Posted on 09/16/2001 2:09:38 PM PDT by The_Reader_David
In the two days following the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon and the Phyrric victory of the heroic passengers of Flt. 93, I made posts to several threads (principally ones with folk advocating turing Afghanistan into "a glass parking lot") posts suggesting that the nuclear destruction of the capitals of nations supporting with the terror attack would probably suffice.
One of my fellow Orthodox Christian Freepers rebuked me privately (as well he should) and asked me to retract my call. Moved by this, and by two sermons by my bishop, I do so now. However, I do so with a heavy heart, and have delayed doing so until this afternoon because I have not changed the underlying reason for those posts.
It was not a desire for vengance, a desire to see "their innocents" die as ours did, which moved me to write as I did, but a dreadful, gnawing certainty that victory against this foe cannot be achieved without horrific bloodshed. A dreadful feeling that, in the long run, to strike hard in the beginning would be more humane and more merciful still haunts me.
We face a foe armed with modern weapons, and cunning enough to beat the plowshares of modern commerce into weapons in the space of a morning. We face a foe whose mind is decidedly pre-modern and alien to what is normal to Christendom either historically, or now in its secular decay. We face a foe who believes that divine help is at their back, and that death in the cause, particularly if one kills the enemy (even non-combattants defined to be enemies) is a great good. We face a foe willing to attack without defiance sent.
The last time we faced such a foe, it was Imperial Japan. The pre-modernin Shintoist ideology motivated the kamikaze, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the rape of Nanking, even as the literalist reading of the Koran motivates suicide bombers who kill non-combattants in sneak attacks today.
We know how that war was ended. On this board, I trust we are all familiar with the ratio between the dead at Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the expected casualties in an invasion of the Japanese homeland. In case not I will remind you: we expected to loose 10 times as many as we killed, and to kill a similar number each Japanese soldiers and civilians to our own losses. Some believe this, together with the fact that these were "defended cities" containing military targets, suffice to justify Truman's action. Others believe Truman was a war-criminal, who went untried because only the loosers are put on trial.
I would invite all Christians coming from non-pacifist Christian traditions, particularly those which venerate some warrior saints (Holy Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism*, Anglicanism) or are strong in nations with a martial tradition (Presbyterians--Scotland, Lutherans--German,...) to discuss appropriate measures for opposing this foe.
.
.
*Those familiar with my posts on religious discussions will note that I have dropped my preference for refering to the adherents of the Papal Throne of Rome as "Latins". I will still not go so far as to give them their prefered title of "Catholics", since I profess the catholicity of the Holy Orthodox Church. I will, however, in the interest of the unity of Christendom in the face of the Islamic foe, use the generally used term applied to them by Christians of other confessions.
Ah, but He did give direction.
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
He directed his followers to provide for their own defense as a group - not that each one necessarily be armed, but that there be enough arms that some would provide defense of the others. That the sword was enumerated among mundane items indicates that it is intended for mundane purposes; on the national level, that means defense against those who seek to harm our nation violently (as opposed to sometimes-described semi-supernatural wars). A relevant counter-example was given, when Peter attempted to take on an armed mob, and Jesus repaired the damage and told him to "put your sword in its place" (but not to get rid of it) as that was not the time for defense. What we now face IS a time for defense.
We ought turn our own other cheek.
The term "smite" used in that verse refers to insult-level minor assaults, like someone slapping you; the point being to put up with largely harmless actions in the interest of keeping the peace. The Greek word used there is distinctly different from the term used for life-threatening assaults. Our nation faces 5000+ dead, not a sore cheek. The time for the application of the sword has come.
God forgives and I forgive.
I am, indeed very hesitant to ratify war. But, I am seeing no way out of this. There is no diplomacy or economic leverage that I can see.
If it must be war, America must, as far as is humanly possible, do all we can to minimize so-called collateral damage.
I believe if we do this right, there is a chance for a great victory. It will take many years, and there is much danger, but with our repentance and God's blessing perhaps we shall prevail.
I do pray for that.
What some are trying to differentiate is the risk of some innocent lives lost, vs. the direct consequence of huge numbers of innocent lives lost.
Our "special forces" coupled with quality intelligence gathering provide us the ability to focus on eliminating those who drive the assault on our nation; we can reasonably wage a war that focuses on the guilty and avoids (with some risk) innocents, and do so in a way compatible with the Bible. The consequences of this are profoundly different than the "nuke the capitals" (deliberately killing millions to retaliate for thousands and punish hundreds) so many are calling for.
