Posted on 02/12/2003 8:35:27 PM PST by rwfromkansas
In the spring of 1999, as George W. Bush was about to announce his run for President, he agreed to be interviewed about his religious faith -- grudgingly. "I want people to judge me on my deeds, not how I try to define myself as a religious person of words."
It's hard to believe that's the same George W. Bush as now. Since taking office -- and especially in the last weeks -- Bush's personal faith has turned highly public, arguably more so than any modern president. What's important is not that Bush is talking about God but that he's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology – from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency.
On Thursday (Feb.6) at the National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence. ... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."
Calvin, whose ideas are critical to contemporary evangelical thought, focused on the idea of a powerful God who governs "the vast machinery of the whole world."
Bush has made several statements indicating he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission:
-- After Bush's Sept. 20, 2001, speech to Congress, Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson called the president and said: "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought -- God wanted you there." "He wants us all here, Gerson," the president responded.
In that speech, Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.
At the prayer breakfast, during which he talked about God's impact on history, he also said, he felt "the presence of the Almighty" while comforting the families of the shuttle astronauts during the Houston memorial service on Feb. 4.
-- In his State of the Union address last month, Bush said the nation puts its confidence in the loving God "behind all of life, and all of history" and that "we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. May He guide us now."
In addition to these public statements indicating a divine intervention in world events, there is evidence Bush believes his election as president was a result of God's acts.
A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported, "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment.
"All sorts of warning signals ought to go off when a sense of personal chosenness and calling gets translated into a sense of calling and mission for a nation," says Robin Lovin, a United Methodist ethicist and professor of religion and political thought at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Lovin says what the president seems to be lacking is theological humility and an awareness of moral ambiguity.
Richard Land, a top Southern Baptist leader with close ties to the White House, argues that Bush's sense of divine oversight is part of why he has become such a good wartime leader. He brings a moral clarity and self-confidence that inspires Americans and scares enemies. "We don't inhabit that relativist universe (of European leaders)," Land says. "We really believe some things are good and some things bad."
It's even possible that Bush's belief in America's moral rightness makes the country's military threats seem more genuine because the world thinks Bush is "on a mission."
Presidents have always used Scripture in their speeches as a source of poetry and morality, according to Michael Waldman, President Clinton's chief speechwriter, author of "POTUS Speaks" and now a visiting professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Lincoln, he says, was the first president to use the Bible extensively in his speeches, but one of the main reasons was that his audience knew the Bible -- Lincoln was using what was then common language. Theodore Roosevelt, in his 1912 speech to the Progressive Party, closed with these words: "We stand at the edge of Armageddon." Carter, Reagan and Clinton all used Scripture, but Waldman says their use was more as a "grace note."
Bush is different, because he uses theology as the guts of his argument. "That's very unusual in the long sweep of American history," Waldman says.
Bush has clearly seen a divine aspect to his presidency since before he ran. Many Americans know the president had a religious conversion at age 39, when he, as he describes it, "came to the Lord" after a weekend of talks with the Rev. Billy Graham. Within a year, he gave up drinking and joined a men's Bible study group at First United Methodist Church in Midland, Texas. From that point on, he has often said, his Christian faith has grown.
Less well known is that, in 1995, soon after he was elected Texas governor, Bush sent a memo to his staff, asking them to stop by his office to look at a painting entitled "A Charge to Keep" by W.H.D. Koerner, lent to him by Joe O'Neill, a friend from Midland. The painting is based on the Charles Wesley hymn of the same name, and Bush told his staff he especially liked the second verse: "To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill; O may it all my powers engage to do my Master's will." Bush said those words represented their mission. "What adds complete life to the painting for me is the message of Charles Wesley that we serve One greater than ourselves."
By 1999, Bush was saying he believed in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." He talked of being inspired to run for president by a sermon delivered by the Rev. Mark Craig, pastor of Bush's Dallas congregation, Highland Park United Methodist Church.
Craig talked about the reluctance of Moses to become a leader. But, said Mr. Craig, then as now, people were "starved for leadership" -- leaders who sacrifice to do the right thing. Bush said the sermon "spoke directly to my heart and talked about a higher calling." But in 1999, as he prepared to run for president, he was quick to add in an interview: "Elections are determined by human beings."
Richard Land recalls being part of a group of about a dozen people who met after Bush's second inauguration as Texas governor in 1999.
At the time, everyone in Texas was talking about Bush's potential to become the next president. During the meeting, Land says, Bush said, "I believe God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK." Land points out that Bush didn't say that God actually wanted him to be president. He said he believed God wanted him to be president.
During World War II, the American Protestant thinker Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about God's role in political decision-making. He believed every political leader and every political system falls short of absolute justice -- that the Allies didn't represent absolute right and Hitler didn't represent absolute evil because all of us, as humans, stand under the ultimate judgment of God. That doesn't mean politicians can't make judgments based on what they believe is right; it does mean they need to understand that their position isn't absolutely morally clear.
"Sometimes Bush comes close to crossing the line of trying to serve the nation as its religious leader, rather than its political leader," says C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a clergy-led liberal lobbying group.
Certainly, European leaders seem to be bothered by Bush's rhetoric and it possibly does contribute to a sense in Islamic countries that Bush is on an anti-Islamic "crusade."
Radwan Masmoudi, executive director of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, worries about it. "Muslims, all over the world, are very concerned that the war on terrorism is being hijacked by right-wing fundamentalists, and transformed into a war, or at least a conflict, with Islam. President Bush is a man of faith, and that is a positive attribute, but he also needs to learn about and respect the other faiths, including Islam, in order to represent and serve all Americans."
In hindsight, even Bush's inaugural address presaged his emerging theology. He quoted a colonist who wrote to Thomas Jefferson that "We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" Then Bush said: "Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate, but the themes of this day he would know, `our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity.'
"We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty, and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today; to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.
"This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm."
You missed one of CG's Foes. That being, me.
I was going to respond to CG by stating that I agreed with about 80% of the Facts which he presented -- his Material Facts, if not perhaps his Tone or "style" of presentation.
However, aside from his strange opinion of the Afghan War as being "unjust" (as Sinkspur points out, even the Pope agreed with the Justifiability of that war -- and this is coming from a Pontiff who can't even wrap his Papal Tiara around the morality of the Death Penalty for child-sodomizers and baby-killers), I don't necessarily disagree with the general thrust of CG's criticisms.
I will say that, in relation to the Article, if GW Bush's thinking is becoming more generally "Calvinistic", he certainly has a long way to go. For just one example, his attempts to "go behind" the backs of Congress and implement his "Faith Based Charities" plan by Executive Order rather than normative legislation. As my own Pastor said from the Pulpit (and I paraphrase -- reflecting the position of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in general), "We have no desire whatsoever for even a single penny of Caesar's Faith-Based Socialism; and we consider the very concept an abomination".
If GW Bush is becoming more "Calvinistic" in his thinking, he is becoming "half-Calvinistic" at best. And I pause to reflect that, in the case of a Ruling Magistrate, the combination of a Wesleyan belief in "personal choice, personal holiness" combined with a Calvinist (or at best, "calvin-esque") belief in "God's ordination of the Powers that Be" could theoretically result in a very dangerous cocktail of "Messianic" hubris on the part of the King. Mmmmm? Grist for the Mill....
As a hypothetical exercise: if we were truly willing to engage in a Foreign Policy of "HUMILITY" as CG suggests... a foreign Policy which is "humble" enough to admit, "We were wrong; and we are men enough to admit we were wrong... we should never have gotten involved in Iraq's squabble with Kuwait in 1990; therefore, the Sanctions end today, the "No-Fly Zone" ends today, the Bombing ends today... we will leave you alone, and leave you to the judgment of Hell"... does anyone really suppose that Saddam would continue to pursue vengeance against the US? He never did in the 1980's, he was happy enough to poison-gas the Iranians -- until we presented ourselves as a Threat to his Power. If we removed ourselves as a Threat to his Power, would he continue to seek to visit Harm upon us? All he cares about is Power, after all; everything else is quite negotiable.
It scarcely matters, of course. As Sinkspur observes, CG is behind the times; "the train has left the station"... We are going to War, tens of thousands of Civilians will be butchered by the Instruments of Death, and Hussein will be deposed -- rather quickly, I imagine. It is all becoming academic; and, if God is gracious, maybe it will end there. Though I rather doubt it.
But nonetheless, I should have liked to engage CatholicGuy in an Argument on such subjects.
I can't now; he has been Banned. Perhaps I will be Banned also, for (partially) agreeing with (some) of his criticisms.
But I will miss him in the Theology debates. As concerns adversarial Theology debates, I always found his Postings to be rather like dining on a good cut of Filet Mignon -- that is, tender meat, and easily chewed up. But, even if easily dissected and easily digested, at least his Arguments were juicy and poignant -- not stale, bland, and warmed over.
I didn't agree with all he wrote, but when it came to originality and creativity, not to mention knowlege, Catholiguy was one of the best Freepers. Banning him is a travesty, and says more about FreeRepublic than it does him. It says more about where this country is headed, and it says that there are some real dopes here, if they can't handle having their political views questioned.
St. Chuck, I'll toast you a glass of Wine, to that sentiment.
(even if it does not, in fact, transmogrify into literal human blood).
Best, OP
Because Four-Legs Good, Two-Legs Bad...
...but some are more equal than others.
How they gloried in their early victories! The Palestinians were massacred, they were nothing. The Israeli military machine, the most powerful army in the world, with unlimited US funding, had no difficulty in 'pacifiying' south Lebanon. Their occupation of the crusader fortress, Beaufort Castle, was a symbol of the power of their crusade.
The only, slight, problem was some resistance from the Shia population of the south, and both the Christian militias and the IDF used to make quite funny jokes about how easily they would crush these ignorant villagers. And they did, again and again. But they kept having to come back and do it again. And the pacification campaign dragged on, the weeks into months, the months into years. Then, in the 1990s, after 10 years of occupation something slipped, and the Israelis found themselves in a nightmare of endless low-intensity warfare. The Shia militias had got better, and also, the Israelis were plagued with bad luck. Equipment failures, security breaches, it went on and on.
The Israelis were driven out of Lebanon, fleeing in the end before the Hezbollah. They tried to blow up Beaufort Castle, before they left, but the walls still stood. A monument to folly.
It is not good to proclaim that God is on your side, unless you are positively sure of the outcome. A similar fate overtook a Muslim power (Indonesia) when they thought they could easily dominate the Christian population of East Timor, but more on that another time. God favors whom He will favor.
No, don't get me wrong... The article was interesting "considering the change in his wording of his beliefs over time". I don't disagree with that for a second; and I think you have a keen eye for having pointed it out, my Young Reformer.
But "Half-Calvinists" can be the most dangerous "protestants" of all!! For they know our Calvinist Language, but they do not truly share our Beliefs.
Just look at the way the "Half-Calvinists" have hijacked the Dallas Theological Seminary. Theoretically, DTS is supposed to be an Amyrauldian School -- that is, they believe that The Son died to provide an Infinite Atonement ("hypothetical universal atonement"), and The Father in His sovereignty chose to elect certain Fallen Men into the Merits of Christ, since they would never Choose Him without prior Regeneration.
And yet, out of all the DTS graduates with whom I have ever talked, "DrSteveJ" is the one (1) DTS Graduate whom I have encountered whom I am entirely confident is a Classical "4-Point Amyrauldian Calvinist". All the others have been Calvi-minian Compromisers, disingenuous haberdashers, who proclaim the battle cry "Yes.. BUT!!" Yes, BUT God's Predestination is a Paradox, a Mystery, in enternal "Tension" with Free Will... which are but weasel-words for, "I really want to believe that MAN is in control, I just enjoy paying pious lip-service to the *idea* of God's Sovereignty".
Tens of Thousands of DTS grads out there, and "DrSteveJ" is the only genuine Classical Amyrauldian whom I have encountered. If DTS is supposed to be an "Amyrauldian Calvinist" school... then I am inclined to be sympathetic to "the_doc"s acerbic criticisms of DTS.
For the record -- I do believe and hope that GW Bush is a Saved Man (if only by the Grace of God, as are we all). I do not personally think that GWBush is a Tare in the Church (although, even if I think his Wife is a lovely woman by Human standards and may have been used by God to effect a positive influence in GW's life, I confess that I have my suspicions about any "christian wife" who thinks it should be Legal to gut unborn children like a fish and grind them into mulch).
I do think that GW Bush has Good Intentions.
But absent the Rigors of Sound Theology...
...The Road paved with Good Intentions is the most dangerous one of all.
Oddly enough, if the Moderator in question is a Thomist Catholic, I could believe that a Roman Catholic could be reasonably "even handed".
However, I also know that at least one is rabidly anti-Catholic, and gleefully censors Catholics/Catholic threads by banishing them to the Religion Forum and other abuses of their censorship powers.
Don't throw yourself too much of a Pity Party. We on the Calvinist Squad have our equal suspicions of "Anti-Calvinist" bias -- including Suspensions and Bannings.
Of course some of the Calvinists occasionally say things that "aren't too friendly", so to speak. Neither did CatholicGuy, for that matter -- he wasn't too "friendly" in some cases.
But I would never have banned him, if it were up to me. There's a difference between a Passionate Disputant and a Disruptor. A big difference.
I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the Moderators is a "We're all Christian; can't we all get along?" Rodney King type. Me, I understand that Theological Debates are conducted along lines of black and white... Can we get along? OF COURSE NOT!! We have already identified the areas in which we "get along" (The Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, et cetera); any further debates concern matters where we disagree!! And disagree quite frankly, in terms of black and white.
When the Religion Forum was established, I think that you called it a "religious ghetto", Polycarp. I disagreed with you then. I considered it to be a "side room" where persons of sincere Religious Convictions could argue forthrightly amongst ourselves, even if we agreed together on the News Forum (on Pro-Life issues, etc.)
But if one of the Moderaters is attempting to impose a "We're all Christian; can't we all get along?" regime upon the Religion Forum, them I must retract my prior disagreement with you.
The fact that they do it routinely leads me to believe Jim Robinson approves of their anti-Catholic censorship.
And me, I have suspected that Jim Robinson's extended family includes both Mormons and Roman Catholics, on account on what I have seen as the "Anti-Calvinist" bias.
Maybe we should stop blaming Jim Robinson, and ask the Moderators not to turn the Religion Forum into a "can't we all just get along" Religious Ghetto.
There should have been NO problem with "CatholicGuy" discussing the application of Thomist "Just War" Theory on the Religion Forum. That's what the Religion Forum is intended for. It's not a bloody "religious ghetto" (or at least it is not supposed to be), it's supposed to be a place for Religious People to discuss Religious Principles (such as the Thomist "Just War" Theory) before we post on the main "News/Activism" Forum.
And the fact that One_Particular_Harbour, now known as the consumate anti-Catholic bigot Chancellor Palpatine, provides legal counsel to Free Republic, solidifies my opinion that this Forum has become institutionally anti-Catholic.
I am almost certain that "the consumate anti-Catholic bigot Chancellor Palpatine" is not One_Particular_Harbour.
One_Particular_Harbour, if you remember, was a hard-core Eastern Orthodox, for crying out loud (which accounted for his Anti-Catholicism). "Chancellor Palpatine" is not.
If you must know, I believe that "Chancellor Palpatine" is the (non-calvinist, non-Magisterial, independent) Protestant formerly known as "Darth Sidious" (check the Screen Names, fer cryin' out loud).
But do me a (personal) favor, Polycarp -- and don't seek his banning by the Powers That Be. Palpatine's anti-Catholicism may be "over the top" (a common failing of non-Magisterial Protestants who don't even understand the Magisterial Reformers' disagreements with Rome), but I enjoy reading his Political Postings and would hate to see him Banned again.
Best, OP
I have no idea. If the Pope is against this war, then I think he is wrong. Does that make me an anti-Catholic bigot in your eyes? 253 posted on 02/14/2003 2:24 PM PST by Jim Robinson (FReepers are the GReatest!)
Jim, that's the thing. On the "Religion Forum", EVERY discussion is Religious in nature. That's why you established the Religion Forum, is it not?
On the Religion Forum, we debate Religious Principles. Such as the question, "Is it Morally Just to sanction the death by bombing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians IF a Peace could be acheived by simply withdrawing from the Middle East entirely -- even if it "embarassed our pride" to do so?
Religious FReepers are some of the most sincere benefactors of this incredible (100% voluntary, Privately-organized, Free Will) Discussion Forum which you have built. Not too get all sentimental but... we love you, man!! You have provided for us a place to discuss the Two Forbidden Topics which are never permitted at liberal coffee-talks... Politics and Religion. God bless you!!
But if Devout Religionists cannot discuss Religious Principles (such as CatholicGuy's admittedly-boisterous discussion of the Thomistic "Just War" Primciple) on the Religion Forum...
...then what are we supposed to discuss herein? New Age books on guardian angels, and the latest "Weekly World News" tabloid prophecies on the Image of Jesus in pizza sauce?
In part, I wish to completely disagree with his characterization of the Afghan War as an "UnJust War" -- The Terrorists who piloted those doomed airliners may indeed have been Saudi and Egyptian (which legitimately should affect our "friendly" Relations with those countries, IMHO), but I have no moral objection to bombing the Taliban Regime which deliberately sheltered and trained them. However, I should like to give "CatholicGuy" an opportunity to respond to that Argument.
I don't think you're an "Anti-Catholic Bigot" Jim... as a Hyper-Protestant, I'm probably more of an "anti-Catholic bigot" than you'll ever be.
But I respectfully submit that a discussion of Thomistic "Just War" theory is a legitimate subject for the Religion Forum.
Of course, it's entirely possible that "CatholicGuy" was completely wrong. Here I am, an Arch-Calvinist Hyper-Protestant, and I actually agree with maybe 70-80% of his "What Would Jesus Do?" Roman Catholic criticisms.
It's probably never a good sign when Calvinists and Roman Catholics agree on anything.
After all -- the LAST time that happened, we got together and wrote a Constitution, and all.
Ill take this thread as a sign that the inquisitors reign of terror is over( I'd never dare be this frank until now). I was on the fence about the Iraq war until the Pope came out against it strongly, I figure if he and Opus Dei oppose it then there must be a compelling American interest. And im not some fanatic of another religion I was technically baptized Catholic myself but the more I learn of the church the less I like about it.
Let's take this one by one, weikel.
There is absolutely no Danger whatsoever of "Banning" for anyone who attacks either Traditionalist Roman Catholics OR Traditionalist Calvinists on Free Republic. You may Bash to your heart's content.
So... on Free Republic, you may freely Bash Traditionalist Roman Catholics OR Traditionalist Calvinists to your heart's content.
The Traditionalist Roman Catholics are alone, and have no Defenders in their favor; and the Traditionalist Calvinists consider it beneath our Honor to hit the "abuse button".
I know lots of "unpleasant facts" about Roman Catholic history. Such as the Jesuit's genocidal slaughter of 3 million Czechs during the period 1618-1648. At the beginning of the Thirty Years War, Czech Bohemia was populated by some 4 million souls, fully 80% Protestant. Thirty Years and three million corpses and Jesuit Ethnic Cleansing later, Czech Bohemia was populated by a mere 1 million souls, some 80% Roman Catholic. Funny how the Math works out, eh?
But what is that to you?
If you deny the Existence of God, then these "unpleasantries" between Roman Catholics and Protestants should be of no more concern to you than the slaughters of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.
Pardon me if I am unimpressed by Atheist "declarations of war" against the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of her atrocities against Reformation Protestants. It's sorta like Paraguay's declaration of war against the Axis Powers in February 1945... you're rather a bit late, and you don't even really know what we're fighting about. You're basically just trying to seem Relevant. But you aren't.
No offense meant, but that's what it is.
Personally, I'd be happy as a clam (politically, at least) if the Roman Catholic Church actually did dominate the Hispanic-American voting bloc.
I am consummately anti-Papist; but if the Roman Catholic Church really did control the "Mexican Flood" -- economically and culturally, at least, Papistry would be a marginal improvement.
Ill take this thread as a sign that the inquisitors reign of terror is over( I'd never dare be this frank until now). I