Archive for violence
Say No to Kony 2012
Posted by: |Almost anyone with a connection to Facebook in the last 48 hours has probably heard of this “Kony 2012” thing making the rounds of the Internet. But what exactly is it?
At the core, Kony 2012 is a propaganda meme spread by the Invisible Children political-activist group. Their 30 minute Youtube video has received well over 55 million views in just a few days. Now, if you watch the video you would be completely justified in feeling mortified and stupefied by the violence discussed therein – everyone ought to feel such things when aggression is used against the innocent. Nonetheless, you need to know what it is really about. As Shaun Connell has well noted:
Like many “youth” targeted movements these days, the focus of the video is extremely vague about what exactly social media “activists” are supposed to do, while making it seem incredibly romantic and important that the social media users have the ability to click the “share” button to help their organization become more famous. It’s a clever way to get users pumped up on powerful soundtracks and clips to click the share button. And it’s worked.
Don’t get me wrong, Joseph Kony has definitely caused a lot of suffering, although I think it is probably a stretch to call him the most evil man alive today as IC wants to imply. I can think of others who might deserve that title more. Even George W. Bush is indirectly responsible for far more deaths and more destruction than Kony could ever hope to accomplish. It is remarkable that we tend to forget such perspectives in the face of rock music and catch phrases.
Kony is ultimately a small fish in a large pond of African warlords, not extraordinarily different from the others. We have to look through the Invisible Children propaganda – they are just a publicity organization that wants to get money so they can lobby the government to start another violent conflict. Sure, it would be nice if Kony were not around anymore, but we should not point the U.S. government’s guns at U.S. citizens’ heads to extract the wealth and lives necessary to do it. Moreover, removing Kony will not do much good because somebody else will inevitably rise to take his place. Don’t think that the Ugandan government is an improvement either.
Africa is a mess, and another war is not going to help.
Non-interventionism is still the solution. We can do a lot better by allowing free passage of goods and people to let people escape and thwart their economic controls over the area. Missions of mercy that get the innocent out will accomplish far more than missions of war which will only result in more death, especially of the innocent. The United States should not police the world, as it has done little good in any continent where it has been tried. We cannot expect that the results will be better this time.
Yes, Kony is a bad guy. No, we shouldn’t get politically involved. We should never forget the deadly lessons of past interventions.
——
P.S. Shaun Connell has written an excellent piece on this Kony 2012, and I highly recommend you check it out.
Tags: Africa, government, interventionism, Media, memes, politics, violence, war
Theological Schizophrenia
Posted by: |It is bad enough that Republican warmongers like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Allan West are whining about the supposed cuts to the defense budget that are due to take place because of the failure of the congressional "supercommittee," but it is disgusting and shameful that a professor of practical theology and seminary chancellor would do likewise.
The defense "cuts," of course, are not really cuts at all, just reductions in the rate of spending increases of the bloated defense budget.
So, who is this Christian warmonger that is so upset about defense budget "cuts" that he thinks they are a deeply disturbing, draconian, recklessly dangerous, self-destructive absurdity.
He is not a member, with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Hal Lindsey, Cal Thomas, and Pat Boone, of the Christian axis of evil, although he should be. He is not a Christian killer par excellence, like Doug Giles. He is not a Christian warmonger on steroids, like Bryan Fischer. And neither is he the greatest Christian warmonger of all time. That designation goes to Ellis Washington.
He is Michael Milton, the newly elected chancellor/CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. Milton holds a B.A. from Mid-America Nazarene University, an M.Div. from Knox Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the University of Wales, Lampeter. He is the former pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in addition to founding two other churches and a Christian school. Milton is the host and speaker on Faith for Living, which can be seen on television and heard on radio. He has also released three music CDs and is the author of several books.
But perhaps I should also note that Dr. Milton has a diploma from the Defense Language Institute, holds a commission in the U.S. Army Reserves as a chaplain, and was elected in 2010 by the Chief of Chaplains to the College of Military Preachers and appointed an instructor at the Armed Forces Chaplain School. He is also the founding director of the Chaplain Ministries Institute in Charlotte. I also note that on October 14, 2001, it was announced that Reformed Theological Seminary had "been approved by the NC SAA Program to receive the GI Bill under the provisions of Title 38 and 10, United States Code!"
