mountainous areas of Russia and the Balkans, or where advancing armies were close. But they expressed complete inability to cope with nonviolence as practiced in Denmark, Holland, Norway, and, to a lesser extent, in France and Belgium. "They were experts in violence, and had been trained to cope with opponents who used that method. But other forms of resistance baffled them. They were relieved when nonviolence was mixed with guerrilla operations, which made it easier to combine suppressive action against both at the same time." The generals found friendly noncompliance more frustrating than any other form of resistance, and had no effective means to counter it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 10, 2008 1:48 PM
That doesn't tell us anything about what effect, if any, COs would have had within the Nazi party. It might also be reasonable to ask what would have happened if America had adopted a Dutch approach to the Nazi threat.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 10, 2008 2:21 PM
"But in the over all scheme of things, it has little impact because unless you share his theology, it has little consequence."
One might have said as much in that satrapy outpost of first century Rome, where only a handful recognised the theology exemplified by the Son of God at His crucifixion. Certainly the powers of the day, whether Rome or Sanhedrin, did not, and the crowd cried out for Barabbas. But Jesus did not call down the legions of heaven, taking the life of others, but asked for forgiveness for them for their ignorance, and laid down His own. The world found that inexplicable, illogical and laughable.
"The president takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States against enemies . Soldiers also promise to do the same , and the majority of the American people who elect our leaders believe that is thier responsibilty also ."
Thus, this is an argument that says when we serve the nation, Christ's commands must be subjugated and understood only within that primary loyalty to a political structure that has already been established, whether or not it reflects the will of God. National interest, Christian or not, must trump the commands of God, else one is not living up to the oaths of office.
It is true that if you try to serve two masters, you will love the one, and hate the other. You cannot serve the world according to its own fallen precepts and at the same time serve God.
"Paul said it better I believe in his letters teaching to be all things to all people , he appealed to the romans as a Roman . "
To the warmonger, be a warmonger? To the imperialist, an imperialist? To the child molester, be a child molester?
On the contrary, the Letter to the Romans was written to the Church in Rome, not to the pagans in Rome, although much of it concerns His relationships with both Jews and Gentiles and how one is not saved by obedience to laws.
Moreover, Paul warns us not to copy the customs and behavior of this world but be a new and different person in all that we do and think.
Are we to be transformed by the world, or to be transformed by God? Insomuch as we are truly transformed by God, we by our living in this world begin to transform it, too.
Read Romans 12 for just such advice, which extols loving your enemy in word and deed.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 10, 2008 2:24 PM
"It might also be reasonable to ask what would have happened if America had adopted a Dutch approach to the Nazi threat."
Indeed, or if the Germans themselves had. One of my greatest regrets is that Dietrich Bonhoeffer let himself become involved in the officer's plot to assassinate Hitler. He knew he was committing a sin, and said so quite forthrightly. If he had had any idea of the number of times his action would be used to justify violent resistance by Christians, I seriously doubt if he would have done it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 10, 2008 2:32 PM
Hi,
I read a bumper sticker the other day that said:
When Jesus said love your neighbors. I'm pretty sure he meant don't kill them.
I thought it was a kick.
Thanks. God Bless.
Aaron.
Posted by: Aaron Cavanaugh | March 10, 2008 2:41 PM
If Romans 13 doesn't apply to Germans under Hitler or Iraqis under Hussein, then Romans 1 doesn't apply to GLBTs in 20th Century North America.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 10, 2008 2:42 PM
Romans 13 did indeed apply to Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany. You are missing the point, and I would say deliberately so. Romans 13 never requires absolute obedience. It didn't when Paul wrote it; otherwise the Christians never could have refused to worship the emperor as a god. Romans 13 does not pronounce moral validity on a government; it only says that government exists to restrain wrongdoers. When any government asks citizens to disobey the moral laws of God, it can no longer be obeyed.
Your characterization of current applicability of Romans 13 is false; therefore, your comparing of Romans 13 with Romans 1 is invalid.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 10, 2008 3:12 PM
Aaron C:
I also saw a bumper sticker recently that read something like this:
"We're creating so many new enemies, we can't kill them fast enough."
Also a kick, but tragically all too true.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 10, 2008 3:19 PM
I loved this bit:
B. H. Liddell-Hart, widely acknowledged as the foremost military writer of our time, discovered in his interrogation of Nazi generals after World War II that they had little trouble dealing with violent resistance except in mountainous areas of Russia and the Balkans, or where advancing armies were close.
In other words, German officers had no trouble dealing with violent resistance, except for those pesky Russians, Americans, and British.
What's actually going on is that in territory they actually occupied non-violent resistance was more problematic than guerilla warfare.
But none of this reflects on the wisdom of the Iraq occupation. If anything it calls into question the tactics of Iraqi insurgents. Why doesn't Al Qaeda in Iraq stop planting bombs and start arranging sit-ins?
