Cosmology/Cosmogony

Who created God?

Who created God? Where did He come from? This is a question that was introduced two posts back in;

A question to atheists: Could the universe just pop into being?

The question was:

"I have seen the question posed on this series of clips on Youtube,

"Ok Then, When did God come into existence? Did he just "pop" into the universe as well, Or just has he, "just always been"? Theists have the same flaw, just one step back. I personally think that there is no God but at this time, humans cannot possibly perceive this depth of thought, we are not yet advanced enough to understand it."

* I capitalized God in this quote where the author did not.

What sayeth thee? how do you handle this question as a believer or non- believer?"

On the Existence of God- William Lane Craig

If you can look at the complexity, beauty, harmony, purpose, intelligence and morality in the universe- as well as that anything whatsoever exists- and eliminate the possibility of God- then you really have to come up with something unbelievable.

A question to atheists: Could the universe just pop into being?

My Grandmother and the "Storage Barn"

My mother and I went up to Claremore, Okla. to see my Cherokee Grandmother after my sister Kara ran in a marathon in Tulsa yesterday. Grandmother was recently diagnosed with alzheimer's and has been in a nursing home for about two months. She has spent a short time in the hospital because she got medications all mixed up and took too much aspirin which ate up the lining in her stomach almost bleeding her out.

Grandmother looks good for 90 years old and was in good spirits. She was pleasant and polite and conversational... on the surface. There isn't much depth left. She doesn't have much short term memory left at all. She kind of lives in the moment with no real understanding of where she is and why. She pretty much thinks she's there as a volunteer worker for all the other poor souls filed away there to die. She does not see herself as a patient. She says she feels great. She walks the halls praying for all the other residents like she did for years at the Veterans Hospital. Everyday she gets up out of bed, bathes, gets dressed, eats breakfast and then gathers her things waiting for someone to come and get her and take her home. To pass the time she walks about watching the birds and the plants outside the windows and praying over the other residents that are upset and hurting. She says she's been busy and met a lot of nice people but she's ready to go home now...

"we can go right now if you want... I'm packed and ready," she says.

She talked about wanting to go home and get her porch painted a different color and do some yard work, raking leaves and cleaning out the gutters. Its gut wrenching to deal with. Every time there is a pause in conversation she slips in how anxious she is to get home.

She also speculates about living elsewhere and offers, "If there's anything I can do to be of service I'll do it. The busier I am the happier I am and the better I feel. I can pay for the gas to drive me home or out to see my brother Ralph or my son. I'll bet I can do some work there. There's lots of Indian people and other handicapped I can minister to." The thought that she will be living in the nursing home or "storage barn" as she ironically calls it, seems out of the question to her.

The saddest part is that she definately is not going to get better or last very long where she is. She gets little or no exercise or mental stimulation or any kind of therapy that might help her mentally. Its unbelievable to me that it is so expensive to basically put someone in storage in a nursing home til they die and there is such little return. Rooms at the Motel 6 are roomier and better furnished. Nursing homes are filled because the families of the residents are pretty much all wage slaves and have to work and are thus unable to be caretakers.

I am strongly considering leaving my employment and moving up there to be her companion and caretaker. All I would need is basic expense money which I can guarantee you is a lot less that what is being paid to that "storage barn". Still this would be a major commitment. Yet, if I can work it out I will do that and do some writing and perhaps even finish my degree while up there as well.

Prayers for us are greatly appreciated. I could also use some advice on things that can at least slow her mind from deterioration and/or entropy.

I found some clips about being there for alzheimer's patients recently. They have really hit home with me now. Take a look at this:



Also, there are several more powerful and moving clips about alzheimer's patients and their humanity and dignity and how to be present for them here:

http://www.memorybridge.org/videos.php

She Cries Your Name- Beth Orton

Since I posted this I went and visited my 90 year old Grandmother up in the northeast part of the state. She has been diagnosed with alzheimers disease and has been in a nursing home now for about two months. I finally got up there to see her for the first time since this happened. I will soon be writing much more about our culture, alzheimers and looking after people afflicted with it. Meanwhile, I suddenly realized this song fits my Grandmother and her situation to a tee.

When I got there to see her yesterday, unannounced, she was all packed up and ready to go home. I soon learned that every day she gets up, bathes, gets dressed, eats breakfast and then gathers her things expecting someone to come and pick her up and take her home. The nurses kindly hang her clothes back in the closet every afternoon or evening. Meanwhile, Grandmother walks the halls praying for other people... she's convinced she is there as a volunteer worker and not a resident. She told us how she's been busy helping and ministering to others and met a lot of nice people but now she's ready to go home. She's simply vexed that no one will take her to her house that happens to be about 6 blocks away. Her short term memory is about gone so she doesn't really remember her visitors... and thus wonders why people don't come to see her.
Man, the lyrics to this song REALLY hit me hard now.

BETH ORTON
She Cries Your Name

Falling from the western slopes to find yourselves alone again,
Wondering where you have been, Your lonely voice calls
across the starlit coast, Reaching out to be seen.

She cries your name,
three times again,
She cries your name,
How long can this love remain?

Cut beneath the surface screen of what we say and what we
seem, Is a trick to be seen, She keeps crying out your name,
But her scream sounds the same, How fickle fate can be.

She cries your name,
Three times again,
She cries your name,
How long can this love remain?

Birds that scream for territory can learn to sing
euphorically, Give him time an' he's real, And there's a
wasteland in your soul the burned out trees will leave you
cold, Living out an ideal.

She cries your name,
three times again,
She cries your name,
How long can this love remain?

She cries your name,
Twelve times again,
She cries your name,
How long can this love remain?

William Orbit - Gringatcho Demento

Love On A Real Train (by Tangerine Dream)

Just sit back and enjoy the beauty of God's work.
Peace.

The Terrorist In The Mirror- by NOAM CHOMSKY- repost

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The Terrorist In The Mirror- by NOAM CHOMSKY

"Judging by reports and commentary, it would be impolite to mention any of these facts, let alone to suggest that some others might be standing alongside Saddam before the bar of justice."

By NOAM CHOMSKY- source

"Terror" is a term that rightly arouses strong emotions and deep concerns. The primary concern should, naturally, be to take measures to alleviate the threat, which has been severe in the past, and will be even more so in the future. To proceed in a serious way, we have to establish some guidelines. Here are a few simple ones:

(1) Facts matter, even if we do not like them.

(2) Elementary moral principles matter, even if they have consequences that we would prefer not to face.

(3) Relative clarity matters. It is pointless to seek a truly precise definition of "terror," or of any other concept outside of the hard sciences and mathematics, often even there. But we should seek enough clarity at least to distinguish terror from two notions that lie uneasily at its borders: aggression and legitimate resistance.

If we accept these guidelines, there are quite constructive ways to deal with the problems of terrorism, which are quite severe. It's commonly claimed that critics of ongoing policies do not present solutions. Check the record, and I think you will find that there is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them."

Suppose, then, that we accept these simple guidelines. Let's turn to the "War on Terror." Since facts matter, it matters that the War was not declared by George W. Bush on 9/11, but by the Reagan administration 20 years earlier.

They came into office declaring that their foreign policy would confront what the President called "the evil scourge of terrorism," a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself" in "a return to barbarism in the modern age" (Secretary of State George Shultz). The campaign was directed to a particularly virulent form of the plague: state-directed international terrorism. The main focus was Central America and the Middle East, but it reached to southern Africa and Southeast Asia and beyond.

A second fact is that the war was declared and implemented by pretty much the same people who are conducting the re-declared war on terrorism. The civilian component of the re-declared War on Terror is led by John Negroponte, appointed last year to supervise all counterterror operations. As Ambassador in Honduras, he was the hands-on director of the major operation of the first War on Terror, the contra war against Nicaragua launched mainly from US bases in Honduras. I'll return to some of his tasks. The military component of the re-declared War led by Donald Rumsfeld. During the first phase of the War on Terror, Rumsfeld was Reagan's special representative to the Middle East. There, his main task was to establish close relations with Saddam Hussein so that the US could provide him with large-scale aid, including means to develop WMD, continuing long after the huge atrocities against the Kurds and the end of the war with Iran. The official purpose, not concealed, was Washington's responsibility to aid American exporters and "the strikingly unanimous view" of Washington and its allies Britain and Saudi Arabia that "whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression" -- New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell, describing Washington's judgment as George Bush I authorized Saddam to crush the Shi'ite rebellion in 1991, which probably would have overthrown the tyrant.

Saddam is at last on trial for his crimes. The first trial, now underway, is for crimes he committed in 1982. 1982 happens to be an important year in US-Iraq relations. It was in 1982 that Reagan removed Iraq from the list of states supporting terror so that aid could flow to his friend in Baghdad. Rumsfeld then visited Baghdad to confirm the arrangements. Judging by reports and commentary, it would be impolite to mention any of these facts, let alone to suggest that some others might be standing alongside Saddam before the bar of justice. Removing Saddam from the list of states supporting terrorism left a gap. It was at once filled by Cuba, perhaps in recognition of the fact that the US terrorist wars against Cuba from 1961 had just peaked, including events that would be on the front pages right now in societies that valued their freedom, to which I'll briefly return. Again, that tells us something about the real elite attitudes towards the plague of the modern age.

Since the first War on Terror was waged by those now carrying out the redeclared war, or their immediate mentors, it follows that anyone seriously interested in the re-declared War on Terror should ask at once how it was carried out in the 1980s. The topic, however, is under a virtual ban. That becomes understandable as soon as we investigate the facts: the first War on Terror quickly became a murderous and brutal terrorist war, in every corner of the world where it reached, leaving traumatized societies that may never recover. What happened is hardly obscure, but doctrinally unacceptable, therefore protected from inspection. Unearthing the record is an enlightening exercise, with enormous implications for the future.

These are a few of the relevant facts, and they definitely do matter. Let's turn to the second of the guidelines: elementary moral principles. The most elementary is a virtual truism: decent people apply to themselves the same standards that they apply to others, if not more stringent ones. Adherence to this principle of universality would have many useful consequences. For one thing, it would save a lot of trees. The principle would radically reduce published reporting and commentary on social and political affairs. It would virtually eliminate the newly fashionable discipline of Just War theory. And it would wipe the slate almost clean with regard to the War on Terror. The reason is the same in all cases: the principle of universality is rejected, for the most part tacitly, though sometimes explicitly. Those are very sweeping statements. I purposely put them in a stark form to invite you to challenge them, and I hope you do. You will find, I think, that although the statements are somewhat overdrawn--purposely -- they nevertheless are uncomfortably close to accurate, and in fact very fully documented. But try for yourselves and see.

This most elementary of moral truisms is sometimes upheld at least in words. One example, of critical importance today, is the Nuremberg Tribunal. In sentencing Nazi war criminals to death, Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, spoke eloquently, and memorably, on the principle of universality. "If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes," he said, "they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us....We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

That is a clear and honorable statement of the principle of universality. But the judgment at Nuremberg itself crucially violated this principle. The Tribunal had to define "war crime" and "crimes against humanity." It crafted these definition very carefully so that crimes are criminal only if they were not committed by the allies. Urban bombing of civilian concentrations was excluded, because the allies carried it out more barbarically than the Nazis. And Nazi war criminals, like Admiral Doenitz, were able to plead successfully that their British and US counterparts had carried out the same practices. The reasoning was outlined by Telford Taylor, a distinguished international lawyer who was Jackson's Chief Counsel for War Crimes. He explained that "to punish the foe--especially the vanquished foe--for conduct in which the enforcing nation has engaged, would be so grossly inequitable as to discredit the laws themselves." That is correct, but the operative definition of "crime" also discredits the laws themselves. Subsequent Tribunals are discredited by the same moral flaw, but the self-exemption of the powerful from international law and elementary moral principle goes far beyond this illustration, and reaches to just about every aspect of the two phases of the War on Terror.

Let's turn to the third background issue: defining "terror" and distinguishing it from aggression and legitimate resistance. I have been writing about terror for 25 years, ever since the Reagan administration declared its War on Terror. I've been using definitions that seem to be doubly appropriate: first, they make sense; and second, they are the official definitions of those waging the war. To take one of these official definitions, terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear," typically targeting civilians. The British government's definition is about the same: "Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause." These definitions seem fairly clear and close to ordinary usage. There also seems to be general agreement that they are appropriate when discussing the terrorism of enemies.

But a problem at once arises. These definitions yield an entirely unacceptable consequence: it follows that the US is a leading terrorist state, dramatically so during the Reaganite war on terror. Merely to take the most uncontroversial case, Reagan's state-directed terrorist war against Nicaragua was condemned by the World Court, backed by two Security Council resolutions (vetoed by the US, with Britain politely abstaining). Another completely clear case is Cuba, where the record by now is voluminous, and not controversial. And there is a long list beyond them.

We may ask, however, whether such crimes as the state-directed attack against Nicaragua are really terrorism, or whether they rise to the level of the much higher crime of aggression. The concept of aggression was defined clearly enough by Justice Jackson at Nuremberg in terms that were basically reiterated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An "aggressor," Jackson proposed to the Tribunal, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as "Invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State," or "Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection." The first provision unambiguously applies to the US-UK invasion of Iraq. The second, just as clearly, applies to the US war against Nicaragua. However, we might give the current incumbents in Washington and their mentors the benefit of the doubt, considering them guilty only of the lesser crime of international terrorism, on a huge and unprecedented scale.

It may also be recalled the aggression was defined at Nuremberg as "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"--all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example, and in Nicaragua too, if the charge is not reduced to international terrorism. And in Lebanon, and all too many other victims who are easily dismissed on grounds of wrong agency--right to the present. A week ago (January 13), a CIA predator drone attacked a village in Pakistan, murdering dozens of civilians, entire families, who just happened to live in a suspected al-Qaeda hideout. Such routine actions elicit little notice, a legacy of the poisoning of the moral culture by centuries of imperial thuggery.

The World Court did not take up the charge of aggression in the Nicaragua case. The reasons are instructive, and of quite considerable contemporary relevance. Nicaragua's case was presented by the distinguished Harvard University law professor Abram Chayes, former legal adviser to the State Department. The Court rejected a large part of his case on the grounds that in accepting World Court jurisdiction in 1946, the US had entered a reservation excluding itself from prosecution under multilateral treaties, including the UN Charter. The Court therefore restricted its deliberations to customary international law and a bilateral US-Nicaragua treaty, so that the more serious charges were excluded. Even on these very narrow grounds, the Court charged Washington with "unlawful use of force"--in lay language, international terrorism--and ordered it to terminate the crimes and pay substantial reparations. The Reaganites reacted by escalating the war, also officially endorsing attacks by their terrorist forces against "soft targets," undefended civilian targets. The terrorist war left the country in ruins, with a death toll equivalent to 2.25 million in US per capita terms, more than the total of all wartime casualties in US history combined. After the shattered country fell back under US control, it declined to further misery. It is now the second poorest country in Latin America after Haiti--and by accident, also second after Haiti in intensity of US intervention in the past century. The standard way to lament these tragedies is to say that Haiti and Nicaragua are "battered by storms of their own making," to quote the Boston Globe, at the liberal extreme of American journalism. Guatemala ranks third both in misery and intervention, more storms of their own making.

In the Western canon, none of this exists. All is excluded not only from general history and commentary, but also quite tellingly from the huge literature on the War on Terror re-declared in 2001, though its relevance can hardly be in doubt.

These considerations have to do with the boundary between terror and aggression. What about the boundary between terror and resistance? One question that arises is the legitimacy of actions to realize "the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right..., particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation..." Do such actions fall under terror or resistance? The quoted word are from the most forceful denunciation of the crime of terrorism by the UN General Assembly; in December 1987, taken up under Reaganite pressure. Hence it is obviously an important resolution, even more so because of the near-unanimity of support for it. The resolution passed 153-2 (Honduras alone abstaining). It stated that "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence," as characterized in the quoted words.
The two countries that voted against the resolution explained their reasons at the UN session. They were based on the paragraph just quoted. The phrase "colonial and racist regimes" was understood to refer to their ally apartheid South Africa, then consummating its massacres in the neighboring countries and continuing its brutal repression within. Evidently, the US and Israel could not condone resistance to the apartheid regime, particularly when it was led by Nelson Mandela's ANC, one of the world's "more notorious terrorist groups," as Washington determined at the same time. Granting legitimacy to resistance against "foreign occupation" was also unacceptable. The phrase was understood to refer to Israel's US-backed military occupation, then in its 20 th year. Evidently, resistance to that occupation could not be condoned either, even though at the time of the resolution it scarcely existed: despite extensive torture, degradation, brutality, robbery of land and resources, and other familiar concomitants of military occupation, Palestinians under occupation still remained "Samidin," those who quietly endured.

Technically, there are no vetoes at the General Assembly. In the real world, a negative US vote is a veto, in fact a double veto: the resolution is not implemented, and is vetoed from reporting and history. It should be added that the voting pattern is quite common at the General Assembly, and also at the Security Council, on a wide range of issues. Ever since the mid-1960s, when the world fell pretty much out of control, the US is far in the lead in Security Council vetoes, Britain second, with no one else even close. It is also of some interest to note that a majority of the American public favors abandonment of the veto, and following the will of the majority even if Washington disapproves, facts virtually unknown in the US, or I suppose elsewhere. That suggests another conservative way to deal with some of the problems of the world: pay attention to public opinion.

Terrorism directed or supported by the most powerful states continues to the present, often in shocking ways. These facts offer one useful suggestion as to how to mitigate the plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself" in "a return to barbarism in the modern age": Stop participating in terror and supporting it. That would certainly contribute to the proclaimed objections. But that suggestion too is off the agenda, for the usual reasons. When it is occasionally voiced, the reaction is reflexive: a tantrum about how those who make this rather conservative proposal are blaming everything on the US.

Even with careful sanitization of discussion, dilemmas constantly arise. One just arose very recently, when Luis Posada Carriles entered the US illegally. Even by the narrow operative definition of "terror," he is clearly one of the most notorious international terrorists, from the 1960s to the present. Venezuela requested that he be extradited to face charges for the bombing of a Cubana airliner in Venezuela, killing 73 people. The charges are admittedly credible, but there is a real difficulty. After Posada miraculously escaped from a Venezuelan prison, the liberal Boston Globe reports, he "was hired by US covert operatives to direct the resupply operation for the Nicaraguan contras from El Salvador"--that is, to play a prominent role in terrorist atrocities that are incomparably worse than blowing up the Cubana airliner. Hence the dilemma. To quote the press: "Extraditing him for trial could send a worrisome signal to covert foreign agents that they cannot count on unconditional protection from the US government, and it could expose the CIA to embarrassing public disclosures from a former operative." Evidently, a difficult problem.

The Posada dilemma was, thankfully, resolved by the courts, which rejected Venezuela's appeal for his extradition, in violation of the US-Venezuela extradition treaty. A day later, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, urged Europe to speed US demands for extradition: "We are always looking to see how we can make the extradition process go faster," he said. "We think we owe it to the victims of terrorism to see to it that justice is done efficiently and effectively." At the Ibero-American Summit shortly after, the leaders of Spain and the Latin American countries "backed Venezuela's efforts to have [Posada] extradited from the United States to face trial" for the Cubana airliner bombing, and again condemned the "blockade" of Cuba by the US, endorsing regular near-unanimous UN resolutions, the most recent with a vote of 179-4 (US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau). After strong protests from the US Embassy, the Summit withdrew the call for extradition, but refused to yield on the demand for an end to the economic warfare. Posada is therefore free to join his colleague Orlando Bosch in Miami. Bosch is implicated in dozens of terrorist crimes, including the Cubana airliner bombing, many on US soil. The FBI and Justice Department wanted him deported as a threat to national security, but Bush I took care of that by granting him a presidential pardon.

