From: Dr. Blake Nelson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:41:50 EST
Walt has a very good point here that I want to expand.
It is not only a question of not doing nothing, it is
a question of what exactly is being done and what is
The "peace" movement is geared toward stopping US
action against Iraq. One reads about "human shields"
going from Canada (or where ever) to Iraq to promote
Maybe I missed it, but where were the stories of
"human shields" going into Kurdish or Shiite villages
to protect them against gas attacks by the Saddam
regime? My point is not facetious. It seems the
height of hypocrisy (or bigotry or selfish conceit) to
say on one hand I will be a human shield to protect
Iraq from the US, but not be one to protect Kurdish
villagers from Saddam.
How many who marched for peace have ever protested
outside an Iraqi embassy in opposition to the current
regime's history of abusing every human right you can
think of? Do any of these human shields protest
Iraq's treatment of its own people? Once they get to
Iraq to be a human shield do they hold even one march
in protest of Saddam's torture of political opponents
or one candlelight vigil in memory of gassed Kurds?
If not, they have chosen sides not peace. I certainly
respect principled pacifism, but to voice opposition
to one form of violence because you believe it will
actually work to avoid the violence, but to be silent
about other violence because 1) you will likely lose
your life if you speak out in the country that engages
in that violence and/or 2) it would be to no avail, is
not principled, it is merely making a utilitarian
--- Walter Hicks <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Joel Cannon wrote:
> > Walter Hicks said:
> > > I would suggest that the difference between
> Joel and Glenn is not a
> > > question of the Hubbert curve, but rather one of
> > > philosophies. It is just the same old liberal
> versus conservative
> > > outlooks (IMO) and has nothing to do with
> > OK Walter, you are asking the question that I
> would like people to be
> > asking and I find it being asked distressingly
> little. What would
> > Jesus do? Would he be at the controls of a bomber
> flying over Baghdad
> > and if he was there would he drop the bombs?
> That is a specious question IMO. Why not ask that
> question about World War II? Or
> about a Police Officer in the line of of duty? Or a
> home owner defending the life
> of his family when under attack and the only option
> left is to allow his family to
> die? How do you answer these? How many pacifist
> examples does one need?
> The real question is where do Christian values lie
> -- not would Jesus be a
> Bombardier? (See George Murphy's "just war?"
> posting). Do we follow a totally
> pacifist example and surrender to all enemies -- or
> is there a line somewhere? I
> submit that in the fight against evil one has to
> think it out in detail and not
> dumb down the issue with liberal or conservative
> canned philosophies (usually
> armed with propaganda arguments to enforce the
> preconceived notions). The
> question is one of how a Christian must react
> against evil in the best interest of
> WWJD? I submit that "do nothing" as a canned
> philosophy is definitely _not_ What
> Jesus Would Do.
> Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 13:41:55 EST