RSS
An Army Wages War, Right?
This U.S. soldier declared before Congress that he would not deploy to Iraq in June to participate in an “illegal” war. Other soldiers were paraded in front of members of Congress, all of them spewing horror stories of the murders and rapes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq. I find this shameful on several levels. First, Mr. Chiroux signed up with the army knowing full well that he would most likely be put in harms way. It is not his position to make decisions on the legality of the war, rather he is to serve as a valuable piece of machinary in the military machine. To run an army any other way is absurd. I can already hear some among you arguing that soldiers can abstain from fighting in a blatanly “evil” war. That may be true but the illegality or evilness of the war must be so apparent that there can be no question as to the illegitimacy of the war. That is simply not the case here.
Second, I am offended that partisan groups would parade these soldiers who are against the war in front of Congress and the national media, with the hope of demoralizing our soldiers in Iraq by demonstrating how “unstable” or “lawless” our troops are. I would argue that these few men and women are the exception to the rule of competent and reasonable military men and women who make up our armed forces. Why are their voices not being brought in front of Congress? I have had the opportunity to speak with several individuals who have fought in Iraq and not one of them thinks that the war was wrong and that we cannot win and that our armed forces are conducting themselves as we would hope. This dog and pony show in front of Congress is akin to Hanoi Jane and the Vietnam Vets against the war in the early 1970s.
Third, and Bill already addressed this in a previous post, is the constant focus on post traumatic stress disorder that some soldiers return home with. I have no doubt that some if not all soldiers return home changed and with baggage. Undoubtedly it is serious baggage. However, did soldiers not have this baggage in any previous war? War is hell and soldiers who voluntarily sign up to engage in war will have to deal with it, just as U.S. soldiers have been since the Revolution. The idea that this is some new problem and those diagnosed are any different or more harmed by the stress of combat than any previous soldiers makes no sense to me. This stress is not unique or special. It comes with the territory.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Your outrage and disgust is shared by many, myself included.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
“I cannot deploy to Iraq, carry a weapon and not be part of the problem.” Says the deserter.
Now you can’t. I sincerely hope he lands in a military prison.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I agree Bill. He is a deserter and should be treated as such.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“That may be true but the illegality or evilness of the war must be so apparent that there can be no question as to the illegitimacy of the war. That is simply not the case here.”
It was apparent to the Holy Father with virtually every other bishop on the face of the earth. In fact I don’t know of a single Bishop who did, and doesn’t, think that the US was an unjust aggressor. That’s a majority I’m willing to side with on any moral issue.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
LTG,
Still waiting for that explicit condemnation of the war in Iraq from the Holy See. You know, the one that says “This war is unjust and illegal, and it’s a sin to serve in an army that fights it.”
Still waiting . . .
May 16th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Thank you, Mr. WAC.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:18 am
The bible explicitly commands that any soldier be excused from any battle for pretty much any reason, including if he is merely faint of heart. God’s morality gives every man the opportunity to exercise his conscience individually, since each man will have to individually give account for his actions before the Great White Throne. No man will be able to say, “I was following the Marine rules of engagement” and expect a free pass.
Of course if the state is your god then you get to take your morality from the state. And maybe you’ll get to bypass the White Throne. We’ll see.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Dean,
Perhaps you mean that every man may be excused from being a soldier if he is a coward. That’s fine. But this man voluntarily joined the Army. He is already a soldier. He no longer has the luxury of opting out of a conflict, whether he agrees with it or not. The sergeants do not command the army, deciding which battles to fight and which to bypass.
You are right. Every person has the option and moral standing to declare their cowardice. But, once a person has raised his hand and promised to protect the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic, he can longer claim his cowardice without subjecting himself to the certitude of court martial and incarceration.
I would just like to add another note. This “soldier” should be stripped of any benefit that he may have claim to including his GI Bill, retirement, etc. He should not be rewarded with the goodies, if he has not executed his end of the deal.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:59 am
The scriptural command refers to soldiers in the army. And scripture presupposes that justly any man in the army is there voluntarily. The command indeed does explicitly give any soldier the option of opting out of any battle.
Your arguments are nicely illustrating my point. They do not derive their morality from scripture, but from the state. If you want that to define your morality, go for it. But please do not pretend that it harmonizes with the righteous standards of scripture.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Perhaps you could provide a citation…
May 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Mr. May,
Can you explain to me how an army can function properly if every private is able to question every decision that comes down the chain of command on moral grounds?