Milton is a theological schizophrenic. Schizophrenia has been described as a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness that most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking.
I know of no other way to describe Milton after reading his latest post on the Faith for Living blog hosted by his seminary:
The failure of the bipartisan super committee to take decisive action to reverse the 15 trillion-dollar debt crisis this country needs from becoming another Greece has, predictably, failed. Now the Washington blame game begins. However, the greatest losers are the American people and, specifically, those Americans who courageously and proudly wear the uniform of the armed services.
As threats of cuts are made to their very mission, our brave troops are on the ground, in the air, and on the seas fighting, defending, and protecting this nation from the continuing threats to our very existence as a people. The absurd decision to tie massive cuts to the US military as an "incentive" to force action by the super committee was one of the biggest mistakes ever made by Washington DC, and they have made a few recently. Of all the things that the government does, providing a military to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" just happens to be one of the clearest.
Scripture teaches that God has ordained government for the good of man. Civil authority, according to St. Paul, has been granted the power of the sword to punish evil, thereby protecting the innocent: "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (The Epistle to the Romans 13:4 KJV). The present talk of defense cuts flies in the face of our nation’s duty and our proud heritage.
We have had draw downs before – after WWII, after Vietnam, and after the Gulf War, but we have never had to think about draconian reductions while we were in the middle of a war! It is this very point that is deeply disturbing, and recklessly dangerous. The consequences of even the talk of such tinkering with our defenders, even if reasonable heads prevail to stop this absurdity, will have their consequences.
Have we not learned our lesson? Reagan’s military build-up in the 1980s reversed the ill-advised draw downs after Vietnam (just one front in a larger, trans-generational Cold War) and, according to scholars like Paul Kengor of Grove City College and the American Center for Vision and Values, "All of these ventures [the strengthening of defense] had the effect of demonstrating a stronger, resurgent America, not only economically but also militarily. Suddenly, the country that had left Vietnam no longer appeared to lack resolve" (The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism by Dr. Paul Kengor, HarperCollins, 2007, 82).
Kengor went on to demonstrate that President Reagan understood that America was still at war. According to this preeminent Reagan scholar, his action in strengthening the military greatly contributed to bringing down the Soviet Union. Why now, when our sacred military members are risking their lives to fight "over there" so we don’t fight "over here," would the president and other congressional leaders think that it is any different? To reduce military strength or even to talk about it as an option is to demoralize our troops while they are literally in the midst of a battle for our way of life.
Some may call it treason. I would call it self-destructive. As a minister of the gospel I would also call it irresponsible and immoral, given that God has called our civil authorities to protect our people against evil. May God have mercy and bless the troops who bravely carry on their mission to defend this nation, even while others who have taken the same oath are allegedly using the military as pawns in a Washington election year. There are times when the Church should speak up. Because our life and liberty is at stake, I think that time is now.
Milton holds to every armchair warrior, red-state fascist, reich-wing nationalist, imperial Christian fallacy known to man.
As I mentioned above, cutting the bloated defense budget is to Milton a deeply disturbing, draconian, recklessly dangerous, self-destructive absurdity. The "cuts" fly "in the face of our nation’s duty and our proud heritage." Never mind that the real defense budget is $1 trillion, that the United States spends more than the rest of the world combined, and that most defense spending is really spending on offense.
Milton idolizes members of the military. They are our "brave troops." They "courageously and proudly wear the uniform of the armed services." God should "bless the troops." U.S. soldiers are never Christian killers, murders, accomplices to murder, criminals, dupes, mercenaries, or part of the president’s personal attack force willing to obey his latest command to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary. They are "our sacred military members."
Milton is likewise deceived about the real mission of the military. He thinks they are "our defenders" who "defend this nation" and protect "this nation from the continuing threats to our very existence as a people." The government provides a military to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." U.S. troops "fight ‘over there’ so we don’t fight ‘over here.’" They are "in the midst of a battle for our way of life." But is this what the U.S. military actually does? Unfortunately, most of what the military does is more offense than defense, more foreign than domestic, and more civilian than martial. I think Milton needs a course in DOD 101.