There are other such examples. We might want to bear them in mind when we read Bush II's impassioned pronouncement that "the United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support them, because they're equally as guilty of murder," and "the civilized world must hold those regimes to account." This was proclaimed to great applause at the National Endowment for Democracy, a few days after Venezuela's extradition request had been refused. Bush's remarks pose another dilemma. Either the US is part of the civilized world, and must send the US air force to bomb Washington; or it declares itself to be outside the civilized world. The logic is impeccable, but fortunately, logic has been dispatched as deep into the memory hole as moral truisms.

The Bush doctrine that "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves" was promulgated when the Taliban asked for evidence before handing over people the US suspected of terrorism--without credible evidence, as the FBI conceded many months later. The doctrine is taken very seriously. Harvard international relations specialist Graham Allison writes that it has "already become a de facto rule of international relations," revoking "the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists." Some states, that is, thanks to the rejection of the principle of universality.

One might also have thought that a dilemma would have arisen when John Negroponte was appointed to the position of head of counter-terrorism. As Ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s, he was running the world's largest CIA station, not because of the grand role of Honduras in world affairs, but because Honduras was the primary US base for the international terrorist war for which Washington was condemned by the ICJ and Security Council (absent the veto). Known in Honduras as "the Proconsul," Negroponte had the task of ensuring that the international terrorist operations, which reached remarkable levels of savagery, would proceed efficiently. His responsibilities in managing the war on the scene took a new turn after official funding was barred in 1983, and he had to implement White House orders to bribe and pressure senior Honduran Generals to step up their support for the terrorist war using funds from other sources, later funds illegally transferred from US arms sales to Iran. The most vicious of the Honduran killers and torturers was General Alvarez Martínez, the chief of the Honduran armed forces at the time, who had informed the US that "he intended to use the Argentine method of eliminating suspected subversives." Negroponte regularly denied gruesome state crimes in Honduras to ensure that military aid would continue to flow for international terrorism. Knowing all about Alvarez, the Reagan administration awarded him the Legion of Merit medal for "encouraging the success of democratic processes in Honduras." The elite unit responsible for the worst crimes in Honduras was Battalion 3-16, organized and trained by Washington and its Argentine neo-Nazi associates. Honduran military officers in charge of the Battalion were on the CIA payroll. When the government of Honduras finally tried to deal with these crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice, the Reagan-Bush administration refused to allow Negroponte to testify, as the courts requested.

There was virtually no reaction to the appointment of a leading international terrorist to the top counter-terrorism position in the world. Nor to the fact that at the very same time, the heroine of the popular struggle that overthrew the vicious Somoza regime in Nicaragua, Dora María Téllez, was denied a visa to teach at the Harvard Divinity School, as a terrorist. Her crime was to have helped overthrow a US-backed tyrant and mass murderer. Orwell would not have known whether to laugh or weep. So far I have been keeping to the kinds of topics that would be addressed in a discussion of the War on Terror that is not deformed to accord with the iron laws of doctrine. And this barely scratches the surface. But let us now adopt prevailing Western hypocrisy and cynicism, and keep to the operative definition of "terror." It is the same as the official definitions, but with the Nuremberg exception: admissible terror is your terror; ours is exempt..
Even with this constraint, terror is a major problem, undoubtedly. And to mitigate or terminate the threat should be a high priority. Regrettably, it is not. That is all too easy to demonstrate, and the consequences are likely to be severe.

The invasion of Iraq is perhaps the most glaring example of the low priority assigned by US-UK leaders to the threat of terror. Washington planners had been advised, even by their own intelligence agencies, that the invasion was likely to increase the risk of terror. And it did, as their own intelligence agencies confirm. The National Intelligence Council reported a year ago that "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are `professionalized' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself," spreading elsewhere to defend Muslim lands from attack by "infidel invaders" in a globalized network of "diffuse Islamic extremist groups," with Iraq now replacing the Afghan training grounds for this more extensive network, as a result of the invasion. A high-level government review of the "war on terror" two years after the invasion `focused on how to deal with the rise of a new generation of terrorists, schooled in Iraq over the past couple years. Top government officials are increasingly turning their attention to anticipate what one called "the bleed out" of hundreds or thousands of Iraq-trained jihadists back to their home countries throughout the Middle East and Western Europe. "It's a new piece of a new equation," a former senior Bush administration official said. "If you don't know who they are in Iraq, how are you going to locate them in Istanbul or London?"' ( Washington Post).

Last May the CIA reported that "Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s," according to US officials quoted in the New York Times. The CIA concluded that "Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat." Shortly after the London bombing last July, Chatham House released a study concluding that "there is `no doubt' that the invasion of Iraq has `given a boost to the al-Qaida network' in propaganda, recruitment and fundraising,` while providing an ideal training area for terrorists"; and that "the UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States" and is "a pillion passenger" of American policy" in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is extensive supporting evidence to show that -- as anticipated -- the invasion increased the risk of terror and nuclear proliferation. None of this shows that planners prefer these consequences, of course. Rather, they are not of much concern in comparison with much higher priorities that are obscure only to those who prefer what human rights researchers sometimes call "intentional ignorance."

Once again we find, very easily, a way to reduce the threat of terror: stop acting in ways that--predictably--enhance the threat. Though enhancement of the threat of terror and proliferation was anticipated, the invasion did so even in unanticipated ways. It is common to say that no WMD were found in Iraq after exhaustive search. That is not quite accurate, however. There were stores of WMD in Iraq: namely, those produced in the 1980s, thanks to aid provided by the US and Britain, along with others. These sites had been secured by UN inspectors, who were dismantling the weapons. But the inspectors were dismissed by the invaders and the sites were left unguarded. The inspectors nevertheless continued to carry out their work with satellite imagery. They discovered sophisticated massive looting of these installations in over 100 sites, including equipment for producing solid and liquid propellant missiles, biotoxins and other materials usable for chemical and biological weapons, and high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear and chemical weapons and missiles. A Jordanian journalist was informed by officials in charge of the Jordanian-Iraqi border that after US-UK forces took over, radioactive materials were detected in one of every eight trucks crossing to Jordan, destination unknown.

The ironies are almost inexpressible. The official justification for the US-UK invasion was to prevent the use of WMD that did not exist. The invasion provided the terrorists who had been mobilized by the US and its allies with the means to develop WMD -- namely, equipment they had provided to Saddam, caring nothing about the terrible crimes they later invoked to whip up support for the invasion. It is as if Iran were now making nuclear weapons using fissionable materials provided by the US to Iran under the Shah -- which may indeed be happening. Programs to recover and secure such materials were having considerable success in the '90s, but like the war on terror, these programs fell victim to Bush administration priorities as they dedicated their energy and resources to invading Iraq.

Elsewhere in the Mideast too terror is regarded as secondary to ensuring that the region is under control. Another illustration is Bush's imposition of new sanctions on Syria in May 2004, implementing the Syria Accountability Act passed by Congress a few months earlier. Syria is on the official list of states sponsoring terrorism, despite Washington's acknowledgment that Syria has not been implicated in terrorist acts for many years and has been highly cooperative in providing important intelligence to Washington on al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups. The gravity of Washington's concern over Syria's links to terror was revealed by President Clinton when he offered to remove Syria from the list of states sponsoring terror if it agreed to US-Israeli peace terms. When Syria insisted on recovering its conquered territory, it remained on the list. Implementation of the Syria Accountability Act deprived the US of an important source of information about radical Islamist terrorism in order to achieve the higher goal of establishing in Syria a regime that will accept US-Israeli demands.

Turning to another domain, the Treasury Department has a bureau (OFAC, Office of Foreign Assets Control) that is assigned the task of investigating suspicious financial transfers, a central component of the "war on terror." In April 2004, OFAC informed Congress that of its 120 employees, four were assigned to tracking the finances of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while almost two dozen were occupied with enforcing the embargo against Cuba. From 1990 to 2003 there were 93 terrorism-related investigations with $9000 in fines; and 11,000 Cuba-related investigations with $8 million in fines. The revelations received the silent treatment in the US media, elsewhere as well to my knowledge.

Why should the Treasury Department devote vastly more energy to strangling Cuba than to the "war on terror"? The basic reasons were explained in internal documents of the Kennedy-Johnson years. State Department planners warned that the "very existence" of the Castro regime is "successful defiance" of US policies going back 150 years, to the Monroe Doctrine; not Russians, but intolerable defiance of the master of the hemisphere, much like Iran's crime of successful defiance in 1979, or Syria's rejection of Clinton's demands. Punishment of the population was regarded as fully legitimate, we learn from internal documents. "The Cuban people [are] responsible for the regime," the Eisenhower State Department decided, so that the US has the right to cause them to suffer by economic strangulation, later escalated to direct terror by Kennedy. Eisenhower and Kennedy agreed that the embargo would hasten Fidel Castro's departure as a result of the "rising discomfort among hungry Cubans." The basic thinking was summarized by State Department official Lester Mallory: Castro would be removed "through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship so every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba in order to bring about hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the government." When Cuba was in dire straits after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington intensified the punishment of the people of Cuba, at the initiative of liberal Democrats. The author of the 1992 measures to tighten the blockade proclaimed that "my objective is to wreak havoc in Cuba" (Representative Robert Torricelli). All of this continues until the present moment.

The Kennedy administration was also deeply concerned about the threat of Cuban successful development, which might be a model for others. But even apart from these standard concerns, successful defiance in itself is intolerable, ranked far higher as a priority than combating terror. These are just further illustrations of principles that are well-established, internally rational, clear enough to the victims, but scarcely perceptible in the intellectual world of the agents.

If reducing the threat of terror were a high priority for Washington or London, as it certainly should be, there would be ways to proceed--even apart from the unmentionable idea of withdrawing participation. The first step, plainly, is to try to understand its roots. With regard to Islamic terror, there is a broad consensus among intelligence agencies and researchers. They identify two categories: the jihadis, who regard themselves as a vanguard, and their audience, which may reject terror but nevertheless regard their cause as just. A serious counter-terror campaign would therefore begin by considering the grievances , and where appropriate, addressing them, as should be done with or without the threat of terror. There is broad agreement among specialists that al-Qaeda-style terror "is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries" (Robert Pape, who has done the major research on suicide bombers). Serious analysts have pointed out that bin Laden's words and deeds correlate closely. The jihadis organized by the Reagan administration and its allies ended their Afghan-based terrorism inside Russia after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, though they continued it from occupied Muslim Chechnya, the scene of horrifying Russian crimes back to the 19 th century. Osama turned against the US in 1991 because he took it to be occupying the holiest Arab land; that was later acknowledged by the Pentagon as a reason for shifting US bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Additionally, he was angered by the rejection of his effort to join the attack against Saddam.

In the most extensive scholarly inquiry into the jihadi phenomenon, Fawaz Gerges concludes that after 9/11, "the dominant response to Al Qaeda in the Muslim world was very hostile," specifically among the jihadis, who regarded it as a dangerous extremist fringe. Instead of recognizing that opposition to Al Qaeda offered Washington "the most effective way to drive a nail into its coffin" by finding "intelligent means to nourish and support the internal forces that were opposed to militant ideologies like the bin Laden network," he writes, the Bush administration did exactly what bin Laden hoped it would do: resort to violence, particularly in the invasion of Iraq. Al-Azhar in Egypt, the oldest institution of religious higher learning in the Islamic world, issued a fatwa, which gained strong support, advising "all Muslims in the world to make jihad against invading American forces" in a war that Bush had declared against Islam. A leading religious figure at al-Azhar, who had been "one of the first Muslim scholars to condemn Al Qaeda [and was] often criticized by ultraconservative clerics as a pro-Western reformer, ruled that efforts to stop the American invasion [of Iraq] are a `binding Islamic duty'." Investigations by Israeli and Saudi intelligence, supported by US strategic studies institutes, conclude that foreign fighters in Iraq, some 5-10% of the insurgents, were mobilized by the invasion, and had no previous record of association with terrorist groups. The achievements of Bush administration planners in inspiring Islamic radicalism and terror, and joining Osama in creating a "clash of civilizations," are quite impressive.

The senior CIA analyst responsible for tracking Osama bin Laden from 1996, Michael Scheuer, writes that "bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world." Osama's concern "is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world," Scheuer writes: "He is a practical warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon." As Osama constantly repeats, "Al Qaeda supports no Islamic insurgency that seeks to conquer new lands." Preferring comforting illusions, Washington ignores "the ideological power, lethality, and growth potential of the threat personified by Osama bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq, [which is] icing on the cake for al Qaeda." "U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, [Scheuer adds,] it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."

The grievances are very real. A Pentagon advisory Panel concluded a year ago that "Muslims do not `hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies," adding that "when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy." The conclusions go back many years. In 1958, President Eisenhower puzzled about "the campaign of hatred against us" in the Arab world, "not by the governments but by the people," who are "on Nasser's side," supporting independent secular nationalism. The reasons for the "campaign of hatred" were outlined by the National Security Council: "In the eyes of the majority of Arabs the United States appears to be opposed to the realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the United States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress." Furthermore, the perception is understandable: "our economic and cultural interests in the area have led not unnaturally to close U.S. relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of relations with the West and the status quo in their countries," blocking democracy and development.

Much the same was found by the Wall Street Journal when it surveyed the opinions of "moneyed Muslims" immediately after 9/11: bankers, professionals, businessmen, committed to official "Western values" and embedded in the neoliberal globalization project. They too were dismayed by Washington's support for harsh authoritarian states and the barriers it erects against development and democracy by "propping up oppressive regimes." They had new grievances, however, beyond those reported by the NSC in 1958: Washington's sanctions regime in Iraq and support for Israel's military occupation and takeover of the territories. There was no survey of the great mass of poor and suffering people, but it is likely that their sentiments are more intense, coupled with bitter resentment of the Western-oriented elites and corrupt and brutal rulers backed by Western power who ensure that the enormous wealth of the region flows to the West, apart from enriching themselves. The Iraq invasion only intensified these feelings further, much as anticipated.

There are ways to deal constructively with the threat of terror, though not those preferred by "bin Laden's indispensable ally," or those who try to avoid the real world by striking heroic poses about Islamo-fascism, or who simply claim that no proposals are made when there are quite straightforward proposals that they do not like. The constructive ways have to begin with an honest look in the mirror, never an easy task, always a necessary one.

This was the Amnesty International Annual Lecture hosted by TCD, delivered by Noam Chomsky at Shelbourne Hall, the Royal Dublin Society, January 18, 2006.

Psalm 62 Song of Trust in God Alone

Psalm 62
Song of Trust in God Alone

To the leader: according to Jeduthun. A Psalm of David.

For God alone my soul waits in silence;
from him comes my salvation.
He alone is my rock and my salvation,
my fortress; I shall never be shaken.

How long will you assail a person,
will you batter your victim, all of you,
as you would a leaning wall, a tottering fence?
Their only plan is to bring down a person of prominence.
They take pleasure in falsehood;
they bless with their mouths,
but inwardly they curse. Selah

For God alone my soul waits in silence,
for my hope is from him.
He alone is my rock and my salvation,
my fortress; I shall not be shaken.
On God rests my deliverance and my honor;
my mighty rock, my refuge is in God.
Trust in him at all times, O people;
pour out your heart before him;
God is a refuge for us. Selah

Those of low estate are but a breath,
those of high estate are a delusion;
in the balances they go up;
they are together lighter than a breath.
Put no confidence in extortion,
and set no vain hopes on robbery;
if riches increase, do not set your heart on them.

Once God has spoken;
twice have I heard this:
that power belongs to God,
and steadfast love belongs to you, O Lord.
For you repay to all
according to their work.

Book: Thomas Merton: Peace in the Post-Christian Era

Author: Thomas Merton
Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, pp.165

An Excerpt from the Jacket:

“In this long-withheld manuscript, Thomas Merton identifies the readiness of many nations – led by our own – to prepare for and threaten mass murder as the most urgent moral crisis of our time. Ringing across four decades, his profound warning is more timely than tomorrow’s headlines.” Daniel Ellsberg

An Excerpt from the Book:

(Click here to read the Forward to the book)

This then in conclusion: the Christian is bound to work for peace by working against global dissolution and anarchy. Due to nationalist and revolutionary ideologies (for Communism is in fact exploiting the intense nationalism of backward peoples), a worldwide spirit of confusion and disorder is breaking up the unity and the order of civilized society.

It is true that we live in an epoch of revolution, and that the break-up and re-formation of society is inevitable. But the Christian must see that his mission is not to contribute to the blind destructive forces of annihilation which tend to destroy civilization and mankind together. He must seek to build rather than to destroy. He most orient his efforts towards world unity and not towards world division. Anyone who promotes policies of hatred and of war is working for the division and destruction of civilized mankind.

We have to be convinced that there are certain violences which the moral law absolutely forbids to all men, such as the use of torture, the killing of hostages, genocide (or the mass extermination of racial, national or other groups for no reason than that they belong to an “undesirable” category). The destruction of civilian centers by nuclear annihilation is genocide.

We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present to the minds of unformed and irresponsible people. We have to recognize the danger to the whole world in the fact that today the economic life of the more highly developed nations is in large part centered on the production of weapons, missiles and other engines of destruction.

We have to consider that hate propaganda, and the consistent heckling of one government by another, has always inevitably led to violent conflect. We have to recognize the implications of voting for extremist politicians who promote policies of hate. We must consider the dire effect of fanaticism and witch-hunting within our own nation. We must never forget that our most ordinary decisions may have terrible consequences.

It is no longer reasonable or right to leave all decisions to a largely anonymous power elite that is driving us all, in our passivity, towards ruin. We have to make ourselves heard.

Every individual Christian has a grave responsibility to protest clearly and forcibly against trends that lead inevitably to crimes which the Church deplores and condemns. Ambiguity, hesitation and compromise are no longer permissible. We must find some new and constructive way of settling international disputes.

It is clearly the mind of the Church that every possible effort must be made for the abolition of war, even though the theory of the “just war” and the right of legitimate self-defense remain intact. But appeal to this right must not blind us to the much higher and more urgent duty of working with all our power for peace.

This may be extraordinarily difficult. Obviously war cannot be abolished by mere wishing.

We have still time to do something about it, but the time is rapidly running out.

Table of Contents:

1. Preamble: Peace – A religious responsibility

2. Can we choose peace?

3. The dance of death

4. The Christian as peacemaker

5. War in Origen and St. Augustine

6. The legacy of Machiavelli

7. Justice in modern war

8. Religious problems of the cold war

9. Theologians an defense

10. Working for peace

11. Beyond east and west

12. Moral passivity and demonic activism

13. The scientists and nuclear war

14. Red or dead? The anatomy of a cliche

15. Christian perspectives in world crisis

16. Christian conscience and national defense

17. The Christian choice

This book has my highest reccomendations. It has helped seal my understanding of the issue of the Christian perspective on warfare once and for all.

Concerning the term "post -Christian" Merton writes this:

"Whether we like to admit it or not, we are living in a post- Christian world, that is to say a world in which Christian ideals and attitudes are relegated more and more to the minority. It is frightening to realize that the facade of Christianity which still generally survives has perhaps little or nothing behind it, and what was once called "Christian society" is more purely and simply a materialistic neopaganism with a Christian veneer... Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on nonviolence and love as "sentimental". "

Merton's book was written in 1961 at the onset of the "Cold War" and the Vietnam conflict. Not only was it very prophetic for that time as well as this, but it recognizes the rise of the hardline neopagan pseudo- Christianity that holds sway in today's toxic political discourse. If one were to substitute the word "terrorist" each time Merton wrote the word "Communist" he would be speaking directly to us today about the "War on Terror".

For instance:

"At one extreme we have the "hard" and "realistic" view. It excludes all other considerations and concentrates on one inescapable fact: the "terrorist" threat to western society. It considers that negotiation with "terrorism" is for all practical purposes futile. It is thoroughly convinced that only the strongest pressure will be of any use in stopping "terrorism" and the victory over "terrorism" by any available means takes precedence over everything else. Hence this "hard" position is in fact favorable to nuclear war and makes no distinction between preemption and retaliation, except perhaps to favor preeemption as more likely to succeed...
...they tend to regard anyone who strongly favors peace and disarmament as a "terrorist" dupe or fellow traveller, simply because of the worldwide propaganda given to the "terrorist strategy for peace".