May 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Deut 20:5-8 The officers shall say to the army: “Has anyone built a new house and not dedicated it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may dedicate it. Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it. Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her.” Then the officers shall add, “Is any man afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his brothers will not become disheartened too.”
There is no righteous place in scripture for the kind of national standing army you are advocating. Indeed scripture views such an army as a curse (1 Sam 8:11-12) They are an invention of empire and absolutely essential for powerful centralized nation-states to continue. It is precisely the kind of army our country’s founders warned against. They envisioned citizen’s militia, which was largely what guarded our country pre-War Between the States and a much more righteous form of military.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Interestingly, the passage you cited goes on to say:
Deut 20:10-20: When you march up to attack a city, first offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor.
But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you battle, lay siege to it, and when the LORD, your God, delivers it into your hand, put every male in it to the sword; but the women and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth plundering you may take as your booty, and you may use this plunder of your enemies which the LORD, your God, has given you. “That is how you shall deal with any city at a considerable distance from you, which does not belong to the peoples of this land. But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD, your God, has commanded you, lest they teach you to make any such abominable offerings as they make to their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD, your God.
The passage you’ve cited seems to advocate for the enslavement of conquered peoples and wholesale genocide. Do also agree with those passages? Or do you pick and choose between passages as fits your personal sensibilities?
May 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Can you explain to me how an army can function properly if every private is able to question every decision that comes down the chain of command on moral grounds?
Indeed it cannot function as policemen killing people and changing regimes half a world away in countries that have never attacked us. That is the kind of army your world view requires. But it is still unrighteous. Our troops over there largely see the futility of what they are being ordered to do and they want to come home. You are demanding they stay and continue killing people even against their conscience.
If there were truly malevolent armies at our border I dare say there would be man a plenty enough to take care of the problem, that is, if we were able to properly arm ourselves as the Constitution declares.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:17 am
The passage you’ve cited seems to advocate for the enslavement of conquered peoples and wholesale genocide. Do also agree with those passages? Or do you pick and choose between passages as fits your personal sensibilities?
All of us pick and choose, but as we strive to become more self conscious in our pursuit of living as a Christians we must by necessity abandon such practices as we are brought face to face with our dishonesty.
We must start with the premise that scripture is true and the only defining standard of righteous behavior. If you are willing to accept that as a premise I would love to continue the discussion with you in analyzing the remainder of the Deut 20 passage. For even the passage quoted provides a wealth of insight into the wickedness of our current campaign in Iraq.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Thank you Dean, for you candor. I do not intend to engage in a theological debate with you (or anyone). It is neither my forte, nor is it the focus of this website. There are numerous excellent websites for that type of discourse. (Indeed, I would recommend former CD contributor Mike’s new website, Syzygus, as an excellent example of the sort of website which would embrace such an argument - although, you may not get much of an argument from Mike). As this website is dedicated to politics and culture, a purely theological discussion on this site would be something of a digression. That said, there are some on this website who may take you up on the offered challenge. I am not the person.
Having said that, I think reasonable people may disagree about the licitness of our war in Iraq. As I’ve said on this website on numerous occasions before, I believe that the war is borderline, but that we are stuck with it. It would be inhumane for us to precipitously withdraw and leave the populace to fend for itself, ill-equipped to deal with the certain onslaught of factions vying for power in our wake. It is not without some sympathy for your position that I read your comments. I suppose, being a realist, I look at the situation prospectively when making statements about it.
We may have been wrong in pursuing this war - it is debatable. Okay, what now? That is my approach for what it’s worth.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I, like Karl, appreciate your point of view Mr. May. However, when you say “It is precisely the kind of army our country’s founders warned against. They envisioned citizen’s militia, which was largely what guarded our country pre-War Between the States and a much more righteous form of military.” that is not entirely correct. George Washington and other Federalists (see Hamilton et al) all argued for a standing army. In fact, Washington preferred not to use militia because he found them to be unreliable and poorly trained for combat. His main concern was desertion during the Revolution and a standing army prevented that. It was only when Jefferson (the founder of the modern Democratic Party) and his cronies took power that the love of militia came pack en vogue. I see it as a divide between the Jeffersonian Romantic vision of the role of the militia versus the Federalist Realist approach of a standing army.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Mr. Wac writes : “Still waiting for that explicit condemnation of the war in Iraq from the Holy See. You know, the one that says “This war is unjust and illegal, and it’s a sin to serve in an army that fights it.”