That is a work which I admire and from which I have profited greatly. Much of the mindset generalizations are found between the lines, in a neo-Freudian sort of way. The fatalism Naipaul refers to again and again is troublesome. Perhaps it derives from having a god who is there, but unknowable and unapproachable (in any personal sort of way, a la Christianity). Perhaps it derives from advanced society passing the religion by.
I know you did not direct the question to me, but I can hope that as an Orthodox Christian, I would be able to do as he has done. That is to hear a rebuke from a brother in Christ; and/or hear the words of a bishop or priest; and/or be moved in prayer or reading of the Holy Scriptures to uproot any seed of bitterness which is planted in my heart. We call that sin and our lifelong struggle is repentance.
When it is discovered we try to make it right. Confession and Absolution is the first step. Then, part of that may be a public retraction here - for me it may involve personal apologies and asking for forgveness to those whom I have scandalized by my intemperate and hateful speech.
fwiw
Good point.
It is necessary that Christians have a clear understanding of how it has come to this. The 9/11 action did not happen in a vacuum.
You are 100% right. I have been reading the Koran over and over for the last week trying to reconcile this, and the fact is, they who say that Islam is peaceful haven't read the Koran. They're just mouthing PCness.
"strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah...";(9:29) "...take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends...whoever seeks their friendship shall become one of their number."(5:51)
I see that our enemy is Islam -- barbaric, intractable Islam, with its atavistic dreams and visions and its fatuous designs on world domination
Again, 100% right.
If I were president my only debate would be between the following two options:
1) announce the need to evacuate Medina prior to our nuking it; OR
2) DON'T announce it; just nuke it and let the rags fall where they may.
I'm with you. Difference is, I've been secretly thinking this since at least 1996.
In conjunction with that, since they've given us the excuse, have hated us, do hate us, and always will hate us anyway, have hated Israel, do hate Israel, and always will hate Israel anyway, I would also encourage Israel to take a couple thousand pounds of high explosives up to the #3 holy site -- the Dome of the Rock (aka the in-your-face-Jews mosque) and blow it to smithereens.
Yes again. 100 times yes.
To any who would say, "Nuke Medina? Wow, that'll make the Muslims mad." I say, "Duh!", they already are mad, and they always will be!". To any who would say, "Wow! That'll make 'em REALLY do terrorism to us!" I say, "Duh!, they already are!" And then I say, "Muslims: better rethink that -- BECAUSE MECCA IS NEXT." In that sense, Mecca, then becomes hostage -- contingent on Islam's good behavior. And the perfect hostage it is, for without Mecca, they have no religion.
I'm with you.
Exquisite!!
For a balanced look into this and simply a good witnessing reference go here:
http://www.islamreview.com/aboutus/aboutus.html
On the discussion . It's a time for war .
Cheese .
I hear what you are saying. And I believe Islam to not be a revelation, It's just made up.
(By whom, I will not venture here to say.)
But, there must be a bunch of poorly informed Moslems, who do not know the facts. We have heard the denial of the shopkeepers and other Moslems that their faith sanctions such outrage. May be an evangelization opportunity.
Turn the other cheek is the most used and abused expressions in the Bible.
The Greek used implies a blow with the back of the hand, ie an insult, more than a physical attack. In other words, don't let pride be the motivation for striking back.
An enemy who kills 5000 people is another matter all together.
That said, we get them. As they deserve.
A more accurate way of putting it is that 'turn the other cheek' never was intended to be used in the way it has been corrupted, ie the 'Socialist Abridged Version of the Bible'.
It really is not an admonition to let somebody knock you around, but more of an admonition to not let people insult your pride, and then proceed to act from this motivation.
-Pray, for all of us
-Follow the leader God has given us. It's not our call how we fight it, but we should pray that we're under His wings as we do.
The Muslims are always so intent on destroying the religious shrines/ Churches/ Synagogues/ HinduTemples of others. How come?? They seem so hung up on the physical symbols. Can you say .......paganism??
My theory is they would crumple into the fetal position if Mecca were nuked. You idea of holding Mecca hostage is a darn good one. Armageddon style hardball. Two can play
....spends a great deal of Archdiocesan assets and a lot of his time in Lebanon and Syria, having his picture taken with Syrian officials like Assad, and meeting with Arafat.....
He's just like one of our diplomats. They go native in those 3rd world nations
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.