The simplicity and ruthlessness of this view makes an immediate appeal to a very large proportion of the American middle class. It is simple. It is clear. It promises results. It has the advantage above all of permitting disturbed and frustrated people to discharge their anxieties upon a hated enemy and thereby achieve a sense of meaning and satifaction in their own lives. But unfortunately this kind of satisfaction leads to moral blindness and to the stultification of conscience. The fact that this "solution" at the same time favors nuclear war, and considers it fully morally justified by its "good cause" and also appeals to certain types of Christians, shows that it is a SERIOUS danger. To be succinct, it produces a state of invincible moral ignorance. It consecrates policies that have very dubius justice, blurring the ethical clarity of Christian thought, making base emotions and hatreds with the specious appearance of christian zeal."

This book is the most refined, comprehensive and persuasive tesament on this subject i have ever read.

Semper Fi Vs. Fidelity to the Words of Christ

I recently discovered this set of comments on the Sojourners blog where I entered the fray by asking someone what defines someone as a "leftist christian". Below these comments by someone calling themself "Semper Fi", I make a few coments myself:

Semper Fi said:

"We need a president with the testicular fortitude to wage a serious war to end all wars. It's time re-awaken the "Sleeping Giant". Time to start kicking booty like we mean business. The only way we will win this war on terror is to strike first, strike extraordinarily hard, and create a massive wake of devastation large enough that no nation would dare cross the line in the sand for fear of being next to incur our wrath. We have the technology and resources to do this. What are we waiting for.

That won't happen with a Hillary in office. It probably won't happen with a Rudy in office. But, I'm putting my vote on the candidate that's not willing to put up with any more crap from the Islamic sector. If they want a holy war, let's give them one that puts Hiroshima and Nakasake to shame, and restore the balance of power to the only nation with the ability to hold that power and maintain justice on this spinning chunk of rock.

Jesus was not a wuss. He was obedient to his Father. Had he not been, he would not have died on the cross. He had the power to do something different, but was obedient. All this silly "Christian" talk about playing footsies with our enemies is hogwash. God is not a wuss. He instructed Israel to utterly destroy every that lived and breathed when they went to war. They did not listen, and here we are today, post 9/11, with a bunch of retarded Muslim infidels causing problems for the whole pamn dlantet.

Time to wake up, America. This is not a fire drill. This is for real. Let's fight to win. I'm not a fan of Pat's, but what in the world is wrong with some of his ideas, like hiring a hit man to take out Chavez, or even Castro. What ever happened to real Americans, like Truman and Eisenhower, and real soldiers, like Patton and Churchill? That's not anti-Christian. It's anti-stupid!

I'm not an extremist. I'm a realist. What have we done lately that has worked? Nothing meaningful since Reagan left office. Nothing. We took giant steps backward under the "leadership" (ha ha) of Slick Willy. Why in the world would we elect his goofy witch of a wife for President? It amazes me that it's even an option for some people. And this Barak Osama clown? Tell me I'm dreaming! Anything on the Republican ticket is a better option than any of our Democratic options.

The right choices are simple:
(1) Stop murdering our unborn children;
(2) Stop putting up with crap off of nations that house radical Islamists;
(3) Stop putting up with people that want to force us into embracing their choice to live a sinful and sexually perverted lifestyle;
(4) Stop supporting government that takes our hard earned wages and handing out gifts to those that have not done as well;
(5) Start teaching our children there ARE moral absolutes;
(6) Start electing officials that govern of, by and for the people.
(7) Start using our own oil and let Venezuela and watch all the Arab nations economically implode when we stop purchasing anything from them, and stop selling anything to them, including food. Let's see how tasty they find them steel barrels.

9/11 - WE WILL NEVER FORGET! Shame on those who think we should. How dare you call yourself a Christian, or an American?

"Friends don't let friends vote Democrat."

Semper Fi!"

Scott says:

This is the epitome of secular humanist, miltary- humanitarian, antithetical to the gospel, self idolatrous, nationalist propaganda .... and yet somehow it is considered "conservative" theologically? Rather this type of position is immoral, irresponsible and irrational and in fact helps to perpetuate and create factors that make terrorism, mass violence, hatred and the self perpetuating cycle of violence and revenge more likely rather than less.

I have just read a book entitled "Peace in the Post-Christian Era" by Thomas Merton the famous Christian author. Concerning the term "post -Christian" Merton writes this: Whether we like to admit it or not, we are living in a post- Christian world, that is to say a world in which Christian ideals and attitudes are relegated more and more to the minority. It is frightening to realize that the facade of Christianity which still generally survives has perhaps little or nothing behind it, and what was once called "Christian society" is more purely and simply a materialistic neopaganism with a Christian veneer... Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on nonviolence and love as "sentimental". "

Merton's book was written in 1961 at the onset of the "Cold War" and the Vietnam conflict. Not only was it very prophetic for that time as well as this, but it recognizes the rise of the hardline neopagan pseudo- Christianity from which Mr. Semper Fi speaks. If one were to substitute the word "terrorist" each time Merton wrote the word "Communist" he would be speaking directly to us and those like Mr. Semper Fi. Let me demonstrate:

"At one extreme we have the "hard" and "realistic" view. It excludes all other considerations and concentrates on one inescapable fact: the "terrorist" threat to western society. It considers that negotiation with "terrorism" is for all practical purposes futile. It is thoroughly convinced that only the strongest pressure will be of any use in stopping "terrorism" and the victory over "terrorism" by any available means takes precedence over everything else. Hence this "hard" position is in fact favorable to nuclear war and makes no distinction between preemption and retaliation, except perhaps to favor preeemption as more likely to succeed...
...they tend to regard anyone who strongly favors peace and disarmament as a "terrorist" dupe or fellow traveller, simply because of the worldwide propaganda given to the Communist "peace line".
The simplicity and ruthlessness of this view makes an immediate appeal to a very large proportion of the American middle class. It is simple. It is clear. It promises results. It has the advantage above all of permitting disturbed and frustrated people to discharge their anxieties upon a hated enemy and thereby achieve a sense of meaning and satifaction in their own lives. But unfortunately this kind of satisfaction leads to moral blindness and to the stultification of conscience. The fact that this "solution" at the same time favors nuclear war, and considers it fully morally justified by its "good cause" and also appeals to certain types of Christians, shows that it is a SERIOUS danger. To be succinct, it produces a state of invincible moral ignorance. It consecrates policies that have very dubius justice, blurring the ethical clarity of Christian thought, making base emotions and hatreds with the specious appearance of christian zeal."

Taking into consideration Luke Chapter 6 which contains these quotes straight from the mouth of Jesus

"Love for Enemies
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Judging Others
37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

39 He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40 A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

41 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
A Tree and Its Fruit
43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
The Wise and Foolish Builders
46 "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

...there is simply no way Mr. Semper Fi can justify the quote I cited above from him. In fact, on point with the discussion of "conservatism" and "liberalism" his views are not biblically conservative at all... but in fact they are rather an extremely "liberal", authoritarian self serving, humanist, idolatrous perspective. Before someone turns around the scripture about not judging and condemning others on my statements here... I am not judging or condemning anyone... The Word does that. However, I do love Mr. Semper Fi as my countryman and fellow sinner and only offer a rebuke because I care enough to confront and offer a rebuke so that he and anyone else reading this will reconsider their position in the light of scripture. I have much more to say on these topics... but as for now this will do.

For the curious... I am niether republican nor democrat nor do I care much for either party, so this assertion;
"Whose ever side your politics are on , that is what defines your Faith."
...is groundless and basless and another skewing of biblical perspective.

For more thoughts along these lines Google the Geotheology blog and look for the post "Loving America By The Book" from October. You can also use the search bar at the top of the Blog to locate it.

God Bless.

All My Tears- Selah

Lyrics:

When I die don't cry for me
In my fathers arms I'll be
The wounds this world left on my soul
Will all be healed and I'll be whole

Sun and moon will be replaced
With the light of Jesus' face
And I will not be ashamed
For my savior knows my name

It don't matter where you bury me
I'll be home and I'll be free
It don't matter where I lay
All my tears be washed away

Gold and silver blind the eye
Temporary riches lie
Come and eat from heaven's store
Come and drink and thirst no more

So weep not for me my friend
When my time below does end
For my life belongs to him
Who will raise the dead again

Superunknown- Soundgarden (video)

I have no other reason or excuse for posting these music video clips than I enjoy them.
This is another one I edited myself.

"I Need You" by Julie Miller

Native American Christian Reconciliation Ministry

This excellent and informative video is a segment from one of the Transformations series, dedicated to racial reconciliation found here:

http://www.globalnetproductions.com/

The Native American Resource Network Page is here:

http://www.narnministries.org/economic.html

If you are in Oklahoma or the surrounding region and are interested in developing a fellowship or ministry dedicated to reconciliation and/or preaching Christ among American Indians, contact me. Like the video says... this work is of utmost importance.

Turning Circles- Judas Priest Video

I am particularly proud of this video as I edited it together myself. I used to spin this dusty, old gem of a tune on my turntable back in the day. I remember going to see this band once with my roomate who was also my cousin during my freshman year at Oklahoma Christian College. Good times... good times. I think this song stands up to time pretty well. Its simple, direct and potent.

Lyrics:

Change, change, it's all rearrangin'
Lookin' around at the situation
Go back, see what you're doin'
The way you're takin' life, you're goin'
To rack and ruin

I'm turning circles, so stay away
We've all got somethin' wrong to say

Slow down, see where we're headin'
The way things are goin' now
Your life it ain't pleasin'
Had my share of up and down
Don't spend time, don't spend time
Rushin' around

I'm turning circles, so stay away
We've all got somethin' wrong to say

Why I marched on Washington- Jonathan Carroll- OCU

SOURCE PAGE @ Oklahoma Christian University Talon

Gleaned from COSMIC THERAPY


Why I marched on Washington

By Jonathan Carroll

Last Thursday I began the journey to Washington D.C. in my car with four friends. We were going to protest the war in Iraq and George W. Bush. I was surprised at the overwhelming number of people who wanted to come; in fact I had to tell some would be protesters that my car was full. Not only was I surprised by the large number of people who wanted to come with me, but also at the support we received from other people. Someone who I have only met a few times came up to me and offered me a large stash of quarters that he had been saving in his room to help us pay tolls. I was rather confused and told him that we had money and I didn’t want to take his quarter stash. He explained to me that he really wished he could go but the best he could do was try to help us get there in some way to support the cause. I had all kinds of delicious baked goods offered to me to bring on the trip; all by people who told me thanks for doing what I was doing and that they supported me. As if I wasn’t already overwhelmed by the amount of support we received someone offered to pay for a hotel room downtown. I was shocked at the support we received. I really wasn’t expecting it. It felt great to know that so many people are paying attention and are upset about the actions of our government.

I am not exactly sure when I decided I needed to march on our nations’ capitol in protest. I read the news online on a daily basis and this is probably what started it. I have never supported the war with Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with the events of September 11th despite what the mainstream media and the Bush administration would have you believe. It makes me sick at my stomach to read surveys showing that large portions of America still believe that Iraq or Sadam had something to do with it. It is a war of aggression against a country that someone didn’t like. That someone is your president. It made me sick to sit there and watch your president twist the truth in order to gain support for this war. Notice that I say your president because I really don’t want to claim the man or his administration. I am ashamed of his actions and what he has done to the reputation of my country in the international community.

It was when I heard suggestions that the administration now thought we needed to wage another war of aggression with the country of Iran that I was pushed over the edge. I just couldn’t take it anymore. The Bush administration was talking about Iran just like they were talking about Iraq before the war. It was like history was repeating itself right before my eyes and I had to do something about it. I read about the protest a few months ago and knew I had to go. I couldn’t sit around any longer and watch my country spiral further downward. I started writing my senators on almost a weekly basis sharing my opinion with them, but despite how many letters I got back from Inhofe and Coburn talking down to me I kept writing.

The other thing that gets me upset is the Bush administration’s insistence on taking away civil rights to fight the vague “war on terror”. Legislation has been passed that essentially made habeas corpus go away. Did you know that the government can call you an enemy combatant and detain you without trial for as long as they want? This is something you should know and it should bother you. Thursday the senate voted to restore this important right, but republicans blocked it, again. Did you know that if you make an international phone call the government can listen to your conversation without a warrant? I am going to end my list of rights that you no longer have here, but I encourage you to research it online because I could go on for awhile. These are all important rights that are the foundation of our country. They are slowly being taken away and no one seems to care.

I would love for you to share your comments or thoughts with me, but if you are going to send me an e-mail telling me that I should leave the country if I don’t like it, you can save it. You aren’t being original or clever. I have heard it plenty of times before. This is my country too and I will work tirelessly to change it for the better.

“As we all know now, we were lied into this war and it is lies that are keeping us there,” said Sergeant Adam Kokesh, a former marine and Iraq veteran who spoke on stage before the protest. “They lied about weapons of mass destruction, they lied about Jessica Lynch, they lied about Pat Tillman, they lied about al Qaida and Saddam — and those are just the lies we know about. But, I’m not so mad that I was lied to, as I am that I cannot trust my government any longer. It astounds me that yet so many Americans want desperately, more than anything, to believe the government. When will we wake up and realize that the power of truth is greater than any force brought to bear by any army ever fielded.”

CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE PHOTOS FROM THE PROTEST

Photos by Jonathan Carroll

By Jonathan Carroll on 09/21/07 at 11:00 AM
Permalink • Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg this story

Ashes to Ashes- Faith No More

This one truly reminds me of my ex-wife. It was playing on a loop on our first night together with a few other songs. It is a truly great make out song. Also the song and title are spot on for the eventual outcome of our relationship. I will always have regrets over it.

Life's What You Make It- Talk Talk

This is a truly great song.

But... what about the dinosaurs?

video- Walking In Your Footsteps by The Police

I am a Christian. I am a blogger. I am someone who grapples with life's larger questions on a moment to moment basis. In cruising around the Internet and monitoring the ongoing debate between Christians of differing theological interpretations and Christians and scientists and/or Christians and atheists there is one persistent question that just keeps popping up. How old is the earth? some Christian literalists seem to believe that if they don't do the math just a certain way and give in to the notion that the earth is only about 4-6 thousand years old that they are somehow being heretical... disrespecting God and rejecting his Holy Word, the Bible.

Well, I tell you right now that I am a Christian who believes the Bible and I find the notion that the earth is less than ten thousand years old... well... not very believable. To be fair, I don't necessarily believe that the earth as we know it is hundreds of millions of years old either.

As for the Christian "literalists", the literalism seems to be one of convenience... after all the Bible also says to love your enemies and those whom may not agree with you. I know very few Christians who pay much attention to that passage- let alone do intellectual gymnastics to realize and/or internalize it in their everyday lives. "Conservative" and liberal Christians do not even speak civilly to one another for the most part let alone to unbelievers and the lost. I digress.

I don't think that the account of origins as it is given in Genesis is meant to be an encyclopedia like telling of exactly what, when and how things began. Neither is it a totally figurative allegory. The plain fact of the matter is that it only tells us about God as Creator and the original purposes and intentions for mankind. It also tells about the entry of evil into the world and sets the stage for the battle of evermore between the Spirit of Truth and the Father of Lies.
You can take those items to the bank. As far as the exact chronology or timeline... who knows?
Anyone that claims they do know is mightily conceited. The bible does NOT give us that information.

Science gives us a spotty, incomplete and often biased opinion on these matters as well. The academic system works a lot like the media, organized religion or any other institution... anomalous evidence and/or dissenting opinion is squelched as much as possible in the interests of the corporate survival of the institution. Objectivity and truth often take a back seat to the god of money and agenda.

Let me just say this by way of offering my own thoughts on how old the earth might be. I have been to a place where on a raggedy, rocky knoll in Utah, near the Dinosaur National Monument there is a giant fossilized squid. My rational mind tells me that this as well as the rest of the fossil record and all the fossil fuels under the ground did not form in 6,000 years or less. In fact, I find such an idea absurd. I could be wrong of course. Yet, I find this idea almost as absurd as the idea that all the harmony, complexity, order, life and intelligence in the cosmos just happened by sheer mathematical chance and accident... but not quite. If one then insists that life and such came from God- this of course leads to the question of where God came from if there be such a thing. Once again, no man can really answer questions like that. I suppose theorizing on it is a worthy enough enterprise.

But, a lot of people... indigenous people Like Native Americans and/or Christians un-indoctrinated or unaffected by the western mindset and the desire to categorize, master and explain everything surrender questions and desires concerning exactly when, where and why. Instead they worry themselves with another question... perhaps the only one that really matters after all...HOW or WHAT is the right way to live... or what is one's proper relationship to all things? I stand with those who grapple mostly with that question. Now, as a Christian let me say this... those answers can be found in Christ and I believe nowhere else. That is the only reason I am still a Christian. Believe me I know what a monumental task it is to try and convince someone of this if they do not first accept the Bible as a reliable source of information. The truth is no person can ever talk somebody into something they do not want to be true. Real understanding of these matters comes by spiritual means... in fact they are considered as a gift.
Again... if one does not allow for spiritual reality, then there is no sense trying to speak spiritual language to one who does not or will not hear it.

Well... I started writing this with but one question to pose and then got into the stream of consciousness. Anyway.... how old do you think the earth is? Maybe the better question is... does it really matter to how you will live your life?

The Dead Heart- Midnight Oil

This one goes out to indigenous people all over the world.

lyrics:

We don't serve your country
don't serve your king
Know your custom don't speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don't serve your country
We don't serve your king
White man listen to the songs we sing
White man came took everything

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

We don't serve your country
We don't serve your king
Know your custom don't speak your tongue
White man came took everyone

We don't need protection
don't need your hand
just keep your promise on where we stand
We will listen- we'll understand

We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken
We carry in our hearts the true country
And that cannot be stolen
We follow in the steps of our ancestry
And that cannot be broken

Mining companies, pastoral companies
Uranium companies
Collected companies
Got more right than people
Got more say than people

Forty thousand years can make a difference to the state of things
The dead heart lives here

How Low? by Jose Gonzalez

I love the guitar work in this music as well as the lyrics.

How Low Lyrics:

How low
are you willing to go
before you reach all
your selfish goals.
Punch line after punch line
leaving us sore,
leaving us sore.

Absorbed
in your ill hustling
you're feeding a monster,
just feeding a monster.

Invasion
after invasion,
this means war,
this means war.

Someday you'll be up to your knees
in the $%&^ you seed.
All the gullible
that you mislead
won't be up or it.

Where to
will you relocate
now that it's war.
Now that it's war

My response to John MacArthur's take on the environment

My response is at the bottom after other blogger's comments:

Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement

November 24th, 2006

(By John MacArthur)

Evangelicals and the EnvironmentI do think we have a responsibility to care for the environment—we ought to care for every resource God has provided for us.

That’s illustrated in the Old Testament account where God put Israel in the Promised Land, a fertile land flowing with milk and honey. God provided them that productive land and commanded them to let the soil rest every seventh year.

You shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove (Exodus 23:10-11; cf. Leviticus 25:1-7).

God gave that command because He didn’t want them to exploit the land and extract all its life. Allowing the land to rest every seven years ensured that it rejuvenated itself and continued to provide in the future.

When the Lord gave the Israelites the Mosaic Law, He warned them if they apostatized, He would remove them from the land (Deuteronomy 28). Sadly, the children of Israel did just that and came under judgment—the Northern tribes fell to Assyria in 722 B.C., and Judah to Babylon in 605 B.C. In fact, God designated the Babylonian captivity as a seventy-year captivity to rest the land for all the Sabbath years that Israel violated (cf. Leviticus 26:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:17–21).

