Christianity and War: Letter to Presybtery Peace Workgroup

The problem I see with your letter is that you have as one-sided view of the situation as the group you rightfully complained about.

You say let's start with the Iranian revolution in 1979. But why not start with 1953 when we worked with the British to overthrow Iran's Parliamentary gov't. You say let's start with the countless evils of Osama Bin Laden. But why not start with '67 when we started to support Israel in brutally oppressing the Palestinians? You forgot to mention that we insisted on and enforced sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq children and over 1 million Iraqis in all. During a one year period from Dec 98 to Dec 99, we bombed Iraq every third day.

You correctly mentioned the horrific crimes of Saddamn Hussein. But you forgot to mention that we put and maintained the B'aath Party in power and supported Saddamn Hussein and described him as a "moderate" until he invaded Kuwait. You forgot to mention that we supplied Saddamn with materials for WMDs even after he used WMDs on the Kurds.

So when you cite a WWI soldier talking about how God is on our side, consider that is common talk by many soldiers on all sides of a conflict. In fact, an impromptu cease-fire and fraternization between troops on Christmas eve started by both sides singing Christmas carols.

When battling evil, Jesus warns us not to be like the Pharisee in the parable of the two men praying. And yet, when we Christians talk about confronting evil today, we take exception at the actions of others while taking our sins for granted. Is our talk about battling evil nothing more than self-flattery?

Finally, with regards to Calvin, he participated in burning people at the stake for heresy. So perhaps we should examine these statements rather than assume them to be correct.

You are a misguided leftist, caday5, and your criticism of my letter as being "one sided" is misconceived. It is a way of appearing to rebut my stated position without really dealing with it -- that, among other points: God is active in the world, including in times of war; as Christians, we are not called upon to be pacifists in the face of evil but at times to engage in war; we did good in removing Saddam and are doing good helping build a better Iraq not in thrall to the radical jihadists.

Your historical assertions show you to be a propagandist. The Israelis did not brutally oppress the Palestinians in 1967; Israel was invaded by its neighbors intent upon destroying Israel, just as Iran and the radical Islamic jihadists are today intent upon destroying Israel. We did not put and did not support Saddam in power, and we did not supply him with materials for WMDs. I did not mention that by enforcing sanctions on Saddam's regime for refusing to abide by U.N. arms resolutions, we caused the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis because that did not happen; as for bombing Saddam's Iraq, we did so to enforce a no-fly zone to curb military actions by Saddam. Your apparent desire to have us feel angst about alleged past actions is beside the point that we were dealing with an outlaw regime in Saddam's government that had thumbed its nose at the international community while violating 17 U.N. arms resolutions and committing barbaric acts against its citzenry.

As for your other comments, they suggest a moral vacuum. The World War I soldier to whom you refer was an American. Are you suggesting that God was impartial in the struggle to defeat German militarism that led Germany to start World War I by invading Belgium and France? I also write about World War II and Patton's prayer. Are you of the belief that God was impartial about Hitler's reign of war and terror?

The validity of all that I said depends on its historical accuracy. Look it up and see.

We both are Presbyterians. I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. I am guessing that you are a member of the PCUSA but I could be wrong. The political dividing line in my church depends on where people's parents are from. Church members whose parents are from America think much like you. Members whose parents or they themselves are from other countries think more, though not identical, like me.

Those on the left are basically using the OT prophets of speaking truth to power as their model--both for the religious and nonreligious

Finally, there is a difference between being theologically liberal and politically liberal. Take care.

...under the article, Where is God in Wartime. I've got to tell you Mr. Byler, prayer, with faith, is a very powerful gift we have been given. We, the U.S., is at a critical moment in its history now, as is the world, and world history. It is why we fight this war against Islamic terrorist, just as it is, we fight this war against left ideology here in America. I often refer to congressman Reid's remark, "We're losing this war.", and its implication of the fact; powers which have fought to deny the Word of God, and its Truth, are losing this war. Those powers have crept into many, areas, some of which were once strong defendents, messengers, of the Word, but now pervert the Word of God for their own agenda.

Many times I think about the over 300 million people in America claiming to be Christians, and why they allow the left to claim glory of being the powers assisting the least among us. They sat in their armchairs watching newsreels of Saddam throwing those, who would not buckle under his regime, to their deaths. And I cannot believe, as I watched people walk by the hurt, and dying, after hurricane Katrina struck, that there was not a proclaimed Christian in the bunch. The self-loving ambitions of the tempter, the deceiver, is running rampant of the lefts cause, as it is in the cause of radical Islam. Those of the Word, its Love, its Truth, will win this war, as it is written. God Bless.

I am sorry, caday5, but you are the one who needs to look it up. Your assertions about history are about as erroneous as erroneous can be. From what hate America/hate Israel source are you getting what you think is your historical information?

