HE and the war

Remove all ads!

After Cheney sent out this christmas line

I can't help remembering the belt buckle the SS and Wehrmacht wore throughout WW-II on their rampage through europe, saying "Gott mit uns".

Bishop Peter Storey of South Africa, who stood out in his standfast resistance to the apartheid regime, adressed America when he said:

 

Godwin's Law. You win. Only took a few sentences this time. You're getting quicker.

Edit to add this for anyone not familiar with this:

[ December 31, 2003, 15:26: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

@ Laches

Darn,

I was gonna Godwin after reading Ragusa's post. But, you beat me to it.

 

Rags, you gotta get yourself a life man. Does this never get old?

edit - That said, you make an interesting point.

THAT said, it's a point you've made a few thousand times.

[ December 31, 2003, 17:33: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

That's the very core of the quote and, as it got lost in the comments above, I reposted it, the significant part in bold.

In reference to Cheney's x-mas card

that means that writing GOD on your chest doesn't make your cause just. Bin Laden's cause isn't just even if he promotes killing in the name of Allah. That, just as Cheney's x-mas card is as obscene as Dubya's pseudo-theological babble about fighting "evil people who hate our freedom while we are good peole who love things."

When you ponder about that and the nazi belt buckle part you'll sure get my point.

[ December 31, 2003, 17:34: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Oh I think we get your point. However, the AODA rules as provided by Tal (blessed be his name) forbid most of us from commenting.

Happy New Year everyone.

Edit: Also www.whitehouse.org is a parody site and not the official site of the government. Just in case you didn't know and clicked on Ragusa's link.

[ December 31, 2003, 18:11: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

 

No you don't. My point is purely about the abuse of the name, and not about comparing what's done in it. Most certainly, and luckily, that isn't comparable.

 

Someone e-mail me when we can like America again. (well, mostly )

We could have an honest debate about the good and evil done in "His" name, but I think energy would be better served by debating the worldviews of leaders and how they impact their thinking about God, rulership and war.

Nazi Germany believed in God, but they also believed in a limited Theism, Humanism and some of Nietzsche's ramblings.

Chaney believes in a more Traditional Judeo-Christian worldview.

If we take the time and examine the under-workings of these disparate worldviews and the actions that flowed from them, I think we will find that both acted in keeping with their underlying philosophies. One towards genocide, the other towards human rights &liberty (admittedly not perfectly).

But such is a debate for a later day. Being New Year's Eve and all, I'm voting that we put this behind us and move into 2004 with a more positive outlook.

(How about we declare 2003 the "Year of the Rat-Bastard Americans" and 2004 as the "Year we Stop Bashing America and Debate other Topics"? Deal???)

 

Rags, I have recently become deeply concerned over how you will occupy your time if George W. Bush is not re-elected!

New campaign slogan for the Republicans...

"Save Ragusa, Vote for George"

Often your topics promote thought, even if I don't agree with your stand. On rare instances, however, you seem to be grasping at straws.

Pssst; your hands are full of straws.

 

Actually, Laches, it's you who's going Godwin. Swiftly escaping the meritum and then locking it safely, using the excuse of Nazis having been mentioned.

The subject is not a US to third reich comparison but abuse of the name of God. Also usurping legitimacy through abuse of the name of God. In short and plain, putting it all down God, no matter what you do.

That is very close to:

A sparrow can't fall to the ground without His notice, ERGO: an empire won't rise without His consent. AND our empire did rise. ERGO, as no implication with a true premise can be false, our empire has God's support.

Further:

God is good. ERGO: God only supports good. AND God supports our empire. ERGO: our empire is good. ERGO: whatever we do is good. QED. Simple, isn't it?

However, it only looks so simple and yet so brilliant. In reality, it's a nicely crafted construct that still needs some goodwill on the part of its operator. How so?

If we take a closer look, the Bible has a long list of evil empires, starting from Nimrod's realm, through Egypt and Babylon and ending with Emperors of Rome.

[Apocalypse, 17]

Now, apparently, God didn't destroy Babylon until several centuries passed, neither did he strike down the Rome of Caesars, not until it turned Christian at least. The catalogue of atrocities is quite awesome, we must say. It enumerates the evils that Babylon had committed and accomplished, none interrupted by God. Does it mean Babylon was good and so were, in consequence, her deeds?

Now, of course, many people will conclude that I compare the US to Babylon, the peak of earthly evil... and they will align me with Osama bin Laden in exchange

Nay, I'm only highlighting the absurdity of Cheney's statement which, a bit rephrased, ultimately means: the US are good because they exist. That absurdity was also visualised by Ragusa, who recalled the Nazi example. His point was basically that mouth praise is not everything and that calling upon God and not being struck dead with a lightning bolt through one's chest doesn't guarantee the person is all good and holy (Issiah: "This people honours Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."). What were the first replies to occur? Basically, "what works for us (no pun intended), doesn't work for Nazis". Why? They also had God's name on their chests. But what? They abused it? Right, they did. And the US don't? But who's the judge of this? Certainly not the US themselves. Neither am I. Nor is any of us here. Or anywhere. Cheney included.

