This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
A good Neocon response would be "to nuke them, preemptively of course!" After the nuclear fall-out, President Bush would send Novak to the Vatican and the UN to explain how this action was moral and met the Just War criteria.
End all economic and military aid to Israel, $3 billion +. Make Jerusalem an independent city not part of any nation-state, but open to all people. The UN would take control of all security. Create out of the current Middle East a real Palestinian state.
Shift our $3 billion in aid to Central and Latin American countries in support of building a regional political and economic trading bloc of the Americas, which is already in progress. Our real focus should be on countries like Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.
We need to re-evaluate all of our foreign aid. The majority should goes to allies in our own hemisphere.
Our enemy is the Devil, both individually and collectively as humans. We should never forget this, but from a geo-political standpoint, our biggest threat is not posed by militant/radical Muslims, but by the Chinese. They have the history, the culture, and means to dominant the world.
The concept of the nation-state is slowly but surely eroding. China and the Pacific Rim will be a major region along with the E.U. and other regions. We need to move continue to move forward with initiatives like CAFTA, etc.
Snide responses regarding "the neocons" aside, I believe Santiago is still waiting for an honest, genuine answer to his question:
What I am asking for is this: from those here who are of the anti-war/pacifist/Catholic Worker persuasion, what course of action should be taken a.) by the American government and b.) by the Church? What are the alternative nonviolent proposals? I want to see how pacifism would work in our current reality.
David, if the concept of the nation-state is eroding, then why is China a bigger threat than Islamism? After all, it's the former that is a nation-state, not the former, and if n-s's are on their way out... (I don't think the other Pac-Rimers are going to simply give in to China).
I'm also a little surprised that you're a CAFTA supporter, given the problems some people seen with regard to NAFTA and just wages. What gives?
Christopher, I believe that Pastor Wright's original post (linked by Santiago) decried the non-conventional weaponry used by the US in recent conflicts.
Santiago has addressed his question about Iran to pacifists. Pastor Wright has said that he is not a pacifist. I'm no pacifist either, so perhaps the question needs to be reformulated.
I think to begin, we have to define what "we" is. In my tradition (Church of the Nazarene), we struggle so much with ecclesiology that all too often our answer is the United States is "we." However, the we of the Church would take a radically different position than the nation-state. The Church's position has to emerge from the Eucharist. For the Church, my question would be: If the Eucharist makes the Church, how then does that change the way we respond to evil and violence? My guess is that the writings of the saints would be more valuable than the writings of political scientists (even when they mask themselves as theologians). For instance, would not the practices named in the Eucharist provide the answer for how the CHurch responds to terror?
To Santiago's question, how should the nation-state respond. Had I been President Bush after 9/11, here is what I would have proposed. Today, we have been attacked by a ruthless and evil enemy, one who believes that God orders the wholesale slaughter of innocent people. This God is not the true God, but is one created by evil men who appeal to humanity's fear and hatred. Right now, we are all angry. The images of today will stay with us for a long time. However, the answer is not to fan the flames of hatred by responding with violence. Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "Be careful when you fight the dragon, lest you become the dragon." Hear me: We will scour the planet, and we will find, arrest, and prosecute those who are responsible for this vile attack upon our homeland. That is the way of our forefathers. It is our way of life. Their god is a god of evil and destruction. Our God is a God of love. Thus, tonight I challenge those who celebrate in the streets of the world, burning American flags, and rejoicing in our pain. Tonight I challenge their god. IF you are truly god then match what we are about to do. for all of bin Laden's talk, most of the citizenry of Afghanistan live in deplorable conditions. We are coming to Afghanistan with bread, with books, with medicine, and with charity for all. Our God teaches us to love our neighbor even if he is an enemy. We will even now with tears in our eyes practice the teachings of our Lord. So I challenge you Mr. bin Laden, we have seen that you can inflict pain and even death upon our nation, but can you feed your own? Can you clothe your own? Can you provide them with electricity and running water? Can you make the buses run? Can you build buildings and highways? We can and will.
This to me appears to be one creative approach that would differ from the course chosen by the Administration (or what the Democratic Party would have proposed). I continue to be amazed that capitalist regimes always resort to violence when the capital and economic resources they control give them much greater power in areas of conflict. The greatest resource available to capitalism regarding tyrannical regimes is the free, unencumbered flow of information. The Chinese face almost insurmountable difficulties in their efforts to suppress internet and instant communications. Cell phones, instant messaging, and the internet make suppression exponentially more difficult.