So I believe we are charged to treat responsibly all the wonderful resources God has given us. But that, in fact, has very little to do with the environmental movement. The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it. Peter says God is going to literally turn it in on itself in an atomic implosion so that the whole universe goes out of existence (2 Peter 3:7-13).

This earth was never ever intended to be a permanent planet—it is not eternal. We do not have to worry about it being around tens of thousands, or millions, of years from now because God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth. Understanding those things is important to holding in balance our freedom to use, and responsibility to maintain, the earth.

Just a footnote. Though this earth is our temporary home, do take time to enjoy God’s beauty. Take care of your yard. Stop to smell the flowers. Enjoy the forests. God placed those rich resources on this planet for our comfort and His enjoyment. Let us be thankful to Him for that.

Posted in Evangelicalism, Politics |
18 Responses to “Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement”

1.
on 24 Nov 2006 at 10:25 am Eric Zeller

Good comments. Did you see Doug Moo’s article on this subject in the most recent JETS? He had some helpful thoughts from a rather different perspective.
2.
on 24 Nov 2006 at 11:20 am donsands

Christians should care about the earth more than Non-Christians.
Nice post. Thanks.
3.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 12:42 am albert

To accuse Environmentalists of the error of being “consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever,” as if that is such a negative thing is a very disrespectful charge in my judgment.

First of all, you cannot accuse the work of respectable Environmentalists just because one has a different presupposition. Granted, probably most active Environmentalists do not believe in Christianity and a future restoration of creation, but to deny their passion and love of nature in preserving what they can is still a noble characteristic and should be very much commendable. To attack their presuppositions is for another time, but please do not attack their work in trying to preserve the Environment. Because of Environmentalists, we are enjoying God’s creation at the moment and will continue to do so in the future.

It should be Christians that take the charge of preserving the Environment, not the “Liberals” or “Secular-Progressives.” Christians have more reason to not only preserve the Environment for the benefit of generations to come, but also because God made this world and delighted in its creation and goodness. (Even if it is ruined by Sin) We must delight in what God delights in, and Christians should be the ones taking the charge for the benefit of all men, and for the glorify of God.

Lastly, this has everything to do with the Gospel. To argue that such a task deters one from the Gospel is not the point at all. And to have a disposition in caring for God’s creation is to live out the Gospel. Having a pessimistic eschatology also should not have any bearing as well. Such times will come in God’s sovereignty. That is not for us to claim as a reason to do less of a job than what the Liberals are doing.
4.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 10:12 am Shazazz

Albert,

To your comment that “you cannot accuse the work of respectable Environmentalists just because one has a different presupposition,” I fail to see anywhere in John MacArthur’s quotes where he has accused anyone. I believe JM has given a very gracious but straight-forward counterpoint to that humanistic way of thinking which front-loads earthly matters before eternal ones. It seems that JM even would meet agree with the Environmentalists half-way (just short of making the Environmentalist movement a crusade). So to say we have an accusation here ignores the considerate, articulate first couple of paragraphs by the author.

-JS
5.
on 25 Nov 2006 at 11:22 am albert

I have listened to MacArthur enough to know his attitude towards Environmentalists.
6.
on 26 Nov 2006 at 2:43 pm Jazzy Cat

The environmental movement along with the global warming movement and others are controlled and run by politically motivated far left wing anti-capitalist and in many cases anti-American extremists. It is sad to see so many Christians buy into these movements. The human causation of global warming is nothing short of a hoax. Thirty or so years ago they were warning of a coming ice age as George Will cited in an article this past summer. The recent article on discernment by Dr. MacArthur also applies to these matters as well.

W.H.
7.
on 26 Nov 2006 at 8:15 pm albert

The same could be said of Fundamental Evangelicalism in terms of its far-right, neo-conservative, extreme-capitalist, ignorant/arrogant Americans being motivated by political agendas.

Your argument does not advance your point. It simply reminds us that there is corruption in every facet of politics and religion regardless.

The point that I would try to make is that what Environmentalists are doing, in essence, is what God has intended for us to do as dominion-bearers of this earth and the “religious right” has failed miserably to contribute to it. They have only criticized it. There is nothing wrong with having such a “crusade” to save the Environment. We are trying to preserve what the Lord has created to be good and delightful to Him. To criticize such a movement with such an argument would then demand conservative christians to cease protesting pro-abortion issues if one indeed dares to be consistent.
8.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 12:55 am woostar

Albert:

Can give me one example of respectable Environmentalist?
9.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 10:07 am Jazzy Cat

Albert,
What is an extreme-capitalist? Does the calling of conservatives ignorant and arrogant advance your agenda. There is a conservative agenda that we do not try to hide. The extreme left-wing agenda attempts to conceal their motives behind global warming, environmental, animal rights, and other activists causes. All of which have a disdain for free-enterprise and capitalism.
10.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 4:17 pm a_simple_bloggtrotter

Albert,

Are you suggesting in the last paragraph of your last post that the life of a tree is the same in God’s eyes as a human soul? Or that the two are remotely equal? Indeed, this cannot be your argument( biblically), so what exactly are you trying to get across?
11.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:11 pm farmboy

Given that we live in a fallen world where redeemed children of God are a distinct minority, based on the evidence, what is the best way to care for the world (the environment) until it is brought to an end at God’s appointed time?

First, when a person is concerned about where his next meal is coming from or where he will sleep tonight, he is not going to be focused on cleaning up a polluted stream. Taking care of the environment is a luxury that only people in relatively wealthy economies can be concerned with. Decentralized, market-based economies do a better job of maximizing wealth creation, as opposed to centrally-planned economies. Thus, it follows that decentralized, market-based economies can better afford the luxury of concern for the environment. In this regard, note that the most polluted spots on the earth are in current or former communist nations.

Second, who has a vested interest in taking care of and preserving a particular tract of land? The owner. Thus, private property rights go a long way toward preserving the environment. A farmer takes care of his land because topsoil erosion will hurt his ability to continue to raise crops. A timber company takes care of its forest resources because it needs a continuing reliable source of timber to harvest. Private property is owned by some person or entity in particular. In contrast, public property, since it is owned by everyone, is owned by no one in particular. In economics this is referred to as the tragedy of the commons. A rancher will not over graze his private range land, allowing grass to grow to optimal height before grazing. That same rancher will behave differently when it comes to public range land. If he waits on the grass to grow, there is the risk another rancher will come along and graze his cattle first. The result is suboptimal use of the range resource.

Third, when it comes to pollution of common resources, such as the air, the theory of externalities gives us guidance based on the superiority of private property for optimal use of resources. One approach is to “internalize” the pollution externality. A second approach is to use a market based system to allocate pollution rights or permits. It is more costly to reduce pollution in some settings than in others. It follows then that allowed pollution should be allocated to those settings where it is most difficult to reduce pollution.

It is wrong to state that only members of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or other similar groups care about the environment. Private property owners also care about the environment, specifically the part of the environment that they own as private property. And, it is in those decentralized, market-based economies where private property rights exist where pollution is minimized.
12.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:46 pm albert

jazzy cat,

You did not understand my point. But likewise I could respond again, Does calling all Environmentalists “extreme-leftists,” “anti-capitalist,” “anti-American,” advance your agenda? I never resorted to name-calling, you did.

bloggtrotter,

What is it that you do not understand from what I’ve been saying? God created our Environment, he created us to hold dominion over these things. So therefore, the fact that we ruin our Environment is testimony of our negligence, not good stewardship of God’s creation. And the unfortunate thing is that it is the “Liberals” that are fulfilling this task, not the “Conservatives.” This is not a talk on Capital Punishment or Abortion.
13.
on 27 Nov 2006 at 9:44 pm Rob Auld

Conservatives are stupid, moronic, white males who look for any other group to hate. If McArthur can make stupid broad statements then so can I.

Rob
14.
on 28 Nov 2006 at 1:51 pm truegrit

[…] In fairly close proximity of time, I came across these two posts about the perception of how Evangelicals line up on environmental issues. The first I came upon was the “Hungarian Luddite” I didn’t give too much deep thought to it, but then came across The Pulpit Magazine’s Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement post. […]
15.
on 28 Nov 2006 at 3:37 pm Shane

I think Francis Schaeffer was the first conservative evangelical to put emphasis on ecology. Like many issues we have to be careful of throwing the baby out with the bath-water. As Christians we should be good stewards of God’s creation, yet there is such a danger of over-emphasis on it (like the old social gospel). I think JM presents a balanced view on this. There is a political party called the Green Party, who in their literature refers to the earth as “Mother earth”, which is nothing but neo-paganism. This issue reminds me of the so-called ‘animal rights’ issue. Of course, the biblical principle would be that we shouldn’t abuse animals, yet neither should we put them on par with humans. Excellent post, very relevant (in the true sense of the word!).
16.
on 10 Jan 2007 at 2:54 pm Laz

“The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet”

I agree with this statement, the earth is a temporary place. Can you imagine what would happen if one said this on CNN? The outcry and calls for one’s head would be out of this world…
17.
on 25 Apr 2007 at 3:08 pm Ashly

God gave Adam a “stewardship” responsibility. The earth belongs to God and we are tenants and should take care of God’s earth(e.g. don’t dump the motor oil down the drain). Unfortunately, some people who do not have a personal relationship with Christ, have made “environmentalism” into a religion and worship “mother earth.” Others have not cared about God’s earth or God’s creation(e.g. people) and have polluted it with smog and etc. that hurts our health and well being in their pursuit of profit.
18.
on 20 Oct 2007 at 6:31 am Scott Starr

Many believers and Christians today have an underdeveloped knowledge of proper theology and proper biblical concept. It seems that they are guided more by political ideology rather than by sound biblical teaching. When discussing the purpose for the creation and existence of mankind and/or studying the book of Genesis and the creation story people do not seem to have a clear understanding of the purpose for man or of the rest of creation that ties it all together. I have heard the point made many times that God created man to glorify Himself. This is true. Yet if we do not understand or cannot explain fully what that means- we cannot really worship effectively or witness to other people effectively.

