articles!
I found all kinds of primary source material on Jerry Falwell. It's a good thing he loves to post all his speeches and sermons and stuff.
God is pro war.Iraq is a just war.They've got a bunch on
this site. I've still got to track down a couple good Pat Robertson quotes and then compare them to stuff from church fathers. I've also got a couple books coming in from different Ohio librarys. The OSU library will email me when they get here. I wish I had an office that they could just send them to. Hey... that gives me an idea!
We have a newly opened history lounge in Dulles hall. It used to be a professor's office, but he left and it was huge, so they decided to let Phi Alpha Theta do what they wanted with it. We're having a meeting there tomorrow to discuss initiation dates and other things. I think I'll suggest that we can have library books delivered there, just like the grad students can do in their offices. We'll also need internet access, a computer loaded with the full suite of office programs, maybe a printer, some historical posters, a huge dry erase board, and probably some good books for all the book shelves we have. Dr. Ugland made it seem like we have some money to work with, so unless we demand leather recliners that have massagers in the cushions, I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility to get some cool stuff for there.
Pax Romana
I've been reading
Pax Romana and the sections about the gospels and the works of St. Paul argue the opposite of what I took from those readings. I know that Klaus Wengst is a Professor of the New Testament in Germany, but most of what he has to say is just his opinion. There's a lot of interesting historical facts and looking at the readings in the historical context, but they're still in reference to a highly interpretable piece. Is that a word?
Anyways, take for instance his 4 pages on the "Render unto Caesar" line from Mark 12.13-17. He goes into a brief discussion of the different types of taxes in the area and different people who were exempt from them, then he argues that since the pharisees expected a negative response, the quote has to be taken in a different context. And since Jesus finishes by saying "and give unto God what is God's" Dr. Wengst suggests that maybe Jesus wanted people to give up all their money and stop using currency.
Then he later goes on to argue the context of Romans 13.7, the part where St. Paul says that people should obey authority because only God can give out power and the kings and emperors are in place through his will. He presents a couple different arguments. One has to do with whether or not a certain Greek verb in the passage takes the indicative form or not. Related to the verb problem, another argument that I read about yesterday is discredited. The idea that St. Paul was writing about the taxation crisis of 58 AD is rendered invalid by the fact that he doesn't mention this reason in the text, nor in the context of the whole passage. Plus, the tax argument is also based on a "quite unusual translation" of that same verb.
I'm almost done with this book, and while it presents a lot of arguments that counter some of the ideas on scripture that I have, nothing is concrete. They are simply different interpretations of the same passages that I've read. It may be conjecture from a highly educated source, or conjecture based off of similar historical trends, but it's still conjecture nonetheless. Plus knowing about these different arguments, I can address them in my paper so that it holds up better to critical review.
Note: Apparently I don't know how to spell "argument". The spell checker highlighted every instance of it before I changed them. I always want to put that 'e' into the word. Argu
ement.
Germany gave US Saddam's war plan
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 — Two German intelligence agents in Baghdad obtained a copy of Saddam Hussein's plan to defend the Iraqi capital, which a German official passed on to American commanders a month before the invasion, according to a classified study by the United States military.
Saddam Hussein's plan for the defense of Baghdad, obtained by German agents and provided to the United States in February 2003, a month before the war, according to a study by the American military.
Michael R. Gordon is the chief military correspondent for The New York Times. Reporting for this article was developed in the course of research for "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq," by Mr. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine lieutenant general and a former military correspondent for The Times. The book will be published by Pantheon Books in March.
In providing the Iraqi document, German intelligence officials offered more significant assistance to the United States than their government has publicly acknowledged. The plan gave the American military an extraordinary window into Iraq's top-level deliberations, including where and how Mr. Hussein planned to deploy his most loyal troops.
The German role is not the only instance in which nations that publicly cautioned against the war privately facilitated it. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for example, provided more help than they have disclosed. Egypt gave access for refueling planes, while Saudi Arabia allowed American special operations forces to initiate attacks from its territory, United States military officials say.