The reason is their ideology is even more steeped in violence than that of the dreaded neocons. They simply lack the imagination to develop non-violent approaches on their own and none of the war's opponents in the US actually expect AQI to give peace a chance.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 10, 2008 3:39 PM
"The reason is their ideology is even more steeped in violence than that of the dreaded neocons."
No argument here.
"They simply lack the imagination to develop non-violent approaches on their own and none of the war's opponents in the US actually expect AQI to give peace a chance."
It's interesting that you use AQI's lack of imagination as a critique. Are you arguing that it behooves us to show the kind of imagination they lack, and develop our own non-violent approaches? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 10, 2008 3:49 PM
Wolverine:
First of all, never forget that Al-Qaida was not in Iraq until after the US invasion.
Second, Al-Qaida expected us to respond with violence. It's what they wanted. We played right into their hands when we unleashed our military retaliation.
But the violent usually lack imagination. So maybe if we had done something that Al-Qaida never imagined or expected, such as--imagine this: forgiving them for they knew not what they had done--instead of merely responding to them in kind, we could have dealt them a more serious and permanent blow.
Instead, seeking revenge on Al-Qaida was like fighting the Hydra of Greek mythology--it just allows them to multiply. Sure, we need to defend ourselves, but seeking retribution isn't self-defense.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 10, 2008 3:53 PM
"It might also be reasonable to ask what would have happened if America had adopted a Dutch approach to the Nazi threat."
America was never invaded by Germany nor was there any credible threat to do so. War was declared for strategic reasons, not humanitarian ones. And it was not waged for humanitarian reasons, either, else we would not have allied ourselves with Stalin's Soviet Union, an even greater violator of humanity (if in a more evenhanded way, for what little benefit that means.)
American involvement in World War II came with the attack by Japan on the U.S. naval military outpost in Hawaii, not due to any outrage against Nazi depredations against subject minority peoples or its genocidal actions in Europe. (Hawaii was a formerly independent kingdom conquered by the Marines at the behest of Dole family plantation owners on their way to take possession of the colony of the Philippines as part of the Spanish-American War fomented by WIlliam Randolph Hearst's manufactured reporting during America's Manifest Destiny phase.)
Japan attacked the U.S. fleet in Hawaii to try to force America back out of what it considered its natural sphere of influence in Asia, as its militarists sought hegemony, buttressed by their own ideological theories about the racial superiority of the "Yamato Race."
This Japanese attack was the pretext for a hopeful German declaration of war against America. War with Germany had not automatically ensued, despite all of Germany's known atrocities against innocent human beings, but was now forthcoming when Germany announced its alliance to Japan in the war against America, in a formal declaration from Ribbentrop delivered to the U.S. after the Pearl Harbor attack on December 11, 1941:
"The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America."
It is a fair question to ask what an enlightened policy of humanitarian resistance to Nazi policies by the United States might have meant. Unfortunately, that was not forthcoming in the years leading up to World War II.
While Germany allowed Jewish refugees to leave, a policy in effect until November 1941, there were few to no jurisdictions that would accept them. The SS St. Louis Jewish refugee ship was turned back from America as it was from Britain, not an isolated instance. Holocaust Survivor spokesperson Elie Wiesel has disclosed the sense of betrayal Jews experienced when they found out that all senior members of the U.S. government, including the President, knew of the realities of the exterminations in Europe and yet did nothing at all - not even behind the scenes.
During the 1930s, Americans were a people whose national psychology was marked by a generally accepted racist outlook. Not only were African-Americans considered inferior, but the apartheid of Jim Crow laws reflected that. People were lynched by mobs on the slimmest of pretexts. The accusation against an African-American male even glancing at a white woman with any hint of sexual overtone was an offense to be punished by immediate death. African-Americans were sterilized and castrated by state order, upheld by federal courts. And Jews were excluded from certain areas of society and business and barred from participation in many influential groups.
There was a kind of soft prejudice against Jews by many Americans, often exacerbated by the suspicion that they were unAmerican, even "communist" and "socialist" agitators, if they weren't financial predators.
The sorts of prejudicial attitudes circulating in American society mirrored the libels against them by segments of German society too - when they weren't ungodly communists, paradoxically they were the avaricious Judas money-grubber, Shakespeare's inhuman moneychanger Shylock demanding payment in flesh from his Christian debtors.
Fascism and Nazism - though it seems hardly possible from our vantage point now - were widely sympathised with in a deeply suffering depression-era America. Father Charles Coughlin, the Catholic priest with a weekly radio audience of 45 million, was a passionate democrat, but nevertheless a bigot who freely vented angry, irrational charges and assertions.
By the mid-1930s, the popular Coughlin combined harsh attacks on Roosevelt as the tool of international Jewish bankers with praise for the fascist leaders Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler. The "Christian Front" organized by the antisemitic radio priest closely cooperated with the German-American Bund, a major organization representing German-Americans whose program included antisemitism, strong anti-Communist sentiments, and the demand that the United States remain neutral in the European conflict.
