[Peace-discuss] RE:Supporting the troops? Who's responsible?

[Janine Giordano]

I really like what Carl has to say about how, in order to issue forgiveness, 
there must be some sin or "evil" committed.

It's interesting to note that over the last couple weeks, there has been a 
debate on H-Religion (a discussion list for historians dealing with the 
history of religion) over the origins of the religious right. It has 
encompassed analyses of the voting behavior of people who called themselves 
"Jesus freaks" or followers of Billy Graham in the late 60s/early 70s, and 
discussed how poltical coalitions can be traced over the last thirty years. 
Currently, list members are discussing the theology of the new religious 
right and its correspondence with neoconservatives today: how fundamentalist 
Christian eschatology relating to Islam supports (in fact, undergirds) the 
Bush administration's foreign policy aims. We are discussing the cold war, 
palestine, and the way politics have been construed around religion. 
However, nobody has raised the point that religion is constructed around 
politics as much as politics is constructed around religion: In my 
estimation, theological interpretation is a highly poltical process, and 
construed in dialectical relationship with the political atmosphere of the 
era. It is no coincidence that Bible reference books are overwhelmingly 
written by Anglo white men, that fundamentalist seminaries are so heavily 
based in the South in universities entrenched in the politics of segregation 
and misogyny, nor that many of today's evangelical ministers are direct 
descendants of the upper/middle class of whites in the South who had owned 
slaves and vehemently defended "state's rights" (and tobacco..). Many of us 
on the left know this---only too well--but evangelicals who have been 
"grafted in" ethnically and racially into the Anglo-dominated institution of 
the Protestant churches in the US are often kept ignorant of the fact that 
so much Bible interpretation (sytematic theology) is founded in universities 
that are based in white supremacist politics. (If you want more on this, I'd 
be happy to elaborate. I went to a conference in Chicago this past November 
wherein I spoke with some of the big-wigs in this push toward politicizing 
Christian colleges and universities in "fundamentalist Christian" values. 
I'd love to talk about this more if anyone is interested. I had a 
fascinating--and pretty horrifying--private conversation with Dallas 
Willard--a hugely influential Christian philosopher/theologian.)

So, when I ask myself who is responsible for the war and supporting the 
troops, I do not simply blame Bush or the evangelical Christians who are 
close-minded and misinformed enough to believe him. I do not only blame the 
ignorant parents of these Christians who raised them in racial hatred and 
xenophobia, or in the extreme influx of "family values" --another name for 
negating the power of the women's lib movement and resurrecting male 
authority in the public and private domains. I also blame the evangelical 
community for supporting the Anglo-centric, ultra-nationalistic, imperial 
agenda of Southern conservative white men who call themselves bible 
scholars. I think we (even and especially us Christians) need to see 
biblical interpretation and theology as a highly political, contingent and 
political process--and those of us who are Christ-followers should not see 
this as any threat to belief in Christ as Messiah. Bob Jones University is 
alive and well as a center for theological interpretation.

Early on in the h-net conversation, the list moderator made an announcement 
that too many people were sending in "political statements," and that he 
would not post any statements that were partisan. Ha! I sent in a comment 
that religious history is inherently political, but it has not been posted 
to date and I doubt it will be. Let's try to divide following Christ (the 
Christian faith) from contentious theolgical interpretations.... I find the 
desire of some to argue these are inherently linked as the source of a lot 
of political blame.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE:Supporting the troops? Who's responsible?