Still waiting . . .”
As you should be aware, the Church speaks in more nuanced language than that. But language which is clear enough except to those who blind themselves. To wit:
Speaking to the Italian daily La Stampa , Cardinal Angelo Sodano (bio - news) remarked that in Europe, there is some dispute over the legitimacy of the Iraqi government, and “perhaps the judgment of history will be severe.” Nevertheless, he said, “We have to consider the fact: This son has been born. Even if he is illegitimate, he is here; he have to raise him and educate him.”
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32299
Catholic World News : Cardinal Sodano urges support for Iraq
May 21st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Or this from Cardinal Sodano which is very explicit considering that it comes from the Secratary of State of the Holy See :
“We are against the war,” the Secretary of State told a group of Italian journalists. He added that whatever arguments might be made about a “pre-emptive strike” on Iraq, “it is certainly not a defensive war.”
May 21st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Anecdotal evidence, drawn from the personal opinions of churchmen, will not make your case for a clear argument from authority against the war.
Definitive statements (the Church is not above making them from time to time, I’m sure you know) will.
Shame for you, there aren’t any.
I do not blind myself in any way. I am just sitting here, waiting for the Church to explicitly condemn the war. And it hasn’t happened.
And it won’t, because men of good will are free to come to there own conclusions regarding the morality and justification of any given war until the Church speaks.
Of course, you and your cohort can presume to speak for the Church all you want on the matter. Until the Church herself speaks for herself, I will continue to use my informed conscious, in light of the teachings of the Church, to come to my own conclusions.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
For those who are bit blind. Substitute sexual relations for war. In which case the comment would read:
whatever arguments might be made for the sexual relations between this couple (sic), “it is certainly not a marriage. (sic)”
Which is to say : “The sexual relation is fornication, and it’s a sin to willingly participate in the act.”
or as Mr. Wac writes substituting war back into the equation : ” “This war is unjust and illegal, and it’s a sin to “(willingly when an alternative is available)” serve in an army that fights it.”
May 21st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Mr. Wac writes : “Anecdotal evidence, drawn from the personal opinions of churchmen, will not make your case for a clear argument from authority against the war.”
The Secretary of State of the Holy See is “anecdotal evidence”??? “Peals before sine”
May 21st, 2008 at 11:25 pm
So, you’ve got a Cardinal in Rome who says the war is bad.
I can produce a Bishop in Australia who says that Abortion is okay.
I can probably dig up a couple of Archbishops who think that contraception is, in some cases, a moral imperative.
But, even if I could produce a parade of prelates and an assembly of archmandrites to come to my aid in arguing for these things, as far as proving my argument, it still wouldn’t matter a tinker’s damn, because we have definitive Church teaching to the contrary.
Since there is, in the present case, an absence of definitive Church teaching, then I still can come to the conclusion that the War in Iraq is morally justified based on my own informed and (hopefully) enlightened conscious, regardless of what individual clerics say or think.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Yes, the one cleric stating his opinion is anecdotal evidence. It is a textbook definition of what anecdotal evidence is.
The moral authority of the Church is exercised not by the Secretary of State, or by any individual, but by the Church as a whole with one voice (una voce.)
May 21st, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Mr. Wac. It was not a defensive war. And to say otherwise is to lie to yourself. It’s as simple as that.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 am
I take this from two tacks:
1. The war is defensive, though not self-defensive. If we defend Iraqis from a despot minority government that secures its international significance by killing a million of its own people, then its a defensive war.
To stop an unjust aggression is, in every case, a positive good, and can, in many cases, be a duty.
2. If you don’t think that stabilizing the world’s energy supply does not amount to self-defense, you are more than a bit blind yourself.
Stable access to oil makes modern civilization possible. Your last day with oil will be the last nice day you have for a long, long time. Think about it: No commerce, no plastics, none of the machines that make modern life possible. And, in most places, no electricity. How long do you think it will take for the West to descend into chaos? Getting the oil out of the hands of murderous nutjobs is the first priority. Getting rid of it all together is the second.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Well put, WAC!