This environment tended to politically cow Roosevelt and other leaders from any possible overt humanitarian action on behalf of European Jewry and others who were racially suspect. Coughlin was called "the second most important political figure in America," who had to employ 26 secretaries to handle the 400,000 letters he received each week. (I can't help but think of parallels to the self-described "most dangerous man in America" with a far smaller national radio audience, in terms of the political influence in a society that can be achieved through mass media.)
Once again, Chesterton's pithy observation can be applied to our national moral failure, and that of Christians in other nations, as well, to fail to confront clear evil initially when non-violent means would be highly effective. Unfortunately, we seem so prone to self-delusion that we can't see our way to resist until a great evil befalls everyone and victim and oppressor share the same common fate of mass violence.
"It's not that Christianity has been tried and has failed, but that Christianity has been found difficult and therefore not tried."
Can't we please try, instead of ignoring the clear and only practical lessons of Jesus?
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 10, 2008 3:55 PM
Peace Don,
Do you really think a country will 'forgive' a pack of religious fanaticals that kill thousands of its people in a horrific act and then continue to plot and execute acts around the world? Do you really, honestly think that is fathomable? As Christians, yes, we forgive, but we also defend the innocent and civilians of our world. To not do so is morally reprehensible.
We had to reach out to bury them where they lie in the middle east. To not do so would have also been morally reprehensible as they would have continued doing what they wished unhindered, killing more and more innocent, non warring individuals. If they want war, they are going to get it... however sad that may be.
That is all...
ss
Posted by: Steve S | March 10, 2008 4:04 PM
Sojourner -
Bravo! I don't think many here know as much as you do about the historical background to our involvement in WWII; thanks for the extended history lesson.
Let me just point out that this is indeed a personal issue for me. I had Jewish relatives who died in the Holocaust. I think it is entirely possible that earlier, systematic non-violent resistance to Hitler on both sides of the Atlantic might have accomplished what the second world war did not: saving their lives.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 10, 2008 4:07 PM
Logan... what are your thoughts on the Afghanistan segment of the current war vs. Islamic radicals?
Posted by: Steve S | March 10, 2008 4:07 PM
"In other words, German officers had no trouble dealing with violent resistance, except for those pesky Russians, Americans, and British."
Right, and should we really be surprised that the French were more effective in surrender than in battle?
:)
Posted by: kevin s. | March 10, 2008 4:08 PM
["It's not that Christianity has been tried and has failed, but that Christianity has been found difficult and therefore not tried."] GKC
[Can't we please try, instead of ignoring the clear and only practical lessons of Jesus?]
ST, keep up your good work! Few there will be of us that take the narrow way; nevertheless it is the way which leads to life. Thanks for your efforts!
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | March 10, 2008 4:33 PM
The reason is their ideology is even more steeped in violence than that of the dreaded neocons. Wolverine
That statement has not been proven to be true. After all the neo-cons started this unprovoked war- a very obvious fact that your recounting of history so conveniently leaves out.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 10, 2008 5:22 PM
I have tried twice to type a response to Steve S., but I keep losing it. Maybe not for this time...
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 10, 2008 5:35 PM
"Right, and should we really be surprised that the French were more effective in surrender than in battle?"
Why the constant, racist, belittling of the French?
Even if the following were not true, denigration on the basis of national origin would be entirely unacceptable:
The people of France gave the Statue of Liberty to the people of the United States as a symbol of freedom and democracy, in recognition of the friendship established between the two countries during the American Revolution.
It is safe to say that had Ben Franklin not decamped to Paris in 1776, after his humiliation before the British Parliament in 1775 and spent several years successfully lobbying the people of France and their government to support the United States against England, and had French support not been forthcoming, there would now be no United States as such. Franklin spent nine years in Paris.
As an aside, but a revealing one, that shows that history can be turned by a small fulcrum, and sometimes petty personal grudges - which shows the importance of the personal moral considerations of any of us and their consequences:
Franklin had been one of the foremost proponents against secession from England, but after the revelation of his
secret correspondence that did indeed show him in a subversive and two-faced manipulative light, Parliament's Privy Council called him to account for himself, and publicly censured him. Deeply humiliated by exposure and ridicule, Franklin determined to revenge himself on Britain for this personal affront, even provoking a deep divide within his own family. As a highly influential figure in British politics, he had previously had his illegitimate son, raised by Franklin to be a loyalist, appointed as governor of New Jersey, then demanded that William, sworn to loyalty to the King in assuming the position, turn on England simply because his father had decided largely on the basis of personal pique to do so. An extremely proud man, incapable of forgiveness or admitting fault in the matter, Franklin refused overtures at reconciliation by his son after the war, and William went into permanent exile to England.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 10, 2008 5:43 PM
"Why the constant, racist, belittling of the French?"
I made one French joke, and see very few of them here.
Racist? If I make fun of Wisconsinites (and I do) is that racist?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 10, 2008 6:01 PM
Steve:
I try again.
First of all, I wasn't saying that we should have publically forgiven al-Qaida. I was only suggesting it as one alternative to vengeance. And it is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, whom we claim to be serving, and whom, I might as well point out, our president also claims to serve.
