May
23
2008
The Metastatic Gaffe
Charles Krauthammer has a good article today on a troubling foreign-policy dogma of Barack Obama: “What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.”
50 Comments
I agree with the conclusions of the article (the absurdity of his proposal and near impossibility of it without first agreeing to certain conditions) however, I’m not sure that Barack just made that up in the debate. I think he has actually held this crazy view since before he declared his presidential bid.
I may be wrong, and I can’t recall where I read it, but it’s at least a claim out there from the Obama camp and Krauthammer doesn’t address it here but assumes he made it up.
I don’t support Obama.
But I think meeting with “tyrants” and dictators is the counter-worldly-wisdom Christian choice.
America’s blacklisting of these leaders has these pre-suppositions: America is blameless, we are a superior nation, you don’t meet our standards of righteousness for us to have a relationship.
If Obama need to make concessions to these leaders, he could make apologies for American behavior in the world.
A little humility would go along way. It wouldn’t endorse the evil acts of these leaders. It might have the opposite effect of shaming them of their own bad behavior.
The last comment reminds me of a book I read as a child, “If you give a mouse a cookie…”
Hmm. Seems to have implications for evangelism.
The Bible clearly defines what the gospel is. It calls everyone to repent. Why actually meet with sinners when Christians have made it clear what God wants? Why “engage” with them without preconditions? What are we thinking? They are utterly oppposed to God, dead in their sins and trespasses, so nothing possibly good can happen. Just like the guy in Iran. No way that prayer for meetings with an evil regime could produce any fruit, right?
I think Obama has backed off his initial statement that he’ll personally meet with the Iranian leader but even if he hadn’t, what’s the problem? Talking is not the same thing as appeasement and even the atheist Krauthammer seems to acknowledge that.
What are we afraid of?
I tend to agree with Josh Crews comment. We all seem to forget that part of the reason some of these nations hate us so much is because of our actions toward them. Iran hates us because in WWII the allies invaded the country to use the railroad system; then we later backed and financed Iraq’s war against Iran. We made ourselves their enemy.
I don’t doubt they hate us, and don’t question the need for care in any discussions with them. But I really don’t think our present policy of refusing to speak to them is at all helpful.
Last I checked we are not at war with any of the nations on that list (North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela). Sure, several have voiced publicly their disdain for America. But we’re not negotiating with the enemy if they’re not our declared enemy (i.e. war enemy). So be cautious, but create dialog.
How else can we hope that tension be resolved diplomatically?
America also needs to take a healthy step back and do some soul searching with regard to our interventionist policies. Much of the tension and mess we experience today is a direct result of bad decisions in the past.
But I think meeting with “tyrants” and dictators is the counter-worldly-wisdom Christian choice.
A good start to a conversation with these “tyrants” and dictators would be a warm handshake which could then be followed up by thrusting a cold sword through said tyrant’s heart.
I love international relations.
I think that many things done in the name of appeasement end up doing much of the opposite.
I also think “thrusting a cold sword” is highly patriotic but difficult to blend with a Sermon on the Mount lifestyle.
Individuals versus institutions, people. The Bible doesn’t treat the two the same way …
No, but, I’m sure assassination doesn’t fit in either case, whether you apply it individually or institutionally.
I also think “thrusting a cold sword” is highly patriotic but difficult to blend with a Sermon on the Mount lifestyle.
I don’t think the Sermon on the Mount was in the context of international relations between countries. However, assuming it was for the sake of argument, I would consider thrusting a cold sword through said tyrant’s heart to be in the spirit of a peacemaking mission.
By the way, I’m only speaking of certain tyrants who wish to obtain nuclear weapons with the stated purpose of wiping Israel (or any other country for that matter) off the face of the earth. I would put such tyrants in the same league as someone who was threatening to harm my family. Both are candidates for a bullet (or a sword if my gun isn’t handy).
I do not advocate hits against leaders we don’t particularly like. Fidel Castro comes to mind as an example. Another example would be Pat Robertson suggesting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez be assassinated.
Stan,
I served in Iraq, so I’m not advocating that we airdrop hugs and bunnies…just concerned with the spirit behind your comment. I meet a lot of American Christians that have worldviews drenched in “patriotism” rather than Christ.
It doesn’t seem like you are one of them.
:)
Ho-hum. This Metastatic Gaffe news isn’t worth commenting ;)
I’m more interested in this Hagee thing.
