Just Peacemaking

[Gus Van Horn blog]

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It was only a matter of time before someone would translate "turn the other cheek" into a military doctrine of preemptive surrender.

Fuller Seminary's Glen Stassen, has become a chief evangelical Left opponent of the U.S. war on terror. An advocate of "just peacemaking," and a board member of Jim Wallis's Sojourners, the ethics professor has suggested that 9/11 might have been avoided if only President Bush an offered an olive branch to al-Qaeda.

"Do you think they would have gone ahead with 9/11 or do you think they would have at least waited" if President Bush had publicly announced his commitment to "just peacemaking?" Stassen asked during a debate last fall at the American Academy of Religion. [links dropped]

Although, to his credit, author Mark D. Tooley of FrontPage Magazine, does realize that such a policy represents abject surrender, he (at best) mistakes the influence of the Enlightenment upon Christianity for evolution of same, when offering this retort to Stassen:

Historically, the Christian faith has drawn a distinction between the moral responsibilities of Christian believers, individually or collectively, and the governments under which they live. Where Christian individuals may be called to turn the other cheek, governments are called to avenge aggression in defense of the defenseless. But modern Christian pacifists, ignoring even the moral heritage of traditional Christain pacifism, are too often unable to recall these distinctions. In their minds, governments, especially Western ones, must perpetually turn their cheeks, no matter the provocation or the consequence. [bold added]

First of all, there is the whole question of whether Christian states were more concerned with protecting their citizens or the turf of the church. Not to belabor the point, but what difference is it to this atheist if he lives in a Christian state that "preemptively surrenders" to a Moslem caliphate -- or one that fights it off, only to establish a Christian theocracy?

And second, even if we grant that Christianity did historically "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", what about now? At least on that matter, some of Tooley's fellow Christians in the Texas Republican Party might beg to differ with him (HT: HBL):

The

official platform

of the Texas Republican Party pledges to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state." And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge. [Link added. See page 21 of the PDF, under "Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties". --ed]

So long as people like Tooley are allowed to speak about Christianity as a benevolent political influence without challenge, they will be able to continue, whether they intend to or not, to be able to provide cover for the likes of the Texas Republicans, or at least to put the public at large off guard by pooh-poohing theocrats of various stripes as exceptions to the rule.

Unfortunately, even sects of Christianity that pay lip service to reason hold it as secondary to faith, and they correspondingly hold actions done with the afterlife in view to be of a higher caliber than those done for the sake of living on earth. To imply that Christianity inherently respects separation of church and state is to ignore the fundamental nature of religion, which is to instruct human beings living on this earth to act in accordance with ends not of this earth.

-- CAV

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002467.html

[softwareNerd]

The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state."

Wow! This ought to be more newsworthy than Don Imus and what's her name's baby.

[fletch]

Not to belabor the point, but what difference is it to this atheist if he lives in a Christian state that "preemptively surrenders" to a Moslem caliphate -- or one that fights it off, only to establish a Christian theocracy?

I have never understood the atheist/objectivist fear of the of the christian boogeyman. Perhaps someone could explain it to me. Your statement makes it seem as if there is no diference between life under a real 'Moslem caliphate' and an imagined 'Christian theocracy.' The surrender at any costers are the Islamic apoligists of the irreligious left. They are the ones that should be feared and resisted not the Christians, the vast majority of whom are more than willing to fight off the Islamic hoards. How does the saying go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[softwareNerd]

Your statement makes it seem as if there is no diference between life under a real 'Moslem caliphate' and an imagined 'Christian theocracy.'

Well, you can make an argument that it is "imagined"; but, if it ever becomes real it would be no different. Do you claim that the Christians would be worse than the Muslims? I don't think one can tell -- it's anyone's guess. Edited April 18, 2007 by softwareNerd

[fletch]

Do you claim that the Christians would be worse than the Muslims?

Not at all. I dont see christianity as a threat. Muslims are the real outside threat to liberty. The secular irreligious left is the inside threat to liberty. It seems to me that christians and objectivist atheists should be united on this point.

[softwareNerd]

There was a time when the U.S. government propped up religious leaders, under the enemy-of-my-enemy theory, to fight the U.S.S.R. All this succeeded in doing is cutting down one enemy slightly, while building up another. Now, the U.S. has to worry about a dictatorial, nuke-possessing Russia that is unpredictable AND its once enemy-of-enemy, Bin Laden.

Today, Christianity is clearly not yet as serious a threat as Islam. However, helping Christianity is hardly a good idea. The reason Christianity is not as much as a threat is that it was diluted by reason for many decades; but, Christian leaders are slowly re-discovering their true philosophy, and -- slowly -- they are starting to shed reality-based views. Or, perhaps, they never abandoned those views, but are merely being more confident in their challenges to things like evolution.

It is not just evolution where their atavistic metaphysics has started to show. Even on a topic like global warming, Rush Limbaugh says his... "...fundamental reason -- and it is true -- for not buying all of this leftist global warming garbage is my belief in God. ... ... ...God created this magnificent planet and its climate and environment and all that. The idea that we can destroy it is just absurd." While the left is corrupting science, the Christians are abandoning it altogether.

When Pat Robertson says that separation of church and state... "was never in the Constitution, however much the liberals laugh at me for saying it, they know good and well it was never in the Constitution!" one might well shrug him off as a looney fringe element (though with his reach, I wouldn't). However, as we see from the quote in this thread, above, now that idea shows up in the Republican party platform!

The Christians do not appear to be seeing great growth in numbers, but there appears to be a growing assertiveness and confidence in their advocacy. Perhaps it is the vacuum created by the leftist nihilists, the attitude that everyone's views are equally valid, that has emboldened the Christians. Whatever it is, why would anyone want to help it?

So, if Objectivists want Iran challenged and addressed, and if the Christians want to vote for that too, that's fine. Objectivists and Christians can be united in that sense, just as Objectivists and Leftists can be united when it comes to removing things like faith-based initiative, church infiltration into government, getting Intelligent Design off school curriculum, etc.. It's really not a unity, just a vote that happens to be the same, sometimes for differing reasons.

I am not sure what you mean by "uniting" with Christians. You can always advocate for a defense of America, you can campaign against Kyoto, and so on, without helping the Christians in anything other than the particular issues. What other unity or sanction do you want to give those people?