However, it's also true that we didn't actually have to go over there to bury them, to use your words. They had no standing army prepared to invade us, or missiles to attack us with. We could have waited them out. Moreover, we could have taken nonviolent preventive steps to assure that they would be the ones burying themselves.
The fact is, we don't understand this enemy very well. We think they will respond to conventional wisdom, e.g., might makes right. I don't think that's the way to defeat this enemy. For one thing, their primary target is not the US, nor even the West. Their primary aim is to compel fellow Muslims to their side. And unfortunately, our proclivities for retribution and revenge have actually helped them in that cause. That's why I said we've played into their hands. They actually know us better than we know them.
By attacking us, they were hoping to draw us into this great clash of civilizations between the West and the Islamic world, and we foolishly were happy to oblige them.
This enemy has only one strength. They cannot defeat us militarily, and they know it. Their only weapons are intimidation and terror. They're essentially a rag-tag bunch of outsiders who have no army of their own. By not allowing ourselves to be intimidated and terrorized, we would gain the upper hand. And we would have kept the moral high ground.
Unfortunately, we relinquished all that by our actions since 9/11/01. We've given up the moral high ground. In fact, we've done worse than that--we've become like them (e.g., Abu Ghraib, torture, rendition). And that's always what happens when one resorts to violent solutions.
This struggle could have gone so much otherwise, but shortsighted people lacking imagination have sent us the wrong way. It's tragic, really.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 10, 2008 6:11 PM
Don -
I couldn't have said it better. I spent most of the year and a half after 9/11 praying that we would find a solution that showed at least some of the attributes you mention. I took every opportunity to discuss this with people, and got absolutely nowhere. At best, I got a shrug of the shoulders and a "Yeah, but what are you gonna do?" Usually, I got simple incomprehension. Most people I discussed this with simply had no idea what I was talking about. Tragic, indeed.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 10, 2008 6:44 PM
For some 300 years after the Resurrection, Christians understood that they were not to kill. The objection to the spread of the faith may be seen, in part, as a concern that the patriotic will to enforce laws and defend territory would be lacking in converts, and, indeed, it must have been.
Oddly enough, those who wish to return to apostolic days never seem to embrace their automatic pacifism. Doubtless it is true that no country can exist unless some people (usually some of its own citizens)are willing to kill to preserve its borders and government. Nonetheless, we as Christians are not charged with preserving any particular piece of land (We were not given a Promised Land on which to live.) or any particular governmental organization.
We are, instead, charged with spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ and caring for people, primarily the marginalized--hungry, naked, sick, in prison, lonely. The demands of any country are, therefore, always, at their ultimate, in conflict with the demands of Christ.
Persons of good will may differ on to manage this conflict, but let no one doubt that the conflict in inherent in the very nature of our faith and the nature of nationalism.
Posted by: Sarah Caldwell | March 10, 2008 7:01 PM
Another problem for war policy success is that although they are violent, which is more of that tragic and immoral response of mankind to real and imagined affronts, they are not trying to take over and rule America, but to expel our military and economic presence from "over there."
This puts us on the unequal playing field that we found ourselves on in Vietnam, a foreign occupation garrison claiming the right to determine the fate of other peoples in our own economic or political self-interest, or that of our allies.
We might believe our own interests are pre-eminent, or even in the long run in their real interests. But it's a hard sell, especially when we consider our own emotional propensity for "my country right or wrong" exists in all peoples.
My Vietnamese exile friends told me that the VC knew what they were fighting for - self-determination - while their own South Vietnamese people were deeply conflicted. No one could seriously be motivated there by appealing to their loyalty to America, a nation which had rebuffed their quest for independence and backed the return to their rule by French imperialists. Ho Chi Minh won that propaganda war by appealing to his countrymen's self-determination as against colonial occupation.
In Iraq, we are similarly compromised by our own past history, the memory of which can't be so easily erased by current high-sounding American rhetoric. Iraq itself is a colonial creation of British and U.S. interests, originally drawn up arbitrarily by Churchill around resources coveted by western powers, in such a way as to divide and conquer its inhabitants and counter the influence of Turkey.
From our own history, we ought to recognize how a people fighting on what they believe their own soil can against all military odds humble an empire, even one that believes itself comparatively benign by historical standards.
Historically, that must be the fate of the occupying foreigner, regardless of the unprecedented size of the palace he builds to administer his Raj, unless he engages in wholesale genocide, which even then has offered only mixed results.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 10, 2008 7:12 PM
"The laws which demand my neighbor to be sober in his car, buckle his seatbelt, drive on the correct side of the road, in a legal vehicle, and a legal speed, with legal registration, and with a current driver's license--are enforced, ultimately at the end of a gun."
If laws are attempted to be enforced against the will of a people disposed to disobey them, by means of violence, then the only obedience possible is that of coercion, by a totalitarian state, not by any individual's freedom of choice for good or evil. And when order in a society depends upon the rule of violence, when that order is overthrown, it will not be replaced by freedom, for people will never have learned its responsibilities.