[yawn] man, i’m tired…
clint,
Thank you for serving our country.
I meet a lot of American Christians that have worldviews drenched in “patriotism” rather than Christ.
I’m definitely not drenched in “patriotism”. My citizenship is in heaven. I believe in “defend(ing) the weak and the fatherless; uphold(ing) the cause of the poor and the oppressed.” (Psalms 82:3)
I see you work in Accounting. Do you love it as much as I do?! I’m not sure why I like it so much, but I do.
m,
Something I’ve been meaning to say…
A few years ago I heard RC Sproul say something along the line of if you recognize a theologian by their last name, they must be pretty popular. If you recognize a theologian by their first name only they must be a giant.
What would he say about recognizing a theologian by a single initial?
Strains the mind to think about it. ;)
lol, ok, my name’s Michael, but that doesn’t make me important. ;)
Stan,
Should the sword be thrust by a left hander? And should the action be preceded by the words, “I have message from God for you”?
msc,
Should the sword be thrust by a left hander?
Great question. That decision will have to be made on a case by case basis. Who is using the sword would be a big determining factor. For example, I am ambidextrous at several things. However, using a sword isn’t one of them. Thus, I would have to use my right hand. Now if I was using a ping pong paddle, I would probably use my left hand.
Second, the tyrant should be sufficiently fat so that the fat of his belly would close over the blade.
Please keep in mind that should a right hander do the job, he should not let his left hand know about it.
And should the action be preceded by the words, “I have message from God for you”?
Another good question. That phrase should only be used by a lefty taking out a fat tyrant.
In addition, assuming the phrase was due to a new revelation from God, you would not want a cessationist using that phrase as it would probably violate his conscience. That would be a phrase for a continuationist only.
However, a cessationist could use the phrase in certain circumstances. For instance, the phrase could be used and followed with unless you repent, you will likewise perish.
I think this exercise shows why international relations can be such a delicate matter at times. There are so many variables to consider. You must have your complete mental faculties at your disposal if you’re going to be successful. Thus, you would not want someone like Pat Robertson or John Hagee involved and definitely not Jeremiah Wright. While Jeremiah Wright does have experience damning countries, I’m not sure he’s all that good at picking the right country to damn and it would seem that his timing isn’t so good.
Stan,
I’m not actually in “Accounting”. I put that on there as somewhat of a joke. I can’t even do simple division. Thanks for the comment on my site, I’m a little rusty at jokes though….”speaking in German” ????
clint,
Another person saved from Accounting!
….”speaking in German”
I assumed with tongue firmly planted in cheek…
that if she were writing in English she would be thankful for the effort of the Allies in WWII and not truly be anti-war.
If she were truly an anti-war activist I thought it would only make sense for her to speak in German to show solidarity with the Nazis of WWII.
I think Thomas Sowell turned me on to that idea. He said when faced with the type of folks who say things like “War never solved anything” to simply ask them why they said that in English. The answer being that war put an end to the Nazi and Japanese aggression of WWII.
Josh, Mr. Brown, bps…
Did you actually read the linked article? Could you address the points made by the author?
greglong says:
“Did you actually read the linked article? Could you address the points made by the author?”
Yes and sure.
Krauthammer says: “A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs’ isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements — undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.”
The issue is whether this train of consequences, so self-evident to Krauthammer, is actually very likely to happen. I don’t think so. Krauthammer just makes the assertion and labels Obama’s policy stupid and absurd. But the act of meeting with another foreign leader no more legitimizes him than calling him on the phone or sending him an email or engaging in back-channel diplomacy. Krauthammer sounds like a Pharisee protesting that Jesus shouldn’t eat with sinners. Did Jesus legitimize their sin by meeting and eating with them? Of course not. Did it make Jesus a sinner for fraternizing with sinners? No. In a similar way, diplomacy doesn’t compromise us or legitimize the interests of the other party. It represents an effort to lessen the need for Stan to enlist and go kill some Iranians in the spirit of a peacemaking mission (or be killed trying) and that, to my mind, is a good thing.
From the article, what may be a bigger problem…
On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others “don’t pose a serious threat to us.” (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
That’s the very next day, mind you.
Not a serious threat one day and the very next day the threat from Iran is grave.
This type of international relations schizophrenia could indeed be indicative of a metastatic gaffe.