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
1. if that is your definition of justifiable defensive war then there is literally no limit to the number of armed conflicts we are morally obligated to enjoin.
2. Apparently self defense to you is not using lethal force in response to mortal danger. You feel justified in using lethal force to maintain a cheap extravagant American lifestyle and call it self defense. I guess that works since you are able to self consciously cast off any moral restraint of scripture.
Your plan does not seem to be working w/ gas at $4/gal and climbing. Maybe we need to kill a few hundred thousand more to get the cheap oil we are entitled to.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:56 am
1. No, In fact there are more defensive wars we could justifiably engage in. But there is a limit. Infact, a quantifiable limit…there are only so many abhorrent regimes in this world.
2. Dean, look at the world beyond your book nose! Defense of others is a moral obligation.
3. You seem rather angry at America considering your isolationist-pacifist positions.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
1. the only limit is in the total number of people on the planet
2. Then I expect you’ll be taking off to Texas with your gun in hand to defend the mothers who’ve had their babies stolen by thugs in uniform. Oh wait, you guys only advocate killing people in impoverished third world countries that have never attacked us.
3. I do not believe it helps people when we kill them and install new governments (this will be our third consecutive -and bloodiest- government to install in Iraq), especially when the government we install explicitly states all its laws will be based on the Koran. If that is what you call isolationist then that’s me. I personally consider myself an interventionist but the way I attempt to help people and change cultures is more in line with the Great Commission.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
3. Don’t forget that we put Hussein in power. It took two attempts to do so and it was particularly bloody. We also put the guy before Hussein in power. If you think this time we’ll succeed in winning the hearts of the people you have an amazing faith in the salvation of the state. Personally, my faith rests in a different deity.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Dean May,
I’m not trying to defend an extravagant American lifestyle, just civilization as we know it.
When I said “Your last day with oil will be your last good day for a long, long time” I mean that, without oil (meaning without enough oil to supply the public with fuel at anything like a reasonable cost) our nation WILL fall into anarchy and chaos. People WILL kill one another, there WILL be riots, people (in particular, poor ruaral people) WILL starve to death, and our country WILL (for some period of time, at least) turn into the most brutal dictatorship in the world, if we’re lucky.
That’s not mere pap, nor is it alarmist bushwah, it’s the truth. Honestly, do you think any nation would go to war over lifestyle? Even one as navel-centric as our own? Getting out from underneath the tyranny of the oil producing states is as much a moral imperative today as getting out from underneath Mutally Assured Destruction was in 1981.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Then I expect you’ll be taking off to Texas with your gun in hand to defend the mothers who’ve had their babies stolen by thugs in uniform. ”
Oh, come on! Polygamist rights?!?!?!? Thugs in uniform!!!!
And you dare to complain about the adoption (by popular acclaim) of Sharia law in Iraq????!!!?!?!?
Okay, I’ll pretend you’re serious:
The polygamist compound babies were separated from their parents because their parents were abusing them. Breeding and raising children in a felonious polygamist family is evidence of abuse res ipsa loquitor.
Meanwhile, in Sadam’s Iraq, there was in operation for decades a special prison for children wherein they were beaten, tortured, executed, and separated from worried parents for years on end just so Sadam’s government could terrorize political dissidents and ethnic minorities (as well as religious majorities.) More of your so-called “thugs in uniform” shut this heinous facility down.
I would think that any thoughtful consideration of the two would show that, in both cases, the United States (and its constituent parts, in the case of the State of Texas) acted in a moral manner.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:10 am
…our nation WILL fall into anarchy and chaos…
If our nation is that weak morally why should we try to make carbon copies of it around the world?
And you dare to complain about the adoption (by popular acclaim) of Sharia law in Iraq????!!!?!?!?
There is ample precedent in scripture for the inherent rights of polygamous families to live in peace. Or would you argue that Abraham and Jacob’s families were morally equivalent to Sharia law? Serial polygamy abounds in the rest of our culture and I would argue that the children of those messed up unions suffer far greater abuse than what the children in the FLDS compound have suffered. And for sure these FLDS children will suffer far more abuse in the CPS system than at the hands of their loving mothers. But you apparently think it is better for them to be immersed in public schools where they can learn normal sexual/mating practices in grade school.