There is no debate regarding our participation in the overthrow of the Iranian parliamentary government in 1953. Navy Vet and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson is especially useful in this area. But I have yet to read any historian contradict our part. The rest of what I said is also true.

I don't think it is useful to automatically discredit uncomfortable and unflattering information by saying it is from those who hate America/Israel. That is a knee-jerk reaction. Fortunately, both in America and in Israel, there are a number of people who report the wrong things their country does.

Again, in my fundamentalist church, the dividing line is the citizenship of the members' parents. Those whose parents are not from America know what I am saying is true and they are conservative Bible believing Christians. Colleagues of mine who are from other countries consistently tell me that there is so much news that our media does not report to us.

The one item in your first comment that I would concede is that Great Britain and the U.S. helped certain forces in Iran in 1954 to overthrow the nationalist Iranian government. That is one reason why I did not contradict it in my first reply to you; the other reason is that it is irrelevant to the issue of Saddam's Iraq.

So I went on to the rest of your historical assertions. The rest are what I took strong issue with as just being dead wrong; and you don't defend them in terms of any source. Saying that it is not useful to automatically discredit uncomfortable and unflattering information avoids my question as to the source of your false propaganda about Israel and America's actions with respect to Saddam's Iraq. I am saying that you are making false statements on those subjects and that those false statements completely undermine your criticism of my letter to the Peace Group.

Again, Navy Vet and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson, amongst others have documented shipments of materials to Iraq that were used in WMDs. And you can check the news regarding our regard for Saddamn until he invaded Kuwait.

My accusations against Israel are backed by Israeli sources. I only use Israeli sources because there is a prejudice against Palestinians. In fact, below are a couple of links, one coming from an American and the other from an American Israeli citizen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3JI-axaRF4&feature=related
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=134656444341 9748239&hl=en

In addition, below is a link from Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories:

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/index_e.asp

The sanction years in Iraq were deadly and we were pushing for these deadly sanctions. UN estimates between 400,000 to 800,000 children died from the sanctions. BTW, the lowest estimate was set at 375,000 children. They were set up by the bombing of the civilian infrastructure including electricity and water and sewage plants. These bombings themselves were violations of international law.

That we put the B'aath party into power in the '60s in Iraq comes from John Pilger's "The New Rulers Of The World."

The charge that we bombed Iraq every third day, on an average, during a period between Dec '98 to Dec '99 comes from the book "A different kind of war" by Hans Von Sponeck who was the UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq at the time. In fact, he documents a flock of sheep being bombed. He cited over 140 civilian deaths and over 440 injuries from those attacks.

And what I said about WWI and the impromptu cease-fire and fraternization is well known.

Calvin did participate in burning heretics at the stake in Geneva. That is indisputable.

What I said about the dividing line is from conversations with those in my own church. And Jesus did warn us about not seeing sin in ourselves in the parable of the two men praying. We could mention pre WWII sins as documented by former Marine Major General Smedley Butler (http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm)

Finally, I didn't criticize your letter for a pointing out a one-sided litany. Your criticism is probably valid. What I am pointing out is that neither the "terrorists" nor ourselves are the good guys. That doesn't come from a hate-America perspective, it comes from a I don't worship my country perspective.

You are relying on left wing propaganda and show yourself in truth to be a left wing propagandist.

Your accusations against Israel were that in 1967 that Israel oppressed the Palestinians when in fact Israel was invaded then. What you cite are you videos, one from a video posted on youtube and one by an alleged disgruntled Israeli soldier serving today; neithre support your historical assertion about Israel. Also, today, you have a left wing propaganda machine attacking Israel. But none of that has anything to do with my letter.

Your accusations against America causing the deaths of children in Iraq are more false left wing propaganda. Pilger's assertions are nonsense; Sadddam put himself in power and we had nothing to do with it. The bombing of Iraq, when we did it, was to enforce U.N. restrictions on Saddam's military. Saddam had invaded a neighboring country and was universally regarded as a threat to peace. Only committed leftists or America-hating U.N. personnel try to twist that to attack America.

I did not dispute what is known as the Christmas Truce of 1914 on the Western Front. But what does that establish? Try actually reading Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural, referenced in my letter; Lincoln recognizes that both sides in the American Civil War prayed to the same God and read the same Bible, but that did not change the fact that God had his purposes in the American Civil War to remove slavery from America.

You say you are Presbyterian, but you seem not to know that Calvin is not some bogey-man but rather is one of the major figures in Reformed Proestantism and in the development of Western Classical liberal political thought and that the Presbyterian church is Calvinist.

Finally, your reference to World War II and America's "sins" causes me to ask again: Are you of the belief that God was impartial about Hitler's reign of war and terror?