It seems self evident that diplomacy (which by definition involves negotiations) with Ahmadinejad (who is determined to destroy Israel) would be incredibly naive.
I also don’t think it would be wise to try diplomacy with someone who was threatening to harm my family. Action would be required.
A few folks keep trying to bring Jesus actions towards sinners, and a Christian’s responsibility to love their enemies into the equation.
They don’t belong in the equation.
We’re talking tyrants here. Not people who are persecuting you and I for our faith.
For those who think loving our neighbour even applies, let me ask you this: Should we love the bad guy, and so, let him live and continue to tyrannize those under him? Or should we love those whom he is tyrannizing, and kill the bad guy?
I’m with Stan (and Ehud) and I think Scripture is too.
Defending the widow and the fatherless means (sometimes) terminating those who oppress them, not making peace treaties…
One quick thought – Everyone who says Obama would be guilty of “appeasement” a la Chamberlain with the Nazis in WW2 needs to brush up on their history. Chamberlain appeased Hitler by giving him land, Obama is not proposing that we give Puerto Rico or Guam to anyone to appease them. Even then, it’d still be different because Chamberlain gave away land that wasn’t his to give.
Put simply, for the Obama/Chamberlain comparison to have any merit, Obama would need to be promising Canada to Castro. What Obama is proposing is a different thing entirely from what Chamberlain did.
Not saying that I agree with Obama’s policy, just making the point that the comparison is completely inaccurate, historically speaking. You can accuse him of being naive or foolish, but you can’t say he’s guilty of appeasement – or at least not with any degree of historical truthfulness.
“We’re talking tyrants here. Not people who are persecuting you and I for our faith.”
I didn’t realize Jesus made that distinction.
Then what’s your biblical justification for (a) not talking to governments and (b) distinguishing personal ethics from governmental action? Krauthammer isn’t a Christian and uses no biblical arguments. I’d like to hear a cogent biblical argument against talking (not “appeasing”) with another government for the purpose of reducing the risk of conflict.
Thanks.
Mr. Brown,
There isn’t a biblical arguement per se, because it’s not a biblical issue.
If there was a biblical arguement it would fall under protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
Don’t confuse the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of this world. The latter is the sphere in which nations operate.
Jesus didn’t make that distinction, because he never addressed national foreign policies. They are irrelevant to the kingdom of God. He addressed persecution of the church and never how to deal with tyrannical governments.
It seems to me that the crazy idea the the US is somehow the promised land and not Babylon, and the idea that God made some kind of covenant with the US like he did with the OT nation of Iarael, is what has led to that kind of confusion.
Would Christians in China or Vietnam ever get concerned about whether or not their governments are acting in an unbiblical way?
Neither should western Christians.
Another fantastic argument for why Christians should get their hands out of Uncle Sam’s business. Jesus, caring nothing for false distinctions between ‘individuals’ and ‘institutions’ (he said ‘turn the other cheek’ to Jews under Roman oppression for crying out loud!), teaches explicit nonviolence.
His followers, 2000 years later, would rather take control of the reins of history and thrust swords into the hearts of tyrants than take Jesus seriously.
I’m no inerrantist, but the flippancy with which you treat Jesus’ teachings saddens me gravely.
To make Jesus ‘Lord’ is to submit to Him in all areas of life. Our allegiance to him trumps all. Many comments on this thread make me think people have their priorities backward.
Peace,
-Daniel-
Daryl:
You said upthread that “I’m with Stan (and Ehud) and I think Scripture is too.” Now you say that it’s “not a biblical issue”? If God is sovereign and we have some duty to governmental authority, it seems to me that it must be a biblical issue, however we may disagree about how that issue should be decided.
I’m really only interested to know if folks like JT, who think Krauthammer wrote a “good article,” can defend Krauthammer’s view with anything like a biblical perspective. Nobody who shares JT’s view has even made the effort.
Daniel D. Farmer,
His followers, 2000 years later, would rather take control of the reins of history and thrust swords into the hearts of tyrants than take Jesus seriously.
I’m really disappointed that you would decree that Christians who disagree with your pacifist views don’t take Jesus seriously. Well meaning, sincere Christians are on opposite sides of that issue. As an issue, it surely isn’t on the level of questioning the sincerity of one’s faith.
We can have debates about this and other non-essenstial doctrines without issuing such decrees about people’s sincerity.