 

It is impossible for America not to do grave injury to the poorer members of the world. The larger our military and economic power is, relative to other nations, the longer the cascade of repercussions will become for even our slightest actions. The severity of those repercussions will also increase proportionately.

Considering we are the most powerful nation on Earth...logically, some ants are going to get hurt where our big 'ol feet fall. It's usually not intentional and in fact, kept to bare minimum because we are for the most part...umm, not Nazis.

 

Just three things:

1) Cheney is quoting Benjamin Franklin, who wasn't even Christian, much less a religious zealot. Franklin churned out clever proverbs like butter, so take any Franklin quotes with a grain of salt. Which brings me to the next point...

2) The third commandment (Exodus 20:7) is pretty explicit:

"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

Usually we think this refers to casual cursing, but it really applies to situations like you describe, Ragusa - those that deliberately exploit Christian imagery for nonChristian purposes.

Invoking God's name to defend yourself, your country, your ideology, whatever, is a risky move indeed. I think that President Bush - a sincere Christian - hasn't publicly broken the third commandment yet, but careless supporters have. (Ann Coulter's suggestion that we convert Afghans purely for political advantage comes to mind.)

3) Just because a sparrow cannot fall or an empire rise without God's notice doesn't mean that God necessarily approves.

 

I can't see what's the big deal about Rumsfeld's statement. He didn't said something more than all the leaders (monarchs, tyrants or democratic elected leaders) say to their subjects. God supports us. It was in the flag of Constantine, in the flag of the 2nd german reich, the pope said it to the crusaders, Saladin said it to his warriors, every leader in the human history has said it in order to boost the moral of his subjects or to justify his actions.

 

Theologically, he was right! God did cause America to become an Empire, he even caused George W. Bush to become president.

Now, I'm not saying that this adds any more or less credibility to the American cause. This isn't so much about the goodness or evil of America as it is the Soverignty of God.

In Romans 13:1-2 it says, "Let every soul be subject to the governiing authorities. For there is no authority except for God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of GOd, and those who resist will bring judgement on themselves."

In other words, every election, rise to power and birth of a monarch is in God's control.

This includes "good" authorities as well as "evil". The Bible is clear that nations like Assyira, Babylon, Egypt and others were appointed by God. There is a passage in Isaiah 41 (iirc) that calls the ruler of Assyria "God's annointed" (same word as messiah ... just little case "m") meaning that God chose and appointed Assyria to destroy Babylon and to take Israel hostage. The Pharaoh in Egypt during the time of the Exodus (a very cruel leader who tried to destroy God's people) was "raised up" by God as well.

Again, Chaney spoke truly ... but the connotation of his words (that America is therefore good, moral and just) is not accurate.

 

I indeed understood Ragusa's post. Unfortunately, Ragusa is mistaken, along with BOC, Tal and the others to assume that the US is a nation which espouses a State Religion. That is where you err in developing this notion.

The US has NO State Religion. It is relatively unique among "great nations" in world history. Until you have lived here, you can have no true appreciation for the degree of religious diversity and freedom present in this nation. The claims made in Rags original post could only be applicable to a nation which has little or no religious freedom, and favored one sect above all others. The US does not, therefore the extrapolation is in error.

When US leaders, such as Presidents, Congressmen, Senior Cabinet members, etc speak of God and Faith, they carefully do so in such vanilla tones so as to not insult the majority nomimal Christian support that they enjoy. They all end up sounding Unitarian. Were it not for the unifying force of the spectre of "Islamic Terroism", the various Christian factions would gladly be at each others throats, indeed, often are.

The entire argument over "American Religious Destiny" falls apart when one has a true understanding for the shattered depth of religous faith in the United States. It was never my intent to insult or belittle, but until you have experienced the profound Genericism which God obtains within this nation, you can not speak coherently about the "Grand Destiny of Faith" that America will bring to the world.

 

Well said Hacken Slash.

Like you, I find it amazing that some states think the United States has an official religion - or even a majority one.

... its probably the "In God We Trust" motto on our coins. I have a feeling that some people do not understand it originated as an anti-tyrant statement.

 

@Hacken Slash

I know that the US has no state religion. Although, I don't think that the seperation of church and state and the existence of many raligions in US have something to do with what I've said about the claims of leaders through history that they are supported by god.

Just look at the ww2 german army. It was consisted of christian catholics, christian protestands, christian orthodoxes, muslims, atheists and occultists. Although, "Gott mit uns" was written in belt buckle.

@Blackhawk

As I wrote above, I know that US doesn't have a official religion and I think the majority of the people in Europe know that. Although, the image (you can call it stereotype, if you want)of the americans gives the impression that you are a very religious folk.

 

Maybe this is a rhetorical question Rags, but would you have been happier if he had said, "The all-loving creator and benefactor of mankind does not have the slightest influence on the world's most powerful nation"?

 

Actually, I think he would be happier if he were told why God has to serve as an excuse for quite earthly mortal politics. Not mentioning oil, of course