But the German government was an especially vociferous critic of the Bush administration's decision to use military force to topple Mr. Hussein. While the German government has said that it had intelligence agents in Baghdad during the war, it has insisted it provided only limited help to the United States-led coalition.
Full Story
Glen H. Stassen
I read a chapter from "
Toward an Evangelical Public Policy" by Ronald J. Sider and Diane Knippers. It was about The Ethics of War and Peacemaking and was written by Glen H. Stassen. He's a cool looking dude. ------>
The book is all about how Evangelical Christians have the opportunity to influence national policy. The chapter on war seems to be pretty atypical of the religious right. Dr. Stassen argues a lot for pacifism, which, as all students of Latin surely know, comes from
pax facere, to make peace. He mentions that at least twice. He explains three different ethics for warmaking. There's pacifism and non-violence, there's the just war theorists, and there's a just peacemaking group as well.
He goes through the bible and picks out a lot of different examples of Jesus calling for peace. He even pointed out a few that I used as evidence that Jesus aknowledged the need for war through silence. He says that his followers, being Jewish, were never going to be pressed into Roman service, so there was no need to directly tell them not to be soldiers. I'm not sure if I agree on this. Especially considering that John the Baptist told those centurions to keep getting paid for their job as soldiers.
He explains the eight traditional "rules" of just war theory: Just cause, just authority, last resort, just intention, probability of success, proportionality of cost, announcement, and just means.
He also has ten rules for just peacemaking.
1. Support nonviolent direct action
2. Take independent initiatives to reduce threat
3. Use cooperative conflict resolution
4. Aknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice; seek repentance and forgiveness
5. Promote democracy, human rights, and religious liberty
6.Foster just and sustainable economic development
7. Work with emerging cooperative forces in the international system
8. Strengthen the UN and international efforts for cooperation and human rights
9. Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade
10. Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations, especially churches.
He ends by saying that people should support all three.
"
I do urge you to support just peacemaking theory for what it actually contributes, and to teach it in your church and demand its principles of your government. I urge you to also discuss both nonviolence and just war theory carefully, in your Christian community, and seek in prayer to discern together which is your calling. And commit yourselves in prayer and dedication to following Jesus in your ethic of peace, war, and peacemaking."
I think it's a pretty unique look from the religious right. Usually all you think about when you hear religious right are people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, but this guy is really a dove.
That reminds me. I'm going to compare that statement that Jerry Falwell made after 9/11 with Augustine's thoughts on why war exists in the world.
"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."" -Jerry Falwell
"They ought rather, had they any right perceptions, to attribute the severities and hardships inflicted by their enemies, to that divine providence which is wont to reform the depraved manners of men by chastisement, and which exercises with similar afflictions the righteous and praiseworthy -- either translating them, when they have passed through the trial, to a better world, or detaining them still on earth for ulterior purposes." -City of God 1:1
Holy crapz0r!
I just saw
this through CNN.com. I
was going to publish an article entitled "1939-1945: Nothing much happened in Europe" in an Austrian magazine, but I've changed my mind! ;-)
Seriously, this makes that whole "thing" about Ward Churchill's possible dismissal look like nothing at all. 3 years for an unpopular opinion? The article says he's a British historian, so did he get detained by the Austrians when he was visiting or something? I think I'll have to dig around through this one to see what actually happened.
Tactical Iraqi
I stumbled across
this this morning. Seems like a pretty interesting use of video game technology by the army.
Prospectus?
I figured I'd post the prospectus that I had to do for the thesis seminar. It was helpful just to get everything arranged in a structured format. I've got all the source material and I've got time to write, but the lack of any real structure or deadlines, outside of getting 1/3rd done by the end of Febuary, has slowed me down. I'll get it done though and I'll start posting progress on the proto-chapter on Augustine. He'll be easy, and the part about Jesus and St. Paul will be easy, but that middle area will kinda be hard to pull stuff from. Oh well, upward and onward!