Sharia law is wicked by definition. It matters not if it is adopted by popular acclaim. The fact that it was adopted by popular acclaim provides prima facia evidence that nothing we are doing (or can do) over there with guns is going to fundamentally change that society.
The polygamist compound babies were separated from their parents because their parents were abusing them.
Perhaps before making such exaggerated claims you might peruse the appellate court’s resounding condemnation of the Texas CPS action. The words “no evidence” were repeatedly used in relation to allegations of abuse.
Meanwhile, in Sadam’s Iraq…
No doubt he was a very bad man. Perhaps the meddling nation that financed and put him in power should be publicly humiliated and forever banned from any such attempt at regime change again. Indeed history shows that same meddling nation’s numerous other such regime changes in the last 50 years have been abysmal failures. In spite of that history you apparently hold fast to the faith, believing that this third consecutive regime change in Iraq by the USA will be different. That is, if we have the moral fortitude to force our troops to kill enough people.
I would think that any thoughtful consideration of the two would show that, in both cases, the United States (and its constituent parts, in the case of the State of Texas) acted in a moral manner.
After thoughtful consideration of most of your postings what I think is that you think that is reality by definition. No further thinking required.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:41 am
“… our nation WILL fall into anarchy and chaos. People WILL kill one another, there WILL be riots, people (in particular, poor ruaral people) WILL starve to death, and our country WILL (for some period of time, at least) turn into the most brutal dictatorship in the world, if we’re lucky.”
Looks like Mr. WAC has watched Mad Max one too many times.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Dean May,
“If our nation is that weak morally why should we try to make carbon copies of it around the world? ”
Not my point. Nor does modern man’s reliance on technology and energy reflect a moral weakness, only a physical one.
I’m sure you’ve never seen a riot develop. I have, and I can tell you that there is no moral reasoning involved. People get scared and/or angry and start acting with a collective intelligence, kind of like flocks of birds. Then, stuff get broken and ganked, and people get killed. A sure fire way to scare and/or anger most people in the Western World is to take away their food, power, and ability to travel. Riots are, in this case, inevitable.
So, the battle to secure oil is not simply a battle to secure our lifestyle. Rather, it is a battle to secure our civilization.
That’s my point. And, no, it has nothing to do with the “moral weakness” of our country, as you put it in the characteristically dismal manner of the leftist/socio-anarchist.
“Perhaps the meddling nation that financed and put him in power should be publicly humiliated and forever banned from any such attempt at regime change again. ”
Cry over the spilled milk all you want, and let the poor Muslims of the world die, if you like.
Or, perhaps you could stop crying over the spilled milk and try cleaning it up?
I keep faith with the right of self-determination for oppressed majorities. Period. Our efforts at regime change kept Central and South America out of the Red Sphere for 50 years. They worked with great effect in South Africa. And have you seen Japan lately? Any shoguns been whipping the peons into a blood frenzy any time in the last 60 years? No? I thought not.
“Perhaps before making such exaggerated claims you might peruse the appellate court’s resounding condemnation of the Texas CPS action. ”
You mean viz. the evidentiary problems? The CPS may have screwed up the warrant. But other evidence (like the fact that there has been a notorious polygamy sit cult operating in those parts for 100 years) would have made the eventual discovery of the crime inevitable. Texas making up for years of ignoring the problem (cleaning up the spilled milk, you might say.) The abuse IS the polygamy.
A direct question: Is polygamy not an unholy and disgusting practice, abhorrent to Western Civilization, as well as the laws of God and Man? Should children of these disgusting unions not become wards of the state?
I am sure that Texas will have no trouble proving child abuse (legally that is-they will continue to have a procedural nightmare.) Your heart may bleed for the mothers, and that’s natural. But I would suggest that the welfare of the Children is of paramount concern to all right thinking men.
“After thoughtful consideration of most of your postings what I think is that you think that is reality by definition. No further thinking required.”
While English is my native language, I’m having trouble with this sentence. Please clarify.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Burnman,
In Mad Max, there was still gasoline.
Since riots and looting occure as a matter of course almost every time a big city has a blackout, it’s not too far of a leap to suggest that the same thing would happen if there was a nationwide black out.
Such a situation would be aggrivated and protracted by (a) lack of transportation, (b) lack of communication, and (c) lack of food.
