Skip to main content

I Just Have To Say It

It's time to stop playing nice with those people who constantly carp about "isolationists" and attempt to silence anyone who urges the slightest thoughtful reflection upon the monumental decision to unleash the most powerful military force the world has ever known. Let's call them what they are: warmongers.

I used to be the sort of person who bristled at the slightest criticism of America. I used to think that every peace protestor was a communist. And then, the evidence mounted. The unintended consequences of each successive intervention seemed to snowball. The president acquired unparalleled power. The parties and their devotees took turns condemning and supporting different wars, and political advantage seemed the only criterion. Other than 9/11, when was the last time the United States was actually attacked? It's called the Department of Defense. Does it really defend anything? Does it defend us? Or is that what we tell ourselves because the truth about the deployment of our armed forces is too hard to face?

I know many people in the armed forces. They really are the best we have. That much is true. You have to have a special kind of courage to be willing to do all that they do. There's a special fraternal bond forged in the fire of risking your life for someone else that can barely be described. I won't try. But you know what else I won't do? I won't use that bond as a covering for bad choices. I won't mutter on about how they "protect our freedoms" because I lack the ability to say how. When you put that flag in some mother's hand, you had better be able to say, "We wouldn't be here without them," and it had better be true. When was the last time it was true? A vague idea of our own moral superiority isn't going to cut it any more. I'm sorry. If that makes me unpatriotic, then I question your definition. I don't believe in peace at any price. But we're selling peace for 30 shekels of silver, and it needs to stop.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un