I think one key is to remember that the Church and state are not the same. Nation-states will always be violent since they are created to defend certain geographic boudaries and vested elites from attacks from without as well as within. What the Church must refuse is the role of chaplain. Our task is not to bless the actions the nation-state has already decided to take. Instead, our task is to require the state to act more justly, more democratically, more humanely.
In regards to China - due to their size, population, history, culture, etc., they are really a region to themselves. No pacific rim country (Korea, Japan, etc.) has to ability (militarily or economically) to stop China if they become more aggressive. Their pursuit of oil reserves in the Middle East and in the Americas is already in progress to support their economy.
In regards to Iraq - divide it into 3 countries between the Kurds, Sunnis, & Shiites. Why continue to force a democracy on people who have no intentions of ever being controlled by the other. The boundaries of the current Iraq were arbitrarily determined regardless of ethic populations after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Why stick to these boundaries? There will never be peace until these own ethic groups have their own autonomy.
In regards to Iran and Muslims around the world - if we implemented these recommendations that I made above it would greatly resolve the tensions between the West and Muslims. The Palestinians need their own homeland (divided between Jordan, West bank, & Israel). Jerusalem becomes an independent city controlled neither by the Jews nor Muslims, but managed by the UN. There will never be peace in the Middle East until these above problems are rectified.
Once again I think our focus in the U.S. should be our hemisphere. We should be doing everything we can to break down boundaries with the countries of the Central and South America. The oil reserves in Mexico and Venezuela and the Artic Wildlife can provide what we need to survive, in addition to strong push for alternative methods of energy consumption. Immigration reform should not focus on building a wall from CA to Florida, but welcoming all Hispanics in our midst. With the population base in Central and South America, the economic potential of this region is immeasurable. With focusing our foreign aid to Central and South America countries we can begin to build the infrastructure there that will raise the economic well-being of their populations.
The best answer to Santi's question is contained the writings and thought of William T. Cavanaugh, i.e. Theopolitical Imagination.
The communal practice of the Eucharist, which is a profoundly political act, relativizes the boundaries drawn by nation-states and declares the fellow members of the body of Christ are our true fellow-citizens. As such, the church, through the Eucharistic practice resists the violence of the state and offers a political alternative to it.
10 comments:
unfortunately, comments are not working at Cahiers Peguy.
If I was King for a day, here is what I would do.
End all economic and military aid to Israel, $3 billion +. Make Jerusalem an independent city not part of any nation-state, but open to all people. The UN would take control of all security. Create out of the current Middle East a real Palestinian state.
Shift our $3 billion in aid to Central and Latin American countries in support of building a regional political and economic trading bloc of the Americas, which is already in progress. Our real focus should be on countries like Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.
Do we end aid to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, et al. as well?
We need to re-evaluate all of our foreign aid. The majority should goes to allies in our own hemisphere.
Our enemy is the Devil, both individually and collectively as humans. We should never forget this, but from a geo-political standpoint, our biggest threat is not posed by militant/radical Muslims, but by the Chinese. They have the history, the culture, and means to dominant the world.
The concept of the nation-state is slowly but surely eroding. China and the Pacific Rim will be a major region along with the E.U. and other regions. We need to move continue to move forward with initiatives like CAFTA, etc.
Snide responses regarding "the neocons" aside, I believe Santiago is still waiting for an honest, genuine answer to his question:
What I am asking for is this: from those here who are of the anti-war/pacifist/Catholic Worker persuasion, what course of action should be taken a.) by the American government and b.) by the Church? What are the alternative nonviolent proposals? I want to see how pacifism would work in our current reality.
David, if the concept of the nation-state is eroding, then why is China a bigger threat than Islamism? After all, it's the former that is a nation-state, not the former, and if n-s's are on their way out... (I don't think the other Pac-Rimers are going to simply give in to China).
I'm also a little surprised that you're a CAFTA supporter, given the problems some people seen with regard to NAFTA and just wages. What gives?
Christopher,
I believe that Pastor Wright's original post (linked by Santiago) decried the non-conventional weaponry used by the US in recent conflicts.
Santiago has addressed his question about Iran to pacifists. Pastor Wright has said that he is not a pacifist. I'm no pacifist either, so perhaps the question needs to be reformulated.