I am convinced that believer’s baptism is the correct view of baptism. I currently attend a presbyterian church. I think they’re wrong on the issue of who is a proper candidate for baptism. Yet I don’t doubt for a second that they take Jesus seriously.
On this side of heaven, we will have disagreements. However, as the Evangelical Manifesto pointed out, our choice is for a civil public square, and a working respect for the rights of all, even those with whom we disagree.
Mr. Brown,
I didn’t realize Jesus made that distinction.
He never made that distinction because he never addressed how one government should react to another government that was actively pursuing the elimination of another country.
There is Biblical justification for the government using deadly force against wrongdoers.
Romans 13:3-4 states For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Stan, you are exactly right to cite Romans 13. That is the explicit biblical purpose of government: to “carry out God’s wrath on the evildoer.”
Mr. Brown, remember that Jesus the friend of sinners was the same Jesus who overturned the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple.
Romans 13 doesn’t really help. Iran has a government and Romans 13 says it is constituted, in part, to carry out God’s wrath on the evildoer. Rom 13 makes no distinction between democracies, dictatorships, theocracies. etc. If Romans 13 applies to all forms of government, how does that answer the question about whether we should seek a non-military solution to our problems with Iran?
The sinless Son of God is uniquely qualified to manage the affairs of his father’s house. But it provides no biblical justification for what Krauthammer was talking about (which is that we shouldn’t be talking at all).
Mr. Brown,
I’d like to hear a cogent biblical argument against talking (not “appeasing”) with another government for the purpose of reducing the risk of conflict.
What exactly do you suggest we talk about? Do we invite them over for pizza? Do you propose we just sit around the dinner table chatting with them until they lob a nuclear weapon on Israel? Is there a point where you would actually support armed conflict with the purpose of killing the enemy?
Psalms 82:3-4 Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
I think the citizens of Israel should be defended. You can’t defend against a nuclear weapon after the fact. It would be right near the top of war planning folly to wait until the enemy is crossing the border before acting. In today’s world, there are countries that are dedicated to Israel’s total destruction. We’re not talkin about a “risk of conflict” here but rather a promise of conflict. The threats have been made. If you want to sit around and talk, fine.
Personally, I’d like to hear a cogent biblical argument for talking (you say not “appeasing”) with another government for the purpose of reducing the risk of conflict.
Stan:
I don’t think this gets us any closer to a biblical defense of Krauthammer’s critique.
Psalm 82 justifies US intervention right now in just about every country on the face of the planet. Darfur, Zimbabwe, Palestine, Israel, etc. Of course, we don’t have the military capacity (and that’s what you’re talking about–a military solution) to do that, but if you’re saying we should defend Israel based on Psalm 82, you’ll have to address the reasons why we don’t do the same for others who are not living under athreat of oppression or worse but are actually experiencing it right now.
In legal circles, we mediate cases but we think there’s value in talking instead of litigating. In this case, there’s plenty to talk about. There’s certainly no biblical justification for ridiculing someone who thinks diplomacy should at least be tried before we resort to war.
Mr. Brown,
Psalm 82 justifies US intervention right now in just about every country on the face of the planet. Darfur, Zimbabwe, Palestine, Israel, etc.
We’re in agreement.
you’ll have to address the reasons why we don’t do the same for others who are not living under a threat of oppression or worse but are actually experiencing it right now.
Actually, I don’t have to address that. The leaders of our country, who are sleeping while those other countries are experiencing oppression or worse, should be held to account.
In this case, there’s plenty to talk about.
Like what?
There’s certainly no biblical justification for ridiculing someone who thinks diplomacy should at least be tried before we resort to war.
There’s that term diplomacy again. Diplomacy involves negotiation. It is not wise to negotiate with those who want to kill you or others. That, Mr. Brown, starts sounding a lot like appeasement. I’m not ridiculing you personally. For all I know, you’re a nice, but misguided in my opinion, guy. I do, however, ridicule appeasement as a strategy.
M=Somehow I am reminded of interviews with University students up here in Canada back when the First Gulf War began. These students were saying things like “I don’t understand why the US invaded. Can’t they just talk it out?”
Mr. Brown is assuming a few things here.