Moments after his death, Christ was pierced in his side by a Roman soldier’s spear. Blood and water flowed from the wound and a centurion present remarked “Surely this was the son of God.” This marked the end of Jesus’ living ministry; a ministry that promoted peace and love to one’s enemies. The bloody and battered man that was taken down from his cross had only hours before forgave his tormentors, telling his heavenly father to have mercy because they knew not what they did.
Almost 1100 years later, followers of Christ found themselves besieged in the city of Antioch. At their lowest moment, the men were approached by a peasant who told them of a holy vision that he had. This vision led the men to find what they thought to be the spear that pierced the divine buried under a church. Their faith was renewed and they were ready to face the challenge that confronted them. Marching out from the city, they waged an epic battle with their Moslem enemies, sure that the talisman they found would lead them to victory.
What had changed between the death of Christ and the advent of a Christian warrior ethos? Why were soldiers campaigning under the battle cry of Deus vult? When was it decided that it was acceptable to kill a man? Why were enemies the focus of violence and hate instead of loving prayer and forgiveness? Jesus certainly didn’t advocate warfare, so who decided that it was a valid undertaking? How did this warrior ethos develop in a Christian society? These are all very important questions that deserve to be examined and given well-reasoned answers. This is the intent of my thesis.
There is very little previous work in this subject. Most books on Christian ethics only examine ethics in relation to modern wars, the idea of non-combatants, and the arms trade. Others that focus on the creation of just war theory touch only upon Augustine before moving on to others like Thomas Aquinas. There is a void when it comes to the first 400 years of the Church. This thesis would aim to remedy this in some small manner.
The thesis will be supported almost exclusively by primary source material. I intend to argue that Christianity was forced to change its pacifistic stance as the years passed on because of its growing influence in the Roman world. As Christians were pressed into military service, there had to be ways of legitimizing their deeds so that they would not think they were sinning. By the time Christianity became the state religion, it had to be reworked to allow a Christian ruler to lead Christian soldiers in battle.
My primary sources will consist of the 4 canonical Gospels, which I will use to explain Jesus’ viewpoints on war, and the works of St. Paul, to show the beginning of the change from pacific to slight militarism. Both of these will be taken from the New American Bible. I will also reference the works of the early Church fathers. Athenagoras’ works from the second century show the complete distain for violence that he holds. Tertullian objects to military oaths in his letters, but shows a little wiggle room by allowing Christians to pray for the emperor and his armies. Origen follows up on this idea, although his rationale is slightly different and should also be examined. Lactantius was a contemporary of Constantine, even tutoring his son for some time, but he reverts to a very strict view of Christianity as entirely pacifistic. Ambrose was the teacher of Augustine and in his works you can see the beginnings of just war theory when he argues that war is sometimes necessary, but should still be waged with Christian values. I will end with Augustine, the architect of the two cities idea. His works are very important because they mark the end of complete pacifism and the beginning of religiously-sanctioned state warfare. All of these works, translated from the original Latin, can be accessed via the catholic encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org
The only secondary source I am using is War And Christian Ethics: Classic And Contemporary Readings on the Morality of War. Arthur Holmes. Baker Academic; 2nd edition (November, 2005). This book is simply a compilation of various sources and selected passages from influential thinkers on war and ethics in the ancient world. I used it primarily as a starting block from which I could further explore the sources that he briefly quotes.
I plan to group the work into three sections, excluding the introduction and conclusion. I’ll start with Jesus and St. Paul, then I’ll have a section about the thinkers up until Augustine and their gradual movement away from complete pacifism, and finally I will have a whole section on Augustine. I will try to follow chronological order, but I may have to place the pages on Lactantius towards the beginning of the second section, primarily because his ideas were such a throwback to the older days.