> Phil--
>
> I think the question is less what Bush believes than what his
> administration thinks it can get Americans to believe.
>
> Obviously some Christian fundamentalists do support what they
> see as a religious crusade.  Others don't.  You have to admit
> that some people who fit your definition of a Christian
> fundamentalist (viz., "someone who believes that the Bible
> is the inspired word of God and who shares core beliefs about
> man's nature, sin, salvation, repentance, etc.") nevertheless
> do construe their theological position as "supporting a
> so-called holy war."  Lt. Gen. William Boykin, the
> Undersecretary for Defense Intelligence, is only one of the
> best-known.  ("The enemy is a guy called Satan ...
> [international terrorists] ... are after us because we're a
> Christian nation...," etc.)
>
> But I'm not a bit surprised that, among "the five Christians
> who are closest to [you] and whose opinions matter deeply to
> [you], not one of them supports what Bush is doing or believes
> that he is doing God's will."  I've argued for a while that
> the most principled opposition to this war has come from the
> beginning from the Right -- the so-called paleo-conservatives,
> many of them religious -- rather than from liberals.
>
> And obviously Christian fundamentalists who think the war is
> wrong shouldn't refrain from saying so just because some
> "progressive groups ... pigeonhole [them] and tell [them]
> what [they] believe."  That's an occasion for saying what they
> really believe (as you do), not for withholding support from
> the anti-war movement because liberals misunderstand them,
> misrepresent them, or disrespect them.  That would be granting
> far too much to the opinions of liberals.
>
> And of course you're right to say "it's possible [indeed, it's
> a fundamental necessity] to make a distinction and love the
> individual (the troops) but express hate for what he or she is
> doing (killing innocent people)."  We're told to forgive
> seventy time seven.  But forgiveness implies that there's
> something to forgive -- in this case, a serious evil, and we
> don't forgive by ignoring it and calling it good.  If we try
> to love those around us, we need to try to remove what
> corrupts them -- which at the moment is the vast evil our
> country does in our name and with our acquiescence.
>
> Regards, Carl
>
>
> On Sat Mar 4 Phil Stinard pstinard at hotmail.com wrote--
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> Thank you for your insightful comments.  I did hear Bush's
> comments about
> combatting Islamic extremists and was wondering how he defines
> "Islamic
> extremists."  I don't know whether he believes what he's
> saying, or whether
> he thinks he can garner support from whoever's support is
> needed to continue
> the war.  If you have any more insights on those questions,
> feel free to
> expound.
>
> My disagreement with Soderstrom's article is that he was
> painting Christian
> fundamentalists as supporting a religious crusade.  Here's an
> example from
> the article:  "In order to justify such behavior, Americans
> (especially
> fundamentalist Christians) have found it increasingly necessary to
> con themselves into believing that our children are, for
> whatever reason,
> more precious than that of our enemy’s children...."  Thinking
> over the five
> Christians who are closest to me and whose opinions matter
> deeply to me, not
> one of them supports what Bush is doing or believes that he is
> doing God's
> will, nor do they believe that one human life is more precious
> than another.
>  I'm really tired of people pigeonholing me and telling me
> what I believe.
> Such carelessness is probably one reason why progressive
> groups don't
> receive more support than they do from Christian
> fundamentalists.  (I'm
> defining a Christian fundamentalist as someone who believes
> that the Bible
> is the inspired word of God and who shares core beliefs about
> man's nature,
> sin, salvation, repentance, etc.  In NO WAY can that be
> construed as
> supporting a so-called holy war.)
>
> Moving along, we have your comparison of US troops to Hitler's
> army:
>
>>And it raises the difficult question of how we are to respond
>>to those who carried out the mass murder, coerced and misled
>>as they may have been.  We asked that question about the
>>Germans after WWII, but the Germans surely had less freedom
>>than we and our contemporaries do to find out what the
>>situation is and to act upon it -- and therefore perhaps
>>correspondingly less guilt.
>>
>>What would we say about a German in 1944 who said, "I support
>>our troops"?  We must say at least as much about an American
>>who says that today.  --CGE
>
> That's certainly food for thought, but what would you suggest