Hence, lawless, oligarchic, mobster Russia as the inheritor of the totalitarian public order of the Soviet state, rather than the free Russia of a Solzhenitsyn.
"Power comes out of the barrel of a gun." - Mai Tse-Tung
"But now, instead of discussion and argument, brute force rises up to the rescue of discomfited error, and crushes truth and right into the dust.
"'Might makes right,' and hoary folly totters on in her mad career escorted by armies and navies." - Adin Ballou (1803-1890)
Contrarily, Lincoln counseled against using force - guns - to end the evil of slavery, in 1860: "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."
And despite the later betrayal of that, and the loss of 600,000 lives, war did not solve the problem. The end didn't justify the means - the means of war, destruction, had become identical with the end - destruction. The war had accomplished nothing other than itself and only Jesus' principles of non-violent resistance, expressed by those working alongside Martin Luther King, achieved its supposed aims of freedom for African Americans a hundred years later.
The law, in a free society, is the expression of the assent of the majority, not their police state ruler.
Genuine law proceeds out of the spirit: the spirit is not a side effect of the law.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 10, 2008 8:21 PM
"Nor does the vast majority of the Evangelical world believe in your interpetation either. Ever consider it was you? That the thinking that laws are not to be enforced ... You can't answer this , not have you ever. you go on some rant that leaves the question unanswered."
"I see it as a cultish like understanding ... an unbalanced view of all scripture."
"But if you believe in allowing evil to have full reign on the innocent..."
"I would appreciate your not using my words to be mis represented."
"In fact through blogs I find your comments condescending and without the Love of Christ."
"You favor allowing murder, crimes and such"
"We just know a different Jesus"
OK, now we know. You are saying that I am not a Christian. You are also asserting that my views are those of a heresy, a cult.
Those are assertions that are forbidden to be made about another on this blog, a violation of its rules. But for the sake of truth, we'll let that pass.
However, it is a complete mischaracterization of traditional Christian views, for instance, to say that the principles of non-violent resistance, no easy or safe task, are the same as allowing evil to have full reign over the innocent.
It is a libellous statement to make their principled and sacrificial advocacy the equivalent of favoring murder and crime.
I have explained the principles of non-violence, which are no more a "rant" - what a word devoid of content, but full of insult - whether expressed by me, Martin Luther King, Thomas Merton, or the full panoply of first to third century saints and martyrs who refused the sword but took up the cross.
Your argument is with them, too. I submit, with Jesus - even if my Jesus is, as you accuse, "another Jesus."
Heed these words of Dr. King, then denounce him, too, for you will see he says just all the same things, though so much more eloquently:
"Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world.
"Surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history.
"...Life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.
"I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures [of war] continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.
"As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action.
"But they ask -- and rightly so -- if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted? Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.
"When a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until [its] descendants... were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!
"I ... have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious... Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative?
"Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
"Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.
"This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
"Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?
"Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
"We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for... none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved ... the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
"As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role... and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection.
"The war ... is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing 'clergy and laymen concerned' committees for the next generation. We will be marching... and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.
"And so, such thoughts take us beyond ... but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
"A sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution ... this need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces.
"Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.
"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.
"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
"A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies.
"True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
"A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
"A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, 'This way of settling differences is not just.'
"This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
"There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.
"A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
"This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind.
"This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh.
"Ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.
"We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.
"We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace... and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors.
"If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
"Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world.
"This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard?"
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 10, 2008 9:47 PM
Thanks, Logan, for your stand against this war and others. As a combat veteran of World War II I have come to the conclusion that modern war as we wage it, and prepare to wage it, is unacceptable for a Christian. We wiped out entire cities in both Europe and Japan with no hesitation or regret whatsoever; and we allied ourselves with Stalin, one of the worst villains the world has seen. In that arrangement we agreed to his control of a good half of Europe which was the communist base for the "Cold War" which followed.
Christians have too readily wrapped their Cross with the Flag and forgotten what Christ taught about dealing with our enemies. We have become part of a militarized culture which glorifies and romanticizes the military and which measures the nation's strength almost purely in military terms. What we spend (and have spent) for war since World War II could do an immeasurable amount of good in reducing poverty and improving health and the like at home and abroad.
We wage war in the name of freedom but our obsession with the military is in contradiction to that freedom. Remember, the Founding Fathers above all feared a strong, standing army as the greatest threat to freeedom.
Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | March 10, 2008 10:30 PM
First of all, never forget that Al-Qaida was not in Iraq until after the US invasion
posted by Don
Actually Don that is false They were there in the southern part of the country . Obama goofed the other day with his retort to John McCain , factually , but his come back sure was Presidential as they say .
And truth is often second to politics as the present Administration has taught us .
Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 12:38 AM
Don for info , this is from the Senate Investigation after the invasion and gave inforation that would have been handy before we went to war report . Not meant to nit pick , but Al Qaida was in iraq , just not doing anything more or less from what the report seems to say .
Question
Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons."