If we say to the unbeliever or potential believer, “God just likes to be worshipped,” and do not explain more fully, the listener may well go away guffawing because it could be said that what you have just described is a psychotic egomaniac- a God that has created an entire reality just so he can have someone to give him flattery and adulation. The truth is that there is far more to the concept of worship than this. Also, when teaching doesn’t cover this point with sound and thorough explanation it sends believers out ill- equipped to answer tough questions from the world.

So what is the purpose of mankind and all life, of all creation and of worship?

There are many verses throughout the Bible that proclaim the purpose for the creation of the cosmos. Simply put, all creation was made to glorify and reveal God. God created the Earth and mankind to reveal himself throughout the universe, to share himself with and through life and to commune with and through mankind and the rest of his creation. God made man special… with a special place and purpose in creation… to tend and take care of his garden and to be holy. Most people that are familiar with Judeo-Christian tradition know the rest of the story… man rebelled. Yet God’s original purpose for man and the rest of the cosmos is still intact, in force and has been reconciled by Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:18-20 says this:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Colossians 1:15-20 says this:

The Supremacy of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Now let us clarify what worship is. Worship is not meant to be a groveling, flattering experience for man to kiss the feet of a God who needs adulation. Worship has the same purpose that man and all of the rest of creation has- that is to commune with God… to share in God’s presence… to participate with God. Worship is as much for man as for God. Worship is a gift from God for man to share in his presence and his glory, to commune and to experience holiness and be joined together in spirit and in truth.

Jesus himself, the King of all Creation (Col. 1:15-20), spoke these words to a Samaritan woman he encountered at a community well:

John 4:23-24

23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Living a life of spirituality that is grounded in truth is worship. Worship is not supposed to be relegated to the few hours a week that we sit in a Church pew. In a sense, all life, all creation, is supposed to exist as worship.

I am always amazed at the resistance and debate that I get when I assert the Christian, people- perhaps even moreso than others, actually do have a role and responibilty to play in the maintenace of the natural world… AKA “the environment”. Too many Christians in my view, have made “the environment” something abstract… something that is “out there” separate from themselves and from God and something thus inconsequential to our walk as Christians and our concerns as men. It is true “the environment” is for mankind to be in stewardship over and for us to use. Yet, how are we to “be fruitful and multiply” if we do not acknowledge, understand and accept the full purpose God has charged us with in the Earth? Caring for the Earth and worshipfully observing our purpose ordained by God also enables us to better love our neighbors and maintain public health, to be witnesses for God’s purposes and better commune prayerfully with God.

How is it that Christians have allowed themselves to be distracted and deterred from this vital role we are meant to play by terms like “tree hugger”? Would you like to see the Church grow and like to see all those “environmental wackos” out there converted to people using their passions for enlarging the Kingdom of God? Then I think its time for the Church to rediscover this aspect of God’s intent for his people and include it as part of a Godly, balanced worldview. We are not talking about becoming environmental activists or engaging in godless naturalism here.

I have often heard it said… even by Christian people that “all of this environmental stuff is mainly a political ploy”. I actually challenge this notion at its core. I remember having this conversation with an Uncle of mine. he simply could not understand why anyone should be concerned about the environment because it will just be burned up someday. I explained to him that his own house was destined for destruction and decay as was his own physical body and asked if this was really a good excuse for not taking care of his home or his body. So you see, this concept of stewardship for our home planet, the very ground of our being, is not just political… its spiritual.

Creation itself bears witness to the glory and nurture and nature of God. The universe itself testifies to God as it contains intelligence, direction and purpose as exemplified in physical growth cycles, birth, youth, maturity and fulfillment. The universe itself testifies to God in that it has moral content… that is to say that there is a right and proper way to live in the universe. It is the task of Godly people to seek that right way to live. Thus, our relationship to the universe is not that its just like some big buffet feast merely for our consumption. Our relationship to it, according to God’s purposes as defined in the Bible, is to be that of stewardship. Every link in the food chain, every species and every part of the various ecosystems of earth has a special and specific purpose in maintianing the overall harmony and balance. so why are we humans here? It should be obvious. We are perhaps the only species capable of taking care of all of the other species and systems that God has placed in our trust.

Hence, the mandate to “be fruitful and multiply”. We simply can’t do that if we live or act irresponsibly with regards to ecology.

Part of loving our neighbors also entails not only enabling godly societies and governments but also healthy environments that have clean air and water.

Too often, Christian people let the idea that this Earth will pass away mis-lead them away from their responsibilities as stewards. They forget that as humans we are the only species on this planet that is capable of protecting the whole- and that was our assignment by God in the beginning. They forget that when we harm the earth, the balance of nature- we do violence to ourselves- to other people- because as humans we are dependant on nature, as the very ground of our being, to feed us, to provide clean water and air and a network of life that is cyclical, nuturing and sustaining to the health and well being of ALL life. Thus- it cannot be denied that nature has order, has natural law and therefore has balance, purpose and even a morality about it. Even though science tries to convince us that life is merely some big bio-chemical accident- science simply cannot come up with any explanation for the existence of purpose and/or moral order. The fact that this Earth will soon pass away in no way relieves us of the responsibility of taking care of it until God decides out time is up. Taking the “it doesn’t matter anyway” approach to the ecosystem God has gifted us with makes about as much sense as not maintaining the health of your household, your own body or the bodies of your children- because “they are just going to die someday anyways”. When we take care of our nest- we take care of everybody else as well as ourselves- is this not a form of loving your neighbor?

To understand the point I am working with here- do a serious word study on the Hebrew terms Ruach and Nephesh.

Consider also the message of a large portion of the Psalms (like Ps 136;104). These reveal that part of reverence and regard for God includes recognition of his majesty as expressed in nature. Such regard is part of holiness, worship and communion with God. We are to love and obey God, love righteousness and hate evil as in disharmony, destruction, chaos and discord. Because God (and Christ in God) is Creator of nature and the director of human history, He controls nature and historical events. Free human sinners may thwart or work against His purposes for creation for the time being, but His ultimate goal for creation and His purpose of redemption shall be achieved. The will of God shall be done on earth, in history, as it is done in Heaven. The Lord’s ultimate goal for his creation is an age of peace, the realization of the kingdom of God on earth
(Ps 46:8-11). To say God is sovereign King of the universe means that HE cannot be controlled or manipulated by man. He hears our laments and complaints but remains free to act how and when He chooses. He saves from destruction and dispenses justice. God’s sovereignty extends over the whole of creation and all the nations (Ps 22:27-28). His kingdom, across all generations, is everlasting. People do not discover God. He reveals himself to them. God pours out his spirit in all of creation and nature. It is to be respected in this light. This respect is part of a worshipful attitude towards God and necessary to any human efforts at the holiness God desires from us. To even attempt holiness we are to put our spirit, our mind, our purposes in accord with God’s intents and purposes and designs. We are to love goodness and godliness and hate even the appearance of evil.

Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

13 All has been heard; the end of the matter is: Fear God [revere and worship Him, knowing that He is] and keep His commandments, for this is the whole of man [the full, original purpose of his creation, the object of God’s providence, the root of character, the foundation of all happiness, the adjustment to all inharmonious circumstances and conditions under the sun] and the whole [duty] for every man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it is good or evil.

Laying aside all this high end philosophy and theology. The point I am seeking to make is simple in the most practical of terms. It really comes down to a matter of respect and gratitude. When we humans, especially believers, operate with a sense of entitlement and selfishness like spoiled children running afoul on the master’s property- we cannot enjoy a fully realized or empowered prayer life. Gratitude for every breath, every drink of water and every bite of food is the basis for what I am saying.

Consider these questions;

Who is God of this world?

Who is God of all creation, earth and all matter that it contains?

What is the difference between the concept of “the world” and the definition of all creation and earth?

Who is sovereign over the world and the systems that damage and pollute

Who is the Sovereign over the earth?

I was reminded of this as I drove this morning by a radio broadcast sermon. The sermon by John MacArthur which was otherwise a good one basically dismissed the whole subject of earth and our proper relationship to it in one swoop as “the false religion of environmentalism”. I then did a search on the subject looking for MacArthur’s thoughts on the subject. I was glad to find a little more fleshed out theology on the subject here. I have heard MacArthur touch on this subject via the radio more than once and usually he does not qualify his statements even as much as is found here. Even here, I find his reasoning to be a bit lacking. I respect Mr. MacArthur’s teaching and am quite fond of it. However on these matters I do have caveats.

I will assert again that the proper, Biblical perspective on the issue of environment is key. If we have proper biblical perspective- there is no room for “the false religion of environmentalism”. It is true that when any “ism” or any thing displaces God at the center of life- then it is idolatry. Environmentalism, militarism, democratism, republicanism, anti-abortionism, atheism, communism, humanism, etc. etc. are all then on equal terms when they displace the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the rules that of conduct that they have set forth as the apex and focus of all existence. I contend that simply dismissing the whole subject of man’s relationship to creation with blanket labels like “the false religion of environmentalism” is a false and possibly even heretical teaching as much as humanism or any other “ism”. I have laid out a pretty simple and yet complex case on this.

The point should also be made that I am in no way asserting that the sin of environmental disregard and destruction is a greater sin than say that of murder or drunkenness or sexual perversion. I am asserting that it is a sin on equal terms with other sin. It goes against God and our fellow man.

Taking the entire subject of ecology and labeling it as godless and as “the false religion of environmentalism” without qualifying it makes about as much sense to me as taking the subject of sex and calling it godless and labeling it as “the false religion of sexism” without qualification.

Just as sex has its purpose and its place in God’s design- so does man’s relationship to the “environment”. Moving outside the proper place and perspective of God’s design for sex is a sin as is doing the same with regards to environment. There are distinctions and they must be acknowledged and understood.

For more on these vital topics also visit these posts:

The Misuse of "Radah" (dominion)

A Biblical View of the Environment

A Christian View of the Environment

The Meaning of Genesis

Why Are We Here?

Project Earth: Preserving the World God Created

Quantum Freewill, the Breath and Spirit of God...

Doing Lunch With The Almighty

Poverty, Pollution and Environmental Racism

Eleven Inherent rules of Corporate Behavior

Is God Green?

Thank You For This Earth

Indigenous Mind