I’m sure you have put some thought into where your food, electricity, etc. come from. But most people haven’t. And when light can’t be produced by flipping a switch, and water can’t be obtained by turning a knob on a wall, people will riot.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
And, no, it has nothing to do with the “moral weakness” of our country
A culture that plunges into total disregard for the Law of God is morally weak by definition. You are the one who said that is what will happen in this country, ergo you are the one saying this country is morally weak, not me.
A direct question: Is polygamy not an unholy and disgusting practice, abhorrent to Western Civilization, as well as the laws of God and Man?
It is not abhorrent to the laws of God and that is all that matters. Far more abhorrent to the laws of God is our common practice of serial polygamy. That apparently doesn’t bother you nearly so much. Since it is sanctioned by the state god that is apparently good enough for you.
Should children of these disgusting unions not become wards of the state?
Only if God in heaven made a mistake in selecting their parents.
Woe to you who cause these little ones to stumble. Better for you that a millstone be tied around your neck and cast into the sea. Pretty harsh words coming from Lord Jesus. You might consider that as you continue to advocate the forced removal of happy, non-abused children from the arms of their loving mothers, placing them into the bosom of the godless state with a proven track record of incredibly detestable abuse of all kinds.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
“Only if God in heaven made a mistake in selecting their parents.”
Whoa…Dean! Do you really think God selects parents for all? That is completely nuts.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Well, if you are closet Calvinist and reject the idea of human free will, then Dean’s point is perfectly intelligible: The children which God selected for these children are only acting out the will of God.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Psalm 127: Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from Him.
Psalm 139: For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
The Fifth Commandment also presumes God’s matching parents to children.
These are verses that come immediately to mind. I could do more research if you’d like. If you have something to the contrary then please share.
I am an open Calvinist that embraces the doctrine of human free will- free to operate within the sovereign will of God that is.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I see.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Sort of a “limited” free will, if you will…err, if God will.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:54 am
“It is not abhorrent to the laws of God and that is all that matters.”
That opinion (beside being unbiblical) places you on the fringe of 2000 years of Christian civilization. Return ye thereunto in peace.
“Far more abhorrent to the laws of God is our common practice of serial polygamy. That apparently doesn’t bother you nearly so much. Since it is sanctioned by the state god that is apparently good enough for you.”
No, it’s not. Both are equally abhorrent. Ref. Christ vs. Woman at the Well. However, one is far more offensive to the public sensibilities of our culture, which recognizes divorce and remarriage (as awful a practice as it may be.)
As far as accusing me of being some kind of American Shintoist, I would be very careful about making baseless accusations if I were you. There is something in the Decalogue about bearing false witnesses, I seem to remember.
“Only if God in heaven made a mistake in selecting their parents. ”
By that logic rape is okay if it results in pregnancy.
You have confounded me with the dim light of Calvinist thinking. Polygamy is okay by God (although he forbids it-over and over again.) The state’s role in protecting children doesn’t matter. The positive law forbidding polygamy is irrelevant.
“Woe to you who cause these little ones to stumble. Better for you that a millstone be tied around your neck and cast into the sea. Pretty harsh words coming from Lord Jesus. You might consider that as you continue to advocate the forced removal of happy, non-abused children from the arms of their loving mothers, placing them into the bosom of the godless state with a proven track record of incredibly detestable abuse of all kinds.”
The divine warning directed at me is misguided. Far better that the children be put in the care of rapist fathers and debased mothers to live out a life of incestuous cult worship of a demon “god”, because the parents of these children “love” them, then for the state to use its legitimate power to protect them.
So, as far as millstones are concerned, the same back at you. With knobs on.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Dean May,
First:
Some logic for you:
1. The state sanctions divorce. Divorce is evil. The state should not sanction divorce.
2. The state does not sanction polygamy. Polygamy is evil. The state should not sanction polygamy.
So, you can’t say that because the state permits divorce, it should permit polygamy.
Second:
While we are haughtly pronouncing divine warnings, I should point out that the worship of children, or the institution of parenthood, or the exaltation of any thing or idea above God and the Law of God, is a sin of idolatry, forbidden by the first (or second-your mileage may vary) commandment and punishable by all sorts of nasty things.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Look at me, I’m violating my own rule:
I’m dragging this war thread into the Texas Polygamist Cult story.
Yet another reason (in addition to Dean May’s arguments being loco) for me to quit.
So, I quit. Unless one of my bretheren cares to start up a polygamy thread.