> we do?  Is it
> possible to make a distinction and love the individual (the
> troops) but
> express hate for what he or she is doing (killing innocent
> people)?  Would
> you make that distinction, and if so, how would you go about
> doing it?
>
> --Phil
>
>>Original message:
>
>>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 23:48:05 -0600
>>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Supporting the troops? Who's
>> responsible?
>>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>
>>You're surely right, Phil, about the sources of the war,
>>altho' I might quibble about a "stable oil supply": the US has
>>insisted for years that it control Middle east energy
>>resources principally as a way to control its major economic
>>rivals, Europe and northeast Asia.
>>
>>But that's not what's argued publicly.  In fact, the
>>administration has recently made an interesting rhetorical
>>shift from "the global war on terror" to the (somewhat less
>>euphonious) war against the "global extremist Islamic empire"
>>[sic] (which Rumsfeld specifically compared to the American
>>Cold War propaganda idea of the international Communist
>>conspiracy) or the war on "radical Islam," as Bush said in
>>Pakistan today. That is, they're insisting ever more on the
>>religious aspect of their propaganda.
>>
>>Compare that with UK PM Tony Blair's proclamation this weekend
>>(http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article349125.ece)
>>"that God will judge whether he was right to send British
>>troops to Iraq, echoing statements from his ally George Bush,"
>>as the Independent/UK put it.  (I think that it's going to be
>>a difficult interview for Tony.)
>>
>>I think it's not the case that the article is "trying to
>>drum up religious hatred (or more precisely, hatred of a
>>particular religion) to attack anyone and everyone who serves
>>our country."  In the contrary, the author's trying to point
>>out how hateful it is to "cover sin with smooth names" and
>>blasphemously invoke the name of God to justify mass murder.
>>
>>And it raises the difficult question of how we are to respond
>>to those who carried out the mass murder, coerced and misled
>>as they may have been.  We asked that question about the
>>Germans after WWII, but the Germans surely had less freedom
>>than we and our contemporaries do to find out what the
>>situation is and to act upon it -- and therefore perhaps
>>correspondingly less guilt.
>>
>>What would we say about a German in 1944 who said, "I support
>>our troops"?  We must say at least as much about an American
>>who says that today.  --CGE
>>
>>
>>---- Original message ----
>> >Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:19:33 -0600
>> >From: "Phil Stinard" <pstinard at hotmail.com>
>> >Subject: [Peace-discuss] RE: Supporting the troops? Who's
>>responsible?
>> >To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> >
>> >It's an interesting article, but its premise is flawed.  The
>>war in Iraq is
>> >not about whose "God" is right or wrong, it's about economics
>>and ensuring a
>> >stable oil supply.  To be sure, support for the war is being
>>garnered by
>> >marketing it as a holy war to people with certain religious
>>views, but that
>> >is a minority viewpoint.
>> >
>> >What's sad about the article is that the author is trying to
>>drum up
>> >religious hatred (or more precisely, hatred of a particular
>>religion) to
>> >attack anyone and everyone who serves our country.  Even
>>Ricky, in another
>> >post to Peace-Discuss that I'll comment on later, says that
>>he has a veteran
>> >friend who is troubled by this trend.
>> >
>> >--Phil
>> >
>> >
>> >>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:59:37 -0600
>> >>From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
>> >>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Supporting the troops?Who's
>>responsible?
>> >>To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> >>Message-ID: <ED3132A3-B280-46C0-914B-10C059559026 at
> insightbb.com>
>> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   I agree with the thrust of the following article. The
>>author poses
>> >>some forceful questions: Are youth in Iraq responsible?
>>Has the
>> >>fact that they may have been swindled remove their guilt?
>>Are we all
>> >>just pawns of our environment and upbringing? Was Ward
>>Churchill right?
>> >>
>> >>Of course, we all can't be put in the same basket, but are we
>> >>Americans, as a people, any different from the Good Germans
>>of WWII--mkb
>> >>
>> >>Published on Friday, March 3, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
>> >>Why I Cannot Support The Troops In Iraq
>> >>by Doug Soderstrom
>> >>...
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>