First, please identify those statements that you associate with left wing propaganda from the previous notes.

Second, it is a well known fact that Israel started the '67 war with an attack on Egypt. Egypt had stationed 100,000 troops near the border but according to now right-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris, this was a defensive deployment. Egypt had already sent 60,000 troops to settle a civil war elsewhere. Egypt also kicked out a UN contingent but later said that this same group could return but be stationed in Gaza.

Menachem Begin is quoted as saying that they knew that Egypt was not going to attack. He said that Israel should not deceive itself about who attacked first. I will supply the actual quote later.

Once Israel attacked Egypt, which they did after checking if the US would back them unlike their attack in '56, Jordan attacked Israel because they had a treaty alliance with Egypt.

So it was Israel's attack that started the 67 war. Were there more complicated issues involved? Yes. But in the end, Israel knew Egypt would not attack but went ahead and struck first anyway.

Orthodox Presbyterian is as Calvinist and Presbyterian as they come. In addition, I was a student at Westminster Seminary in the late '70s so I know about Calvin. All I am saying is that when you see his attitude toward some issues, like burning heretics at the stake, I think we need to examine, not assume to be right or wrong, his statements about war.

Regarding the WWI reference, all I am saying is that not all wars have a clear distinction between good and evil. Some do, some don't. I agree with you that WWII did. But considering the full context of the terrorist attacks against the US, I think we are witnessing a battle between two evils who have legitimate grievances. My references to those who are evil are to the leaders of each side.

Finally, my reference to Smedley Butler was about pre-WWII evils, not WWII itself.

Again, the documentation is available, such as in Chalmers Johnson's book "The Sorrows of Empire". Again, Johnson is a Navy vet and former CIA consultant who documents our shipment of WMD materials to Iraq even after the Saddamn's use of WMDs on the Kurds. The documentation is in other places as well.

Regarding the Iraqi children who died because of the sanctions, realize that it was the US and UK who pushed for the sanctions. If the sanctions stayed based on the original UN resolution, then the sanctions would have been lifted after the US expelled Saddamn from Kuwait, but that did not happen.

And the bombing of Iraq was not part of the sanctions as much as to enforce a "no-fly zone". But we bombed outside of that anyway.

But I think the problem here is a chicken-egg question. Is the information I cited the reason why some joined the left or was it merely propaganda by the left? There is too much documentation, that says we supported Saddamn once he was the leader. Pilger merely said we put the B'aath party in power in the 60s

No, caday5, the 1967 Israeli-Arab war did not begin with an Israeli attack on Egypt.

No, caday5, the battle between the radical Islamists and us is not a battle between two evils. The radical Islamists engage in terrorist attacks that kill innocent people for the sake of spreading a theocratic rule according to a 7th century ideology. We don't do any of that; we stand for democracy and people being able to live a decent life in freedom. The Iraqis figured that out, which is one reason we are winning in Iraq.

No, caday5, we did not put Sadddam in power, and we did not support him in power.

And while you did not bring it up, what you are saying is on the same level as the 9/11 conspirqacy folks, but no, caday5, the U.S. Government was not behind the 9/11 attacks.

That you say what you do shows you to be completely off the wall. You are a left wing nut job.

The Historians say Israel attacked first and so did Israel.

And yes the terrorists you are referring to are evil. But so is the society that allows Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and denies its responsibilities during the sanction years in Iraq.

There are other things we have done. We overthrew the democratic gov't of Guatamala in '54, Greece's democratic elections in '67, and Chile in '73. There are far more instances of our evil to list.

Your model of thought is what Os Guiness calls Dualism--the battle between we who are good vs them who are evil. Next to utopian societies they are a leading cause of death and violence.

Phil, if you are a Calvinist, then you know the doctrine of total depravity. If so, why is it so surprising to you that the US and Israel can be sinners like the rest of the world?

All your posts establish, caday5, is that you are a leftist who: (1) doesn't know history; and (2) hates America, calling this country evil.

Are you forgetting total depravity and that that can very easily occur to any country.

The question about is history is whether you are willing to investigate history that challenges your idealism of America. The events I cited are well-documented by credible sources, some of whom I listed.

What I want for America is for it to practice morality. We both want America to do that with regards to abortion, our differences are in foreign policies.

I am not forgetting anything in my 57 years, particularly the intellectual dishonesty of the Left in this country and how it continually attempts to re-write history in order to justify unjustifiable policies. America is a great nation; America is, as Lincoln put it, the last best hope of earth. Too bad you fill your head with nonsense.

You are taking a statement made by Lincoln to analyze America's subsequent actions? Doesn't that imply your mind is made up so that regardless of what we do, it is morally justified?

And personally, I have seen just as much intellectual dishonesty on the right as on the left. And I would not conclude that an individual from either side is being intellectually dishonest.