Milton says that we are "in the middle of a war." The United States is actually in the middle of several wars. But rather than saying we should not cut defense because we are fighting wars, why not examine the wars we are fighting to see if they are just, right, and necessary? Since the undeclared, unconstitutional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Yemen, Pakistan, and everywhere else, are clearly – except to Christian warmongers and imperial Christians – unjust, immoral, and unnecessary, the only sensible solution is to end the wars, not increase the defense budget.
Like other Christian apologists for the state, its military, and its wars that I have written about who appeal to Romans 13 to justify their blind nationalism, their cheerleading for the Republican Party, their childish devotion to the military, their acceptance of national-security state, and their support for perpetual war, Milton seeks to justify a large defense budget by doing the same thing. This, of course, is ludicrous, since the passage has nothing to do with the government providing national defense. But let’s assume for a moment that it does. Fine. How does that justify bloated military budgets, foreign wars, militarism, imperialism, and policing the world? When it comes to the military budget, conservatives adopt the same fallacy as liberals do when it comes to education. To liberals more spending on education means better education; to conservatives more spending on defense means better defense.
And finally, why do conservatives always invoke the name of the criminal, warmongering, budget-busting, deficit-increasing, liberty-destroying, government-expanding, economic and foreign interventionist St. Reagan? Anyone remotely familiar with the Reagan record would not be impressed with Milton’s name-dropping. For the complete and utter evisceration of Reagan, see Murray Rothbard’s "The Reagan Phenomenon," "Ronald Reagan, Warmonger," and "Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy."
What is so bad about theological schizophrenics like Michael Milton is that they have a position of influence over many young people. We can only hope and pray that this is one college administrator that students never get to know.
Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on December 9, 2011.
Tags: Bible, culture, education, national defense, national security, nationalism, Romans 13, theology, violence, war, war on terror
Cursed Be Unconditional Obedience
Posted by: |"Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." ~ Major General Smedley Butler
"If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army." ~ Frederick the Great
"I find in existence a . . . dangerous concept that the members of the armed forces owe their primary allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch of the Government, rather than to the country and its Constitution they are sworn to defend. No proposition could be more dangerous." ~ General Douglas MacArthur
"There is one thing in the world more wicked than the desire to command, and that is the will to obey." ~ W. K. Clifford, mathematician and philosopher
After almost ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, the deadliest day for U.S. forces was just a few weeks ago on Saturday, August 6. On that day thirty U.S. military personnel were killed when their helicopter was shot down. The majority of those killed were said to be elite Navy Seals from the same unit that killed Osama bin Laden.
The question that was never asked about this event by any major news media outlet is a question that I (and a few others) have been asking since the war in Afghanistan began: What is the U.S. military doing in Afghanistan?
Tags: Afghanistan, bush, history, iraq, militarism, violence, war, war on terror
Just war or pacifism? Neither?
Posted by: |For the time being, I’m going to be continuing “Q&A Week” until I have caught up with all of the FAQ submissions… Dave asks:
For a libertarian Christian, is there such a thing as a just war, or are all libertarian Christians pacifists?
This is a terribly difficult question to answer. In sum, I do not believe that being a pacifist is a requirement for a Christian libertarian, but being anti-war is mandatory.
Proper wars – military conflicts – are almost always begun by states, between states. Other instances of wars, such as the Revolutionary War, are few in history. Since the Christian libertarian’s understanding of the state is that it is founded in rebellion against God and is evil in nature, we also understand that its reasons for executing violence against others must also be impure, vile, and evil. We must assume until proven otherwise that any war is unjust. (Even the Revolutionary War’s necessity is debatable, honestly.)
Just war theory, as proposed by Augustine first and many others following him, seeks to limit the state’s justifications for going to war, but there is a downside with the theory as well. Robert Brimlow has addressed this in his book What About Hitler?, and Laurence Vance had this to say in his review of Brimlow’s work:
Brimlow then demolishes the finer points of just war theory itself, even taking on the theologian Thomas Aquinas. The author considers just war theory, "as developed and defended both by church theologians and secular philosophers," untenable, and for three reasons:
- Just war theory is untenable because it is difficult to know with sufficient confidence whether all of its conditions have been met.