I think to begin, we have to define what "we" is. In my tradition (Church of the Nazarene), we struggle so much with ecclesiology that all too often our answer is the United States is "we." However, the we of the Church would take a radically different position than the nation-state. The Church's position has to emerge from the Eucharist. For the Church, my question would be: If the Eucharist makes the Church, how then does that change the way we respond to evil and violence? My guess is that the writings of the saints would be more valuable than the writings of political scientists (even when they mask themselves as theologians). For instance, would not the practices named in the Eucharist provide the answer for how the CHurch responds to terror?
To Santiago's question, how should the nation-state respond. Had I been President Bush after 9/11, here is what I would have proposed. Today, we have been attacked by a ruthless and evil enemy, one who believes that God orders the wholesale slaughter of innocent people. This God is not the true God, but is one created by evil men who appeal to humanity's fear and hatred. Right now, we are all angry. The images of today will stay with us for a long time. However, the answer is not to fan the flames of hatred by responding with violence. Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "Be careful when you fight the dragon, lest you become the dragon." Hear me: We will scour the planet, and we will find, arrest, and prosecute those who are responsible for this vile attack upon our homeland. That is the way of our forefathers. It is our way of life. Their god is a god of evil and destruction. Our God is a God of love. Thus, tonight I challenge those who celebrate in the streets of the world, burning American flags, and rejoicing in our pain. Tonight I challenge their god. IF you are truly god then match what we are about to do. for all of bin Laden's talk, most of the citizenry of Afghanistan live in deplorable conditions. We are coming to Afghanistan with bread, with books, with medicine, and with charity for all. Our God teaches us to love our neighbor even if he is an enemy. We will even now with tears in our eyes practice the teachings of our Lord. So I challenge you Mr. bin Laden, we have seen that you can inflict pain and even death upon our nation, but can you feed your own? Can you clothe your own? Can you provide them with electricity and running water? Can you make the buses run? Can you build buildings and highways? We can and will.
This to me appears to be one creative approach that would differ from the course chosen by the Administration (or what the Democratic Party would have proposed). I continue to be amazed that capitalist regimes always resort to violence when the capital and economic resources they control give them much greater power in areas of conflict. The greatest resource available to capitalism regarding tyrannical regimes is the free, unencumbered flow of information. The Chinese face almost insurmountable difficulties in their efforts to suppress internet and instant communications. Cell phones, instant messaging, and the internet make suppression exponentially more difficult.
I think one key is to remember that the Church and state are not the same. Nation-states will always be violent since they are created to defend certain geographic boudaries and vested elites from attacks from without as well as within. What the Church must refuse is the role of chaplain. Our task is not to bless the actions the nation-state has already decided to take. Instead, our task is to require the state to act more justly, more democratically, more humanely.
Grace and Peace,
Scott
In regards to China - due to their size, population, history, culture, etc., they are really a region to themselves. No pacific rim country (Korea, Japan, etc.) has to ability (militarily or economically) to stop China if they become more aggressive. Their pursuit of oil reserves in the Middle East and in the Americas is already in progress to support their economy.
In regards to Iraq - divide it into 3 countries between the Kurds, Sunnis, & Shiites. Why continue to force a democracy on people who have no intentions of ever being controlled by the other. The boundaries of the current Iraq were arbitrarily determined regardless of ethic populations after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Why stick to these boundaries? There will never be peace until these own ethic groups have their own autonomy.
In regards to Iran and Muslims around the world - if we implemented these recommendations that I made above it would greatly resolve the tensions between the West and Muslims. The Palestinians need their own homeland (divided between Jordan, West bank, & Israel). Jerusalem becomes an independent city controlled neither by the Jews nor Muslims, but managed by the UN. There will never be peace in the Middle East until these above problems are rectified.
Once again I think our focus in the U.S. should be our hemisphere. We should be doing everything we can to break down boundaries with the countries of the Central and South America. The oil reserves in Mexico and Venezuela and the Artic Wildlife can provide what we need to survive, in addition to strong push for alternative methods of energy consumption. Immigration reform should not focus on building a wall from CA to Florida, but welcoming all Hispanics in our midst. With the population base in Central and South America, the economic potential of this region is immeasurable. With focusing our foreign aid to Central and South America countries we can begin to build the infrastructure there that will raise the economic well-being of their populations.
The best answer to Santi's question is contained the writings and thought of William T. Cavanaugh, i.e. Theopolitical Imagination.
The communal practice of the Eucharist, which is a profoundly political act, relativizes the boundaries drawn by nation-states and declares the fellow members of the body of Christ are our true fellow-citizens. As such, the church, through the Eucharistic practice resists the violence of the state and offers a political alternative to it.
Post a Comment