No, caday5, America is not an evil country. I meant what I wrote in stating that America is a great country. What Lincoln called us in December 1862 is still true in May 2008.

If you mean intellectual dishonesty and re-writing history on the Right to mean Pat Buchanan, with that I would agree.

Maybe there is stuff you don't want to see from History because you hold Lincoln's state to still be true.

A while ago, I wrote an article asking if patriotism has become a religion. I think it is natural for people to sometimes worship their country to some degree or another.

I already listed references from credible sources. Check them out. What I think you will find is that America is not the exceptional country, in terms of foreign policy, that you think it is.

But well worth the wait. My hopes of how informative and concise your blog would be have been exceeded and I thank you for that.

Your efforts are not wasted here.

get your information from left wing propagandist but you certainly do omit the larger world events and fail to question why certain actions were taken. Throughout your condemnation of the actions taken by the U.S. through the last half of the twentieth century you make no mention or attempt to place regional events in context with the cold war.
In decrying U.S. actions and in seeing both sides as evil in current events suggest their are no differences between the general outlook and end goals of either side, or in the metods to bring them about. It is a viewpoint that does not stand up to honest assesment of side by side comparisons of America and her enemies.

I think it is good for you to bring up the Cold War context. The question becomes then, was everything we did that would be an obstacle to the Communists justifiable?

For some the answer was yes, and as a result, our nation's policies employed a form of boolean logic--only two answers are allowed. This logic was criticized by Martin Luther King Jr in his sermon against the Vietnam War because he stated that we wrongly employed that kind of description in describing our enemies in Vietnam.

Another place where we used our Cold War boolean logic was while sponsoring a war of terror against Nicaragua in the 80s. We ignored the fact that Nicaragua did not employ the totalitarian mentality of the USSR and even offered their people more freedom than what our ally El-Salvador offered their's. All we needed to know was that they were Communists and we totally opposed them and portrayed them as a threat.

But more offending cases were Iran in '53 where the mere nationalization of oil reserves was enough to paint them as the enemy. But it was not just there, wherever we found a flaw, we used it to associate the gov't we were overthrowing with Communism (Greece in 67 and Chile in 73 are examples).

So the question becomes, was everything we did justifiable because of the Cold War? This is an important question now because we are now employing the same boolean logic in the War on Terror.

"But more offending cases were Iran in '53 where the mere nationalization of oil reserves was enough to paint them as the enemy."
It wasnt the mere nationalization of oil reserves it was the political implications that would put them into the soviet camp. Much the same as most of the events you have given as being a "boolean logic" I have no idea what that word means.

I think in your reply you streangthen my point by pointing out that it is only the word association of communist and seemingly denying the real world relationships between diferent communist nations.

I made your point if you can show that the mere nationalization of oil reserves because foreign powers were benefiting from your natural resources at your expense makes you communist.

Or if you consider Nicaragua, why consider them an enemy if they were a non-totalitarian state? How was their mere internal communistic bend a threat to us?

The point of my note is that the world is more nuanced than what an approach based on boolean logic recognizes and is thus inadequate.

Did I see the word "nuanced" in your last post? Yes, I did. The word "nuanced" is a favorite of left wing Democrats to rationalize a foreign policy of apology and appeasement. It is a recipe for a disastrous foreign policy.

Jimmy Carter had and has a "nuanced" view, and when he left office, the world seemed to be spinning out of control; the Soviets were aggresive and we were at the seeming mercy of Iranian radical Islamists who were holding hostage our Embassy personnel in Tehran. Ronald Reagan's more simplistic view, one that led him to call the Soviet Union the "evil empire," resulted in a safer world: the Iranians did not dare hold on to the hostages for a day; and communism in Eastern Europe was about to fall.

What is inadequate is to cite the need for a "nuanced" view and end up prattling about 1953 and not face forthrightly the challenges of the radical Islamic jihadists in the 21st century. For those of us with flesh and blood in the battle, that srikes us as cowardly and stupid.

nuanced is a word that comes in handy when you've dug as far into the rabbit hole as you can and still can't find a defense for an absurd position. John Kerry (who once served in Viet Nam) popularized it in the democrat lexicon.

nuanced implies distinctions. Using math terms we would say that nuanced recognizes that the world works with continuous objects.

The denial of nuance would lead one to believe that when Iran went to nationalize their oil reserves, they became communists. Or that when Nicaragua replaced the American backed Somoza dictatorship with the Sandistas who allowed for and won elections that they were a threat like the Soviet Uninion was a threat.

See, when everything is black or white, you have to ignore important details that distinguish the different countries that exist in the world. In fact, there is a whole school of Psychology that deals with the overuse of black-white thinking, also called dichotomous or all-or-nothing thinking. They find that such thinking causes emotional problems.