1. Military intervention is not a viable solution.
2. Those making the decisions haven’t tried to talk with the enemy and are simply spoiling for a fight.
Number one is certainly not precluded in Scripture and Romans 13 certainly does apply to all governments. Even Hitler and the Ayatollah’s are/were given authority by God to punish evildoers. Their abject failure in the regard doesn’t mean they aren’t supposed to be doing that, it means…they aren’t doing that. They are still, like the US in place to punish evil doers. (In the same way, in fact, that a preacher who teaches Oprah instead of Bible has been put there for the purpose of teaching the Bible, even if , in fact, he is not.
Number 2…The general public has no way of knowing this and, as political history bears out, those who support the opposite political party will believe the worst in any case.
All things considered, Mr. Brown hasn’t provided a biblical reason for his view. Perhaps he should start there if he wants to be taken seriously.
Daryl,
Good points.
I found this quote that was attributed to Francis Schaeffer:
The world is an abnormal world. Because of the Fall, it is not what God meant it to be. There are many things in this world which grieve, but we must face them down. We never have the luxury of acting in a merely utopian way.
Utopian schemes in this fallen world have always brought tragedy. The Bible is never utopian. Authentically biblical morality, and not a non-Christian and romantic counterfeit, demands that people have our prayers – but not only our prayers.
From my own study of Scripture I would say that to refuse to do what I can for those who are under the power of oppressors is nothing less than the failure of Christian love.
This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor fallen world in which we live – this lost world – means that we desert the people who need the greatest help.
Maybe Francis Schaeffer didn’t say/write it. Either way, the quote pretty well summarizes my opinion on the issue.
“Mr. Brown is assuming a few things here.
1. Military intervention is not a viable solution.
2. Those making the decisions haven’t tried to talk with the enemy and are simply spoiling for a fight.”
I assume no such things. Re 1, I reject military intervention when diplomacy has not been attempted first. This is just war theory 101. No one has provided a biblical basis for NOT talking with Iran–it’s just assumed that there is one.
Re 2: I have no idea where you get that. It is true that this Administration had no reluctance to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. But Iraq is not the issue here.
I am simply looking for a biblical rationale for not talking with a enemy before using military force.
As for talking equalling appeasement, what can I say? It’s just silly to suggest that all the treaties and peace talks that have led to resolution of conflict (e.g. the Camp David peace accords which led to the end of hostilities between EGypt and Israel and which have held to this day) were nothing more than “appeasement” just because they involved negotiation. If I talk with someone who wants to buy my house, I don’t have to give my house away.
Mr. Brown,
I’m beginning to suspect you’re joking around here.
If I talk with someone who wants to buy my house, I don’t have to give my house away.
Assuming you’re serious, which I’m beginning to doubt, I’ll try to answer that.
1) Negotiating the sale of a house usually is not a life and death situation. It’s a voluntary contract entered into without coercion.
2) If someone were kicking down your front door with guns drawn, I seriously doubt you would try to implement a strategy of talking. If you’re single, I suppose that might be OK. If you have a family to defend, I would think otherwise.
If in such a situation you would not utilize a strategy of talking but rather used violence, you would be a hypocrite. If you did attempt to sit down to talk with the armed intruders, I’m not sure what to think.
Stan: I guess we’re done.
Iran is not kicking our doors down. Diplomacy is a voluntary thing, not a coercive act.
I asked for some biblical support for krauthammer’s views. None has been forthcoming.
Cheers.
Daryl: There isn’t a biblical arguement per se, because it’s not a biblical issue.
[...]
Don’t confuse the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of this world. The latter is the sphere in which nations operate.
Jesus didn’t make that distinction, because he never addressed national foreign policies. They are irrelevant to the kingdom of God.
It bore repeating.
Thanks for the Mike.
Mr. Brown,
I think you’re wrong about the kicking down the doors thing. Perhaps not ours/yours but certainly our allies (Israel at the very least).
See, if someone has a history of kicking down doors, and the Ayatollahs certainly do, then to decide that the reasons they are building a big door-kicker-downer are other than kicking down doors, if just plain foolish.
Iran does not have a history of successful negotiations with the west, they do have a history of militant Islam. That all mitigates against the wisdom of talking, or at least, talking very much.
Again, if you need a biblical arguement (and I maintain that you don’t), defending the defenseless is a good one. It makes a well planned, well thought out strike not only a good option, but in the case of Iran building nuclear weapons, practically a requirement.
As I’ve said before, you’ve yet to provide a biblical case for your arguement, so requiring that of others is a bit two-faced.
