Skip to content

"Christian" response to 9-11

October 12, 2006

Things that piss me off about the Republican takeover of “values”: today’s edition.

First things first. Attacking Afghanistan was not a Christian response. Nothing could have been more Roman. Seeking to accept and understand (“wimpy” liberal responses) would have been more in line with “turn the other cheek.” But we are not, contrary to popular opinion, a Christian country.

What we are is an Imperial powerhouse, imposing our will at, well, our will. The effectiveness of that imposition, as well as the moral stance, is a bit more tenuous.

Did I support the attack on Afghanistan. Yes. I wanted revenge for what I saw. I wanted justice, and if that meant bombing a third world country back into the Stone Age, then I was ok with that. I do not claim Christian authority.

My President (my being that I live in this country, but not that I wanted him or anything), under the holy guise of Christian Piety, called in the attack. OK, I was cool with that. I saw the direct hypocrisy, but it aligned with what I wanted, so I accepted with a wink and a nod.

Then came Iraq. Never did I think I was being told the truth on that. Saddam was a lot of things, but a threat to me or my direct country. To go into the country under the moral imperative of liberation is one thing. I would hope that that ideal would also apply to places like Darfur, but then that would be an ideal, not reality.

Back on point. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq could ever, even under extreme interpretation, be considered “Christian.” The Christ was not about that.

So, instead of focusing on typical “liberal” issues in this next election, how about some direct debate on the validity of addressing our fear of attack with the overwhelming invasion of two countries. Again, I like that we took out the Taliban. I consider them to be awful and extreme, needing to be addressed in extreme measures. But, even they did not receive a Christian response.

Again, the Christ was not about that. No matter how much the powers-that-be wrap themselves in his shroud.

  1. RatMan permalink
    October 13, 2006 12:29 am

    At appx 3.5 seconds into the video, you can see a squib on the collapsing tower, near the bottom middle of the screen. There is no reasonable way to explain this occurence via “the pancaking” theory. This squib appears to be around 35-40 floors below the actual collapse when it first appears. I froze the the squib from the video and made a “still” . I am guessing the debunkers will claim this was caused from “air pressure,” which would mean the other 35-40 floors were “air tight.” (impossible)

  2. Inside the Philosophy Factory permalink
    October 13, 2006 5:30 pm

    There is a lot of Christian thinking behind the ethics of warfare. Some argue that that THAT thinking isn’t Christian, but Aquinas started what became our current just war theory and he developed much of the philosophical underpinnings of Christianity…

    I’ve often argued that Iraq isn’t a just war, and as such shouldn’t be supported by Christians — on the other hand, the dominant just war theorist of the 20th century (Walzer) told me he thought Afghanistan was a just war, but that Iraq is not…

  3. Piss Poor Prof permalink
    October 14, 2006 2:34 am

    ITPF, I guess I should make some assumptions clear…my claim is based on a view of Jesus as the source of the Christian tradition, giving little credence to the 2000 years of tradition. A bit exacting, but there nonetheless. So, Aquinas, Augustine, lots of popes and not a few reformers (Milton included) are excluded from consideration.

    Yes, this assumption has its own host of problems as well, but a certain purist view does seem to prevail here.

    Saying that, I see all attempts at justifying war as rhetoric and justification. Do I personally still think that we did right in Afghanistan. Yes. But, I wouldn’t claim to be a Christian either.

    Walzer, eh.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: