Zu's musings

UPDATE!

2006-09-27T09:03:00.000-04:00

Disgusted with forex traders and generally not interested in persuing this kind of blog anymore, I've jumped ship to wordpress! Update your links to http://easy8gunner.wordpress.com/

anyone?

2006-05-08T20:37:00.000-04:00

Anyone have any comments?

Anyone?

Don't all rush forward all at once now...

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

OMG!

2006-05-06T14:34:00.000-04:00

THE ROUGH DRAFT OF MY THESIS IS DONE!

LOOK!

Yay!!!

2006-05-04T23:50:00.000-04:00

Blogger decided to work! Woooooooooooooo!!!

Anyways, the thesis rough draft is essentially done. I need to write two pages or so of conclusion, but then it'll be finished. At least until people look it over and go "Good lord man! You need to edit this thing and change a lot!"

Plus I have to work on getting all the footnotes in one standard form. I think I used MLA, but I'm not sure. Maybe I can force an English major friend of mine to make sure everything is cited correctly...

The paper should be posted either tonight or tomorrow via my OSU webspace. Maybe I'll get ambitious and make it avaliable in both .doc and .pdf format!

Test

2006-05-01T22:10:00.000-04:00

Can I post blog entries now?

An intro?

2006-05-01T21:08:00.000-04:00

I had some free time in the PhAT lounge, A.K.A. my personal office, and I wrote down a more flowing prosey introduction to my thesis. I haven't meshed it with the solid outline-style bullet points of the thesis, but I'll have more time later this week. I still have to write a 5 page book review of Biohazard, but I did a lot of that in "my office" too.

Anyways, teh intro!

In the ancient world, Christianity began with the preaching of a carpenter in Judea. This man, Jesus, spread a message of peace and love. Even as he was arrested, beaten, and nailed to a cross, Jesus continued to show mercy and forgiveness to his disciples, his jeering countrymen, his executioners, and indeed to all mankind. In the years following his death, the disciples of Jesus spread the message of love, mercy, and non-resistance to violence, hoping that Christ would come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, ushering in an unending reign of peace and happiness. The writings of the disciples and their followers represented this belief.

Learned men like Origen and Tertullian wrote tomes about how Christians should behave, how they should try to emulate Jesus in all their deeds, even if their refusal to violate their beliefs led to their deaths. It was far better to die happily as a martyr to the faith than live a lie for the rest of your life. After more and more time passed without the return of the messiah, the followers of Jesus, of now which there were legion began to wonder how they could mesh their faith with the corporeal world. There were brief guidelines written down by an early convert, Saul called Paul, but it did not seem to be enough. Before long though, a bishop of the Christian faith began to write down his thoughts on how the earthly world co-existed with the heavenly one above.

Augustine had to grapple with the fact that the most powerful man on earth, the very Caesar that Jesus instructed his followers to pay tribute to, was now himself a disciple and the Empire which had tried and crucified Christ had been made Christian. The bishop realized that the worldly issues his predecessors had dismissed were now more than ever very important. So he set about formulating a doctrine where the state, because it was an apparatus ordained by almighty God, could do things that would be sinful for mere men to do on their own.

Some 1600 years afterwards, evangelical Christians in the United States faced a similar dilemma. Up until the Second World War, they had never been overtly political; preferring instead like Origen and Tertullian to comment on moral issues and stay away from the business of statecraft. However, with the rising specter of communism and other leftist phenomena emerging in the 1950’s, the evangelicals increasingly turned to politics.

The atheism of communism was seen as an evil that permeated into America, causing leaders to examine previously unquestioned ideas like prayer in school, and the structure of the family. As the years passed, the evangelical Christian groups, now styled the Religious Right by their contemporaries, exercised more and more power over voters and in turn, elected officials. Now that they had a hand on the rudder of the state, the religious right had to travel the path of Augustine by acknowledging the very real and pragmatic issue of war. The effect of this shift and the destination of their new path have come together in the war on terror, and more specifically, the war in Iraq.

Thesis avaliable.

2006-04-27T02:11:00.000-04:00

Just a reminder. You can find my full thesis in progress (now 40 pages!) through the documents link on the right of via this direct link.

Zing!

2006-04-27T01:37:00.000-04:00

First of all, there is no single reason why the religious right disagrees with early church teachings on the subject of war. Often times commentators like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson seem to promote and explain foreign conflicts as signs of the approaching rapture while at other times, seeking to bring about the signs of revelation, they urge action in the name of Christian Zionism. And sometimes religious right leaders support war just as a matter of pragmatism.

Before we examine the possible rationale for supporting the war in Iraq and the war on terror, let us look briefly at the history of the religious right as a modern political force.[1] Prior to the Second World War, the religious right in America was not particularly politically active. However it was not too long after the tumultuous events of the early 1940’s, the rising specter of communism, and what was seen as a moral decline in America, that the religious right began to exercise its latent might. Starting with Carl McIntire’s The Twentieth-Century Reformation Hour in the 1950’s and continuing with Billy Hargis in the 1960’s and 70’s, the religious right increasingly used media to spread their conservative message. At first the religious right spoke out against communist conspiracies, but before too long they branched out to denounce other aspects of society, with events like the civil rights movement and decisions about prayer in school seen as part of widespread leftist infiltration.

With the election of Jimmy Carter, a southern Baptist, the religious right became emboldened. If an evangelical Christian held the highest office in the land, perhaps Christian values would be promoted as part of public policy. This notion was quickly dismissed from the mind of the religious right as President Carter took what they believed to be anti-Christian stances. By letting abortions be federally subsidized, endorsing the ERA, and trying to have Christian schools taxed, Jimmy Carter quickly divorced himself from a large part of his support base. One significant figure in the religious right, Tim LaHaye, expressed his dismay by saying “Between 1976 and 1980, I watched a professing Christian become president of the United States and then surround himself with a host of humanistic cabinet ministers,” ministers who “nearly destroyed our nation.”[2]

Thinking themselves betrayed, the religious right moved to consolidate their power among conservatives. Groups like Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell and others in 1979, and Religious Roundtable moved to secure influence with conservative politicians like Ronald Reagan. Religious leaders like Falwell did all they could to advance their cause, even going so far as to spread outright lies about homosexuals and Jimmy Carter prior to the 1980 election.[3] After much hard work, the results of the 1980 elections were a stunning success to the religious right. All was not well within the ranks however, with support for religious right groups slowly waning until the scandals with Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker in the late 1980’s sent approval into a tailspin. Falwell and others tried to distance themselves from the controversy, but the damage was done; Pat Robertson’s presidential campaign fell apart and the Moral Majority ceased to exist.

Throughout the 1990’s, evangelicals worked hard to get friendly politicians elected. Robertson’s Christian Coalition along with other groups started at the local level and worked their way up the ladder. By the 1994 elections, conservative politicians were being elected in large numbers, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the religious right. Although the popularity of President Clinton kept a conservative from the White House, the ranks of Congress swelled with politicians that evangelicals supported. After several scandals rocked the Clinton White House, the religious right set its sights on a conservative evangelical president in 2000.

Although the religious right would have preferred the more outwardly religious Gary Bauer, they decided to shift their votes with George W Bush. In an interview in 2000, Pat Robertson explained that Bush was “playing intelligent in terms of his campaign,” and said that “coalition members and others have got to understand that that's what's going on.”[4] Even though the religious right supported Bush for president, they had once again lost some of their might. USA Today reported that “The percentage of the electorate identified as "religious right" declined from 17% in 1996 to 14% in 2000. The turnout among white evangelicals fell 6% from 1996 to 2000.”[5]

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the religious right lost their principle foe of the previous 40 years. Without a hostile force seeking to destroy Christian values, membership and support in conservative Christian groups began to wane. Despite throwing their full weight behind George W Bush, the religious right could not get as many citizens out to vote as they had in 1996 for Bob Dole. However, the attacks of September 11^th presented America and the religious right with a brand new enemy that sought the destruction of the American way of life.

[1] For a more detailed discussion, see Glenn H. Utter & John W. Storey, The Religious Right, (ABC-CLIO Inc, 1995) pp.1-18

[2] David Harrell Jr., Pat Robertson, A Personal, Religious and Political Portrait (New York: Harper and Row, 1987) pp. 184-185

[3] Newsweek, A Tide of Born-Again Politics, September 15^th 1980

[4] Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, The Religious Right and Election 2000, January 21, 2000. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week321/cover.html

[5] USA Today, Bush's wild card: The religious vote, September 21^st 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2004-09-21-bush-religiousvote_x.htm

Blah!

2006-04-27T01:18:00.000-04:00

I'm putting the finishing touches (although since it's still a rough draft, they're not really finishing touches) on the whole section of my paper concerning the modern political history of the religious right. What I'm trying to do is to first explain the basic history of the last 50 years, then try to show how the specter of Communism played a role in getting people to agree with religious right ideas, and the show how once the USSR collapsed, there wasn't a boogyman anymore... until September 11th. Hence, the reason why the religious right supports the war on terror and the war in Iraq. However sincere they are in their beliefs, having a common enemy that hates Christianity and America is very advantageous to their organizations.

anyways, I'll post the section in a few.

Politics and history

2006-04-23T10:39:00.000-04:00

I'm not going to get into a big political debate, but within the last 5 minutes of flipping through channels, I saw Ted Kennedy and John Kerry both say entirely false or misleading things about military history. Senator Kennedy said that we've had troops in Iraq for as long as we had troops in Korea during the war, and by the end of the year, we'll have had troops over there for as long as we had troops overseas in WWII. Perhaps on the surface those facts are true, but it totally ignores the fact that we still have troops in Korea and Europe. We're still in a state of war with North Korea for Pete's sake.

Then, generally agitated by what Sen. Kennedy had to say, I flipped around until I came to CSPAN. They had a conference about Vietnam and the Iraq War and John Kerry was talking. He was going through a long list of problems that remained from Vietnam and about 4 or 5 problems in, he mentioned Agent Orange. Now I don't know if he's just ignorant of the facts or if he's overstating the facts/exaggerating/lying, but Agent Orange should be a non-issue. Dr. Guilmartin here at OSU did an exhaustive study on the effects of Agent Orange on the US servicemen that sprayed it from the sky. They would have had the most exposure because they handled it all the time, but the study showed that there were no ill effects.

Anyways, now it's finishing-my-thesis time!

PhAT stuff

2006-04-20T20:46:00.000-04:00

Briggs and I were working on a proposal for all the stuff we wanted in the lounge. Our first draft was rough as neither of us was familiar with powerpoint on the mac, but I cleaned it up at home and viola!

Look!

And now... a total career path change!

2006-04-20T19:23:00.000-04:00

I've all but given up on OSU's history department. I don't know if I was accepted because I haven't even recieved a letter. However, I went to a masters of education meeting today and I think that's my new focus. The girl who gave the presentation said they had a 1 and 2 year program. The one year was for people who were already certified and it took applications in december. The two year deal is for people who want to spend their first year taking random history, econ, geography, poly-sci, etc... classes to be certified as a social studies teacher. The advantage to this is that you can still apply, even though it's been 5 months since the deadline. When the girl I talked to said that, I was like "well how good are your chances of getting in with that late of an application?" to which she responded "I did the 2 year and I applied in the summer and was into the program that fall." Apparently they take either 25 or 35 people, but only get around 40, and of those 40, there are a few who don't have the GPA or experience or GRE scores or whatever. So I think I'm going to get my application in wicked fast and then if nothing looks good at the history job fair, I'll go and become a social studies teacher!

In thesis news, I'm going to try and finish it on Sunday. Flo told me that we had to have copies ready by the 3rd of May for the 3 professors who we have to defend it to. I gotta figure out about finding 3 professors too. Plus, I need to get my graduation paperwork signed! That's not due until may 9th though, so I can do that next week in between scheduleathon and PhAT induction. Soooooooooooooo busy.

Teh thesis

2006-04-17T18:25:00.000-04:00

I'm sitting at around 32 pages right now. I've got some more source material coming in the mail from someone I emailed, but I think I've got enough. I'll need to further elaborate on some issues in the paper, add a section with some reasons why the religious right separates from the early church on war, add a big introduction as well as a conclusion, and I think it'll be pretty much finished. Then I'll show it around to get some feedback, make some edits, and it should be polished up in time for the Denman.

Crap! I'll need to get some posterboard for that.

Land's Letter to Bush

2006-04-17T18:23:00.000-04:00

Land’s Letter to Bush on ’Just War’[1]

In October of 2002 a letter was written to President Bush by Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Library Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. This letter was cosigned by Dr. Chuck Colson, Dr. Bill Bright, D. James Kennedy, Ph.D. and Dr. Carl D. Herbster, all prominent evangelical Christians. Unlike earlier statements made by US Catholic Bishops[2], these five men said that stopping “Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction was a just cause”. Furthermore, they said that Saddam had attacked his neighbors, used chemical agents against his own people, and supported international terrorism.

The letter explicitly states that these men think the President’s policies on Iraq to be “prudent and fall well within the time-honored criteria of just war theory as developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.” Then they lay out their criteria for a just war. A war would result in “liberty for the Iraqi people”, something that they think is “just and noble”. The war would be a matter of last resort because Saddam had broken UN resolutions and treaties over the past decade since the first gulf war. Furthermore, a legitimate authority, namely the United States government, had authorized it. The United Nations is seen as a helpful ally, but it lacks the necessary authority that the President and Congress have.

The letter stresses that peace was the objective of the war and that dealing with the problem now would be preferable to one in the future. “The cost of not dealing with this threat now,” they believe, “will only succeed in greatly increasing the cost in human lives and suffering.” In closing, the writers thank the President for being someone “who has learned the costly lessons of the twentieth century,” which in this case refers to the folly of appeasement prior to the second world war.

[1] Land, Richard D., et al, “Land’s Letter to Bush on ‘Just War’” http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314166|CHID597896|CIID1556010,00.html

[2] Gregory, Bishop Wilton T. “Letter to President Bush” Sept 13, 2002. http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/bush902.htm

End of the Falwell section from weeks ago

2006-04-17T18:22:00.000-04:00

Dr. Falwell then asks when there is a justified time for war, answering by laying out three categories. First war is justified when “freedom must be defended,” secondly war is allowed when a nation must “defend innocent people,” finally, a just war must “stop the spread of evil.” While leaving out a few key pieces of the classical theory, such as legitimate authority and the aim of peace, Dr. Falwell still shows some consistency with Augustine.

Augustine showed a clear division between self-defense and the protection of ones neighbors. While a good Christian should follow Jesus and offer no resistance to defend themselves, Augustine argued that they should act to help their neighbors. In this manner, Dr. Falwell’s second assertion, that a just war should defend innocent people, is very similar to the thinking of Augustine. The third category, a war that stops the spread of evil, is consistent with Augustine, who looks upon war as something that should have the objective of “punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good”[1]

On the surface he first point, that freedom must be defended, is somewhat harder to group in with Augustine. Dr. Falwell’s imagery of the founding fathers fighting for freedom might not have sat well with Augustine and his ideas of legitimate authority from God, but the core idea, that people should be free from torment and violence from their own leaders, fits well with Augustine. Rev Falwell says that President Bush is going to free people “from an incredibly vicious dictator who has killed thousands upon thousands of his own people”.[2] Stopping someone like Saddam Hussein would be just for Augustine because it would advance the common good and protect the innocent.

[1] As quoted by St Thomas Aquinas in The Summa Theologica, Second part of the second part, Question 40. (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)

[2] “Why ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ is a Just War” (January 25th 2004)

and now... a non-thesis post!

2006-04-12T17:20:00.000-04:00

Tonight we're having a meeting of the Phi Alpha Theta officers. We have a lot to do. There are the t-shirts we've got ordered, the movie night for the spring, the induction thing for new members, and figuring out how and when we're going to open the lounge. Having the keycode, I use the lounge M-W at 11:18. I have a Latin class in Dulles at 10:30 and a class down the street at 12:30, so I lounge about in the lounge, usually reading a book for class. I would be able to post from there, something that would be REALLY REALLY nice considering how cramped my schedule is this quarter, but there are all kinds of problems with the internet access. We have to apply for a network password and all kinds of jazz. Apparently you can't set it up like a library computer, or like... any computer in any classroom on campus where you use your OSU email and password to get internet access. So instead of writing thesis stuff or blogging, I read.

I guess it's not that bad of a deal really. I have to read those books anyways. Might as well get them done there while I have the time, right?

Last Wednesday, Maria Mazon, the general history advisor lady at OSU, busted into the lounge with a high school student and his mom. She didn't break the window or kick down the door, but there was enough fumbling with the number pad and enough startling of me to constitute "busting in." Anyways, despite the fact that the lights were on, she looked really amazed to find a student sitting in the corner reading a history book. She asked who I was, which made me feel like a champ since I've met with her like 15 times over the last few years and I usually email her once or twice a quarter, but I replied with "I'm the secretary of Phi Alpha Theta." Then she asked when we were going to open up the room. I didn't know so I told her she'd have to ask Adrienne.

The mom and the kid looked kinda confused, so Ms. Mazon explained that PhAT was the history honorary society here and that the history department had cleared out an old office for a new lounge. The fact that it was the PhAT officers that spent a night there getting rid of old books notwithstanding, I nodded and agreed with her synopsis. Then she said that it was going to be a place where students could come and talk and relax between classes and stuff. She asked me if the chairs were soft, and then asked if I was in there relaxing because I knew the keycode and no one else did. I gave her a look like "yeah, because my idea of relaxation is sitting in Dulles Hall quietly reading a history textbook before my next class begins"

Anyways, they left and I felt a bit slighted.

Oh, while we're on the subject of PhAT, I have the three movie choices for the next movie night!

The Agony and the Ecstasy

The biographical story of Michelangelo's troubles while painting the Sistine Chapel at the urging of Pope Julius II.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0058886/

Glory

Robert Gould Shaw leads the US Civil War's first all-black volunteer company, fighting prejudices of both his own Union army and the Confederates.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0097441/

Iron Jawed Angels

Defiant young activists take the women's suffrage movement by storm, putting their lives at risk to help American women win the right to vote.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0338139/

I'm not real excited about any of them, well Glory is a great movie, but I've seen it a bazillion times. And I guess The Agony and the Ecstasy would be good, except I'd probably feel compelled to shout Heston quotes at inopportune times.

I think it would go a-something like a-this.

::Random guy:: "Hey Michelangelo, your paints go on so smoothly! What's your secret?"

::Me in the back of the room:: "It's made of PEOPLE!!!"

::Random guy number 2::" Here, let me give you a hand"

::Me in the back of the room:: "Get your hands off of me you damn dirty ape!"

Rev Johnson

2006-04-10T22:08:00.000-04:00

While writing this paper, I contacted several figures in the religious right. I did not get any return emails from them, but since this result was not entirely unexpected, I had a backup plan. I sent out an email to a local, but still controversial figure here in central Ohio with the hope that he would have the time to send a thoughtful response.

Reverend Russell Johnson is the senior pastor at Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster Ohio and the chairman of the Ohio Restoration Group. This group, affiliated with Rod Parsley, a nationally recognized evangelical Christian leader from central Ohio, has drawn a great deal of controversy. On their website[1], they explain their mission objective. “To create, fund, and operate a public information program for patriot pastors and the christian community with 3 goals,” being to “pray, serve, and engage the culture.”

In the email that I sent to Rev. Johnson, I asked if he would not mind taking the time to explain the apparent disconnect between modern thinkers and those of the early church. In his reply he thanks me for my questions and set about explaining the gap between old and new. He says that he believes that “the Bible should be taken in context and in totality,” and that “war is a devastating reality.” He then gives some examples of “when God has COMMANDED war against the forces of evil.” Included are, “The wars of annihilation in the Promised Land,” and the time of Christ’s return as foretold “in the book of Revelation that deal with his response to evil.”

He then goes on to make a similar comparison to World War II as Pat Robertson had done before. Instead of directly saying it was a just war, he criticizes “a culture that worships at the alter of tolerance and “peace at any price”. Continuing, he says “While Neville Chamberlain may have appeared a champion for Peace in the moment…his appeasement of Hitler’s evil would cost millions of innocent people their lives. Capitulating to the forces of evil in the name of “peace” is cowardice and invites further advances from the forces of darkness.” After quoting from Romans 13, Rev. Johnson goes on to say that “The reality is that we are attempting to kill the forces of terrorism before they obtain weapons of mass destruction that could kill 10’s of 1,000’s in a day. The technology of the 21st century makes Hiroshima look like a walk in the park.”

[1] http://www.ohiorestorationproject.com/

Question about Word

2006-04-10T15:41:00.000-04:00

This is just a general question about Microsoft Word. Has anyone else ever had it start to delete stuff as you write? Sometimes I'll be editing a paper and I'll scroll up a few pages to enter a new sentence. As I write the new words, instead of inserting them in front of the old ones, it just replaces them. It's weird and only happens every once in a while. Usually I can just save, close, and reopen to fix it, but I'd still like to know what actually causes that.

I get a lot of academic ISPs on the page count reader, so I know there are a lot of students and maybe professors that frequent the site. Maybe one of you can help. I'll make you a fancy award graphic for "Excellence in the Field of Helping Zu" that you can display on your own website. How's that for motivation!?!?

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

2006-04-10T00:01:00.000-04:00

Apparently sitting in the rain at the Clippers game on Thursday night and the Indians game on Friday made me sick. I layed down earlier with the intent of reading about just war theory and woke up several hours later, book smashed against my face.

Now I've got to translate Caesar before I fall asleep again. Bah! I'll have the response to the letter tomorrow and, if I can read more without passing out, a section on Augustinian just war theory vis a vis Jerry Falwell's "definition" of a just war. Maybe I'll get ambitious and juxtapose his rant about how moral decay caused 9/11 with the stuff that Augustine said about the barbarian invasions being a divine tool.

In the meantime, some Calvin and Hobbes will help.

More Pat Robertson

2006-04-09T19:13:00.000-04:00

In two different responses, Robertson addresses the idea that Jesus was a pacifist and its implications on war. First he explains the difference between the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus of Revelation.

“He came to show us the meekness and humility of God Almighty, but that meekness and humility only lasts so far, and then He picks up His emblems of power. He then will reign and rule forever, and when you reign and rule, you have to have authority. The government is on His shoulders. Along with it comes authority. You no longer allow people to kill and to torture and to maim and to rape. That has got to stop. And Jesus says, 'No more! I am now in charge.”

Later, when someone asks if Jesus was a pacifist, Robertson gives his explanation with an almost Augustinian separation between personal actions and collective ones, saying “Resist not evil is what He taught His people and His disciples, but He was not necessarily talking about governments.” Robertson then goes on to reference St. Paul in Romans as more evidence that there is not anything wrong with the use of force by a nation. He also mentions the two Roman centurions that were converted in the Gospel as an argument from silence against pacifism. He closes by saying “I don't think pacifism, as such, is biblical. For the individual Christian, yes. We don't kick back against offenses against us. But in the collective sense of a government or of a world order, there has to be something to restrain evil.”

in progress

2006-04-08T20:48:00.000-04:00

I'm on kind of a roll, so I'm just going to post a couple paragraphs of the source material that I'm analysing now and continue writing before I fall out of my groove. Lots more later, probably including the reaction to that email I recieved last week!

Bring It On: The War On Terror[1]

On his website, Pat Robertson features a page dealing with questions about essential issues concerning war and Christianity. By reading his answers, one gets a fuller picture of the split between the early church fathers and the modern religious right.

The first question, simply enough asks when it is right to go to war. Robertson explains that there is a Catholic doctrine of just war and that countries should go to war to “defend their people against aggression or to liberate the oppressed from wickedness”. Citing World War II as an example of a just war, Robertson says that America acted justly to prevent the spread of Nazism and stop the extermination of the Jewish people. Furthermore, he says that the war was just because Japan attacked America first. He then compares the situation after September 11^th to World War II and says that “the measured, calculated response of the U.S. has been within biblical grounds”, using Romans 13: 1-4 as his proof.

Another question is from a boy who hopes to enlist in the USMC in the future. He asks if someone can be “forgiven for killing another human being”. Robertson answers that he does not like war, but sometimes people and countries have to defend themselves. At the end of his response, Robertson tells the young boy not to be ashamed “if you go into battle in a just war, of the fact that you may have to wound or even kill another human being who happens to be an enemy solider coming against you.”

[1] http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/waronterror-index.asp#10

Whew

2006-04-07T23:04:00.000-04:00

Sorry I haven't posted this week. I've had a lot of stuff I wanted to say too, just no time. But now that the weekend is upon us, I should be able to get a good amount of thesis work done. I applied for the Denman seconds ago. I thought I hit submit this morning before I left for Opening Day at the Jake, but I guess I didn't. It's a good thing I kept the windows open when I left and a better thing that I looked at them when I got back. Whew!

Let's see... besides the thesis stuff, I plan to gripe about history related things at school, talk about the PhAT lounge, talk about V for Vendetta, talk about my book report on "All Quiet on the Western Front", and finally post a bunch of random info on Sverdlovsk and the anthrax "incident" that transpired there in 1979. That's for my 598.01 class. It's a really easy class. Dr. Bartholemew just tells us about a country or an event and rambles off on delightful tangents. Plus, our assignment is to do a book report on a book about history of science and then a 10-15 page paper on a topic. I'm already 1/3 done with one book about the investigation, and I've got a Ken Alibek book on the way. He's a great author. I read a lot of his stuff last year in my terrorism classes.

Anyways, I've been up for a loooooooooooooooong time, so I'm gunna get some shuteye. Tomorrow there will be posting!

Omg a timely response.

2006-04-01T19:37:00.000-05:00

That guy I emailed, Rev. Russell Johnson, emailed me back promptly! Here's what he had to say:

Jon,

I appreciate your thoughtful letter. Please know that people of good will can see these matters from a different perspective. In Essentials Unity, IN Opinions Liberty, and In All Things Love…

That said, I would refer you to a sermon I’ve shared “When You Go To War”…while it’s text is from Deut. 20:1…there is a great deal of New Testament material included. While I believe the Bible should be taken in context and in totality…certainly war is a devastating reality. From the time of the Garden of Eden, there have been some times when God has COMMANDED war against the forces of evil. The wars of annihilation in the Promised Land are among the most notable. When Christ returns, there are some exceptional passages in the book of Revelation that deal with his response to evil.

We live in a culture that worships at the alter of tolerance and “peace at any price”. While Neville Chamberlain may have appeared a champion for Peace in the moment…his appeasement of Hitler’s evil would cost millions of innocent people their lives. Capitulating to the forces of evil in the name of “peace” is cowardice and invites further advances from the forces of darkness.

Romans 13 states that “the righteous do not carry the sword in vain…but to bring vengeance against the evil doers”. The reality is that we are attempting to kill the forces of terrorism before they obtain weapons of mass destruction that could kill 10’s of 1,000’s in a day. The technology of the 21^st century makes Hiroshima look like a walk in the park. We have some serious challenges with Pakistan and the future of weapons of mass destruction…

I would not canonize the early church fathers to the extent that we find Old Testament and New Testament commands. WE are called to be “soldiers of the faith”… “put on the full armor…the sword…the shield…the helmet” while the picture has spiritual connotations, God would never use evil as positive illustrations of noble character.

Interesting stuff! :-)

woo!

2006-04-01T15:42:00.000-05:00

I've sent out emails to Jerry Falwell and Russel Johnson asking their thoughts on the apparent disconnect between the early church's views on war and the way the religious right thinks about war today. Hopefully I get more than a cookie-cutter response!

I also found a new page full of source material!

Zing!

Grrrrrrrrrr

2006-03-29T14:34:00.000-05:00

You know what I hate? When people bring food into class. It's cool to bring a bottle of pop or a bag of chips in. That doesn't bug me. But when people bring in a whole box lunch or a bag full of burgers and fries, it really irritates me. First off, who is really so pressed for time that they can't eat at home or at the fast food joint? Is it absolutely essential for your survival to make all kinds of noise and spread food out all over your desk while I'm trying to take notes? You can't be like almost everyone else in the class and wait until later? And it's always something that has a really intense smell. Like french fries or a sandwich with some kind of spiced cold cut. Within seconds, everyone around the food is sniffing and getting really hungry. Now they can't concentrate because they just realized how much they wanted some fries.

Today in my 597 class, some dude, who stumbled in like 20 minutes after class started, managed to combine eating a full meal in class with my other pet peeve, screwing around on your computer. As he was sitting there dipping french fries in his frosty, he opened up his laptop and signed onto the internet. That's cool. You can use wireless internet to dowload the class outlines and type your notes up nice and neat with a word processor. But he didn't do any of that. Instead he proceeded to peruse facebook, check fantasy baseball drafts, chat on AIM, and check his email. It wouldn't have been that bad, but he was sitting in front of me. Every time I looked up to look at the powerpoint presentation, I'd find my eyes drawn to the pictures of random girls at a party or stats for A-Rod. Grrr!

I imagine this is the reason God decided not to give me superhuman abilities. People who irritated me would surely be destroyed in a vulgar display of my own might.

Of course Dawna is excluded from this rant due to her busy schedule.