Answer
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been present in Baghdad, and an al-Qaeda affiliate organization that identified itself as the "sworn enemy" of Saddam Hussein had operated in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control. There was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al Qaeda attack. The report criticized the CIA for its lack of human intelligence resources in Iraq to assess the country's ties with terrorism during the time prior to 2002.
Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 12:46 AM
"Why the constant, racist, belittling of the French?"
Posted by: Sojourner Truth
I made one French joke, and see very few of them here.
Racist? If I make fun of Wisconsinites (and I do) is that racist?
Read Mathew 5,6,7 and you will see the truth Kev of about the real names christians should call each other . lol
I got it Kev , but I don't even order french Fries anymore . We gave them jerry lewis , thats enough revenge for me . Too funny .
Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 12:51 AM
DontImmanentizeTheEschaton
returning to your initial comment, I believe that the army is the best place for those who are opposed to war; just as the hospitals are the best place for those opposed to sickness; the police force is the best place for those opposed to crime and the classroom may be the best place for those opposed to illiteracy (I could even add after watching Amazing Grace yesterday that politics may be the best place for those opposed to social ills).
In fact the army is the worst place for those who enjoy and glorify in war.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | March 11, 2008 1:20 AM
"Read Mathew 5,6,7 and you will see the truth Kev of about the real names christians should call each other . lol"
I recall someone warning me recently that God is not mocked, by the name of Mick, and now the Sermon on the Mount is "laffs"?
I guess like you say, you're not gonna "get hung up on it."
Well, if He can take it I can.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 11, 2008 1:59 AM
"Why the constant, racist, belittling of the French?" SoujornerTruth
Kevin is right, it is not "constant" because he only did it once. In his mind, that makes it okay. That argument style is a form of majoring in the minors, and kind of like the phrase goes, "finding the speck in your neighbor's eye, while there is a plank in your own.”
Anyway, the nasty remarks about the French is a conservative phenomenon- they find some country or group to belittle and then harp on it. It reflects more poorly on them than it does the French. There are two things they just can't get over- 1) that the French withdrew from the NATO unified command; and 2) more recently, that French were right about Iraq while they (being the conservatives) were dead wrong.
To some it's a joke. To others it is just another manifestation of bigotry.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 11, 2008 5:00 AM
"Racist? If I make fun of Wisconsinites (and I do) is that racist?"
No. People from Wisconsin are not a distinct nationality with a distinct language. The comparison is fatally flawed.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 11, 2008 7:22 AM
"and don't you think if the German army had more CO's the course of the war could have been altered dramatically?"
No, but there would have been more lampshades. The Nazi government was in a position to distribute power, and anointed the military with a special privilege over its citizens. Invariably, they were going to find plenty of takers. The American military operates under a different paradigm.
Posted by: kevin s.
And don't you think Kevin that if the Cheney/Bush repubs had there way Homeland Security would resemble the Brownshirts more than they do already?
Any Government that loves war will find a way to impart power, whether it be brownshirts, homeland security or lucrative contractor deals (ecomnomic power) to their buddies.
Posted by: moosette | March 11, 2008 9:41 AM
James Martin...
While Wisconsinites aren't a distinct nation, they are definitely a distinct breed and practically have their own language. Comparison pretty much checks out. :P
Posted by: Steve S | March 11, 2008 9:42 AM
James Martin...
While Wisconsinites aren't a distinct nation, they are definitely a distinct breed and practically have their own language. Comparison pretty much checks out. :Posted by: Steve S
That's funny!
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 11, 2008 11:37 AM
While Wisconsinites aren't a distinct nation, they are definitely a distinct breed and practically have their own language. Comparison pretty much checks out. :Posted by: Steve S
Be careful, or some Wisconsinite will try to get even with you Minnesotans.
I'm not sure I want to read a bunch of lutefisk or Sven and Ollie jokes on this forum.
:-)
Posted by: Don | March 11, 2008 12:14 PM
"I'm not sure I want to read a bunch of lutefisk or Sven and Ollie jokes on this forum."
I have a friend who is a repository of Sven & Ollie jokes and Ollie & Leena jokes – accent and all.
The Louisiana variation on that theme is Boudreaux & Thibodaux jokes.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 11, 2008 12:50 PM
"Why the constant, racist, belittling of the French?"
"Kevin is right, it is not 'constant' because he only did it once. Anyway, the nasty remarks about the French is a conservative phenomenon."
It's been done way more than once here - not just on this thread. I don't know if Kevin S. ever did it before, but others have. It's true it always comes from the "conservative" side - and the "humor" isn't really a joke, it's more a kind of discrediting and demeaning of the French being effete, lacking in manly, cowboy character. Mostly, it is as you say a kind of jealousy for the failure to go along with what's now become the neocon, or justa generic America-centric foreign policy.
And we all know that a constant election theme, inexplicably, which some people thought really hit the mark, was that somehow John Kerry was "French." Just calling him that made the wink-wink nudge-nudge point that he was "soft," a "surrender monkey."