Mike: Thanks for your response. As with Stan, I think we’re at the end. There’s lots to say about this if you had any sense that we need to search the scriptures to arrive at some conclusion about diplomacy. It’s very simple for you, not for me. Given the staggering loss of life that has already occurred in Iraq–people made in the image of God, men, women and children who had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11–it seems rational people might want to do all in their power to avoid killing the innocent. Especially Christians. Diplomacy and war are not mutually exclusive.
The bottom line is that you guys don’t think we need any biblical justification for bypassing go and heading straight to war with Iran. And that answers my question.
Mr. Brown,
I think you would gain some respect if you would answer a couple of questions.
Are you a pacifist?
Do you agree that war is justified in some circumstances, even when your country is not invaded?
Where is your biblical justification for diplomacy when you or your ally has been threatened with extermination?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Zionist regime should be wiped off the map.”
What would you like to say to him?
If someone were kicking down your front door with guns drawn, announcing they wanted to kill you, would you try to implement a strategy of diplomacy?
Mr. Brown, I would be interested in your answers to Stan’s question.
Also, please stop saying we have failed to provide biblical justification. We have provided biblical justification; just not to your satisfaction.
Stan mentioned Rom. 13, and then you said:
Romans 13 doesn’t really help. Iran has a government and Romans 13 says it is constituted, in part, to carry out God’s wrath on the evildoer. Rom 13 makes no distinction between democracies, dictatorships, theocracies. etc. If Romans 13 applies to all forms of government, how does that answer the question about whether we should seek a non-military solution to our problems with Iran?
Your response doesn’t negate the application of Rom. 13 to our discussion. Yes, Iran’s government is supposed to carry out God’s wrath on the evildoer. But what if Iran’s government is the evildoer? You wouldn’t suggest that Rom. 13 means our government should only take care of evildoers in our own country, would you?
The obvious (and tired) response to this is, “Well, if that’s the case, why don’t you attack North Korea, etc., etc., etc.?” We can only do what we can do. We can only do what our resources and political will allow us to do.
Again, you may not agree with our biblical justification, but please do not continue to state that we have not provided any.
Stan: I didn’t realize I had lost your respect or that I needed to earn it somehow. But I’ll answer your questions.
I am not a pacifist. I’m just trying to understand how Christians like JT think that krauthammer’s article was “good” when it is so dismissive of an effort to find a peaceful solution to a very difficult problem. It’s just staggering to me that Christians are so willing to go to war without first trying everything they can to avert it. Especially given our concern for the sanctity of human life. A lot of human lives are obliterated by war; we’re insulated from the horror of war in the West.
I’m also trying to understand how this fits in with the teaching of Jesus and Paul–radically personally pacifistic–with our responsibility as Christian citizens of a 21st century democracy in which we have the power to vote for our leaders and shape international policy. I think the answers are biblical, and I hope to do a lot more reading and thinking about this in the next few months.
“If someone were kicking down your front door with guns drawn, announcing they wanted to kill you, would you try to implement a strategy of diplomacy?” No. Jesus says that I’d have to take a bullet. Pretty radical. What would you do?
Greg: Romans 13 doesn’t answer the question about why we shouldn’t try diplomacy first. That’s all.
As for what we could talk about, here’s a start: http://www.slate.com/id/2139845/
Mr. Brown,
Respect?
You have an anonymous blogger account.
You’re not answering direct questions.
You cast aside biblical justification with which you don’t agree.
It sounds like you’re a pacifist but can’t bring yourself to take on the label. If that’s what you are, own it.
It appears to me that you’re not interested in “diplomacy” with me, or anyone else here who may disagree with you. Rather you prefer to state that you’re right and everyone else is wrong. Try that with Iran and see where it gets you.
If I thought you were genuinely interested in learning about the issue I would be glad to speak with you concerning the article at slate.com.
As it stands, I find it hard to take you seriously.
Something to consider…
Jesus says that I’d have to take a bullet. Pretty radical.
That is not necessarily radical. A coward could do the same thing and it wouldn’t be radical but rather an act of cowardice.
What would you do?
I believe I’ve already answered that.
By the way, even Obama has backed down somewhat from his original statements:
Obama Qualifies Position on Talking to Enemies
greglong,
Thanks for the post. Interesting article.
Barack Hussein Obama actually makes John Kerry look like a man of conviction.
Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear
Yes. That beloved man has summed up Iranian foreign policy once again.
“I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,” he said.
“Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.”