- Just war theory is untenable because some of its tenets are impossible to realize.
- Just war theory is untenable because it used to justify rather than to prevent war.
Go to Laurence’s full article for even more elaboration. I find it compelling. Just war theory has been used to justify terrible wars, including every American intervention/war of the 20th and 21st century. Why, then, would I want to adopt it?
Again, I do not think pacifism is the ultimate answer, but I think Leo Tolstoy, Stanley Hauerwas, John Yoder, and Dietrich Bonheoffer make strong cases for it. Here at LCC, Doug Douma has made persuasive arguments as well. On the other side, I don’t think we can claim that Jesus saying “turn the other cheek” completely excludes all forms of self-defense (see my exegesis of Matthew 5). Who knows, perhaps I will be convinced of pacifism someday, I don’t claim to have this nailed down yet. Currently, I think understanding the use of force through a careful viewing of natural law and ethics reveals the appropriateness of basic self-defense to protect one’s life, family, and property. But, you had darned well better be sure if you ever, ever raise your hand against another person.
Tags: ethics, just war theory, justice, pacifism, theology, violence, war
The Warmonger’s Lexicon
Posted by: |Defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions look like the majority of Americans. They also dress like them, eat like them, work like them, play like them, and talk like them. However, it is sometimes impossible to communicate with or make sense of them because some things they say have their own peculiar definition.
This differs from military doublespeak.
To really understand these defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions, one needs a warmonger’s lexicon. To get started, I propose the following entries:
Just war: any war the United States engages in.
Good war: any war in which the United States is on the winning side.
Defensive war: any war the United States starts.
George Bush: the Messiah, but especially when he was fighting against Muslims.
Barack Obama: Satan, but not when he is fighting against Muslims.
Insurgent: anyone who dares to fight against U.S. troops occupying his country.
Militant: see insurgent.
Enemy combatant: see militant.
Freedom fighter: an insurgent, militant, or enemy combatant supported by the United States when he fights against some other country.
Weapons of mass destruction: weapons that foreigners can use to attack Americans.
Advanced weapons systems: weapons that Americans can use to attack foreigners.
Allies: countries that support U.S. foreign policy.
Enemies: countries that don’t support U.S. foreign policy.
Patriot: any American who supports U.S. foreign wars.
Traitor: any American who opposes U.S. foreign wars.
Hero: any American solider who fought in any war against any country for any reason.
Coward: any American who doesn’t support U.S. soldiers fighting in senseless foreign wars.
American: supporting large defense budgets.
UnAmerican: opposing large defense budgets.
Threat to American security: see unAmerican, coward, and traitor.
Veteran: God’s chosen people.
Non-veterans: second-class citizens.
Muslim: terrorist.
Terrorist: Muslim.
Soldier: public servant.
Civilian: freeloader.
Isolationist: any American who opposes U.S. wars, empire, and/or foreign policy.
Zionist: someone who favors U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.
Anti-Semite: someone who opposes U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.
Pacifist: enemy of the United States.
Draft dodger: see pacifist.
Dead U.S. soldier: fallen hero.
Dead foreign civilian: collateral damage.
Torture: torture of Americans by foreigners.
Enhanced interrogation techniques: torture of foreigners by Americans.
Extraordinary rendition: U.S. supported torture of foreigners by foreigners.
U.S. interests: anything the United States wants to be interested in.
When it comes to defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions, learn their language so you won’t be intimidated or deceived by them, but don’t waste too much of your time with them. There is nothing more frustrating than discussing the finer points of something like just war theory and then finding out thirty minutes later that the warmonger you thought you were having a meaningful conversation with and in basic agreement with believes that all the wars the United States has engaged in are just wars.
Originally published on LewRockwell.com on July 4, 2011.
Tags: Afghanistan, bush, iraq, Obama, statism, statolatry, violence, war, war on terror
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the 