Moreover, there's a long history of Anglo-French sniping, which contributed to all those tensions in old Europe. But as for the martial cojones, we can always say they had Napoleon - but who wants him. In the last more than hundred years, France was always an ally with England, and with us far longer, right from the Revolution.
This kind of demonization for failing to be so appreciative as to toe the line of American hegemony, and allow such things as US foreign bases on French soil and to have an American military commander over your troops, simply show the French have a propensity for national autonomy and independence as great as our own. That's a virtue in us, is it not? It might be, with all their colonies, their Algerian and Southeast Asian imperialism, they suffer from old world defects of character not so different from our own New World defects.
Anyone who thinks being French makes one intrinsically cowardly hasn't studied the history of the French Resistance in WOrld War II. And in our own popular culture, we extolled the virtues of the Free French, in films like Casablanca, where even Claude Rains turned out to be Vive La Resistance and tight with Bogie at the end.
At the company I worked for at the time, right as the Iraq War started, we all patriotically applauded the change from "French" Fires to "Freedom" Fries. That now seems so childish and bogus, just like the outdated jokes about the French being effete, and as bogus as the Congressman who spearheaded the move, who's now in the federal pen.
Anyhow, I think it's well worth pointing out that the Statue of Liberty, an official French gift to us, is a shared icon of freedom and liberty that's supposed to stand for what our highest ideals are all about - and theirs. Nobody else gave that to us. What's amazing to me is that when I've pointed this out to some severely anti-French patriots, they dissed the staue and said it ought to be floated out into the Atlantic and sunk!
Yeah, those anti-French shots are nothing but cheap. It figures, because it largely originated with NRO pundits, who are notoriously puerile young neocon Turks.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 11, 2008 1:04 PM
Anyway, the nasty remarks about the French is a conservative phenomenon
Posted by: JamesMartin
James come on , I hear jokes about the French on jay Leno and Dave Letterman . I have heard scapegoating by you about your American neigbors who dare read a Gospel different then you .
Ligthen up , don't you ever read jokes on line about conservatives or lefties ? The guys I work with do it all the time . For the most part , none of them are believers .
I would think a bunch of Christians could share a little humor with being so wound tight and get called a racist for it . Besides is David letterman a lefty , how come the French can into his top ten ? Perhaps its not the joke ?
Anyway ,
Your being silly .
Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 2:51 PM
No. People from Wisconsin are not a distinct nationality with a distinct language. The comparison is fatally flawed.
Posted by: JamesMartin
Ehhh ? When was the last time you been to Paris ?
The MUslim popultion is just one aspect of a growing diverse culture .
Ever see the movie FARGO .
Folks there would see your distinction as flawed as some in Wisconsin .
I guess I would respect you defending the French . But you support with a political idealogy , the French did not support United States , which of course is a rotten nation , therefore conservatives make fun of the French .
James their have been Hollywood movies , made by lefties that have done spoofs on the french , come on .
Its almost St Patricks day , do you realize the jokes about my nationality that are out there , but interesting every body likes to think their Irish on OUR Day , and I bet all we conservatives would love going to the Riveria if we could afford it .
Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 3:05 PM
How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb?
One. He holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him
I don't get how this is racist ? But if this is indeed seen as racist , should we all agree not to make fun of any group since some us are quite offended by it ? Hence no conservative dropping either ? Which is not even done in fun .
But come on folks , this is incredible . If I was using the French as an example of making Nuclear Reactors and how it helped produce elecricity , even lead all nations in exporting it , to the point they can say now to the Middle east , go ahead raise your prices , we are OK , and a lefty came back with a how many light bulbs joke" get the electric connection " that would be considered racist by the same people taking Kevin to task .
Be honest , be fair , come on , James your weakening I know it . Say sorry kevin and move on .
Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 3:18 PM
If I were to make fun of someone's spelling and arguments as being the product of being a typical drunken Irishman, of whom one could expect no more, would that be an all-in-good-fun-joke or unfair? What if I said, hah,hah, these Irishmen just like to fight for no good reason at all, look at Northern Ireland? And how about them IRA! :-) Especially if the underlying issue were a really a deep theological divide?
It's true that people can take offense unreasonably, in a kind of reverse unfair attack. That's not right either.
However, somtimes the joke is a standin for being unable to make an argument on the merits, so it amounts to an ad hominem attack to try to win the argument.
I do note that the proliferation of "Polack" jokes that tended to make them out to be a nation of hapless losers disappeared almost entirely after Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul - one of the most intellectual, spiritual Catholic leaders we have ever seen - at least from this Protestant perspective.
That certainly did happen. And there is no doubt that the stature of Poles in the public mind was raised immeasurably with Solidarity's successful opposition to the Soviets.
I have to say that the jokes can indeed represent denigration of a whole people, and that has been the case with French jokes that are in the context of ideological arguments. They aren't meant to be funny, exactly, the way they could be in a different context. They are meant to make a political point. Making one about the French specialty being one of surrender, when that's such a touchy topic for Americxa's own pride, is highly revealing about what is meant to be contrasted. And I have to say that really is what Kevin S. was doing, wasn't he? This wasn't about Jerry Lewis...
Like pornography, it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.
And even Wisconsites might be offended by jokes from Minnesotans, if it was over some state line resource issue.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 11, 2008 4:20 PM
I find all of this talk about the French absolutely Gauling!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 11, 2008 4:22 PM
Now that was funny, you might almost say it was a French tickler!
See how things can deteriorate?
How about Mel Brooks and the musical "Springtime for Hitler" in "The Producers?" Only (barely) acceptable because the players and director were all mostly Jewish. I would never have made it. Imagine Mel Gibson making it instead of Mel Brooks and you see what I mean.
(I have to admit I laughed. I'm trying to dredge up some Jewish ancestry, though, because it felt like forbidden territory where you might find someone looking at you with too many cookies in your hand, caught in a particularly valuable cookie jar. In that way, it almost was like a pornography of humor. Is there nothing too terrible that it can't become a source of legitimate humor? Well, I feel guilty. We mocked Hitler in war propaganda but he wasn't really funny at all.)
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 11, 2008 4:34 PM
"Now that was funny, you might almost say it was a French tickler!"
LOL!!!
"How about Mel Brooks and the musical "Springtime for Hitler" in "The Producers?"
Actually, this whole discussion has reminded me of the French scenes in "The Holy Grail."
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 11, 2008 4:44 PM
I find all of this talk about the French absolutely Gauling!
Posted by: neuro_nurse
oooooooohhhhhhh . I am glad the writers strike is over . ;0)
Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 5:34 PM
Merde!
Posted by: carl copas | March 11, 2008 6:11 PM
I find all of this talk about the French absolutely Gauling!Posted by: neuro_nurse
or is that De-Gaulling?
"James your weakening I know it" Mick
Look, I'm not outraged, really. BUT it was kind of tough in the lead-up to the Iraq war when my wife, who is French got hassled.
By the way, the Congressman who did that whole French fries/Freedom Fries thing came out against the war in Iraq. I do think that when leaders act that way and try to cast a negative light on an entire nation, they are acting irresponsibly.
But "bien sur" I am human and I've poked fun at the French too. So, I wouldn't categorically write someone off over poking some fun at the French.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 11, 2008 7:35 PM
Merde!
Posted by: carl cop
Do I sense a violation of a rule, here Carl? Tsk Tsk
Posted by: James Martin | March 11, 2008 7:37 PM
"Do I sense a violation of a rule, here Carl? Tsk Tsk"
I believe that one of the rules is that if you use foreign words or phrases you must provide the English equivalent.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 11, 2008 8:54 PM
Look, I'm not outraged, really. BUT it was kind of tough in the lead-up to the Iraq war when my wife, who is French got hassled.
Sorry about that James , I did not know it was actually that prevalent .
Posted by: Mick | March 11, 2008 9:21 PM
Hey Logan
Did you ever find time to read all of this? Who would guess what a discussion you would provoke.
In the case of Sojourner Truth I learned some very interesting things about WWII. I would like to know more about how WWII was actually experienced. There was so much more to it than just the compat side of the story. I wish Ken Burns had had the courage to cover what was happening with the non military particpants. The German and Dutch people have a gift for passive resistance when they don't agree with you. We should have exploited it more.
I appreciate the Irony of wanting to love and defend your country and living with your heart in Christ. I think more of us as Americans should be confronted with veterns who struggle with that experience.
As for finding non violent solutions to the conflict in Iraq, I really like the approach that was used recently in the Sunni community against AQI. Our commanders began sitting down and having tea with the Shieks in the local villages on a weekly basis. It has become one of the most successful turn arounds to date. Who would have guessed that having tea parties would become our most effective secret weapon.
Makes me want to send the Pentagon more shipments of bulk tea.
We support our troops. Please send them the tools and the weapons that they need.
Drink up.
My name is Ms. Cynthia and I am addicted to caffine.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | March 12, 2008 3:29 AM
"Sorry about that James , I did not know it was actually that prevalent"
I always laugh when someone tells me she/he is "Persian." "Yeah," I say, "I lived in Tehran," but for Iranians living in the U.S., it's not a laughing matter – and they will make sure I know that!
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 12, 2008 1:22 PM
All of you in this forum seem to be more knowledgeable than I, so I would like to ask this question. First of all, I am a Christian and am not sure how I feel about war and the Bible's teachings on it, but that is why I am here, researching. My question is why did God say in one of the ten commandments "Thou shalt not kill" yet other times in the Bible he commanded his followers to go to war and kill?
What I have found on this topic so far is that the term "kill" used at that time meant "to murder without cause." So I guess someone can say, "God told me to go to war and kill," and then of course they would be viewed as a crazy person because you can't prove that God is telling you anything. If you kill your wife and say, "God told me to kill" you are still going to jail. Can someone more knowledgeable than I please explain this?
Posted by: Lindsay | May 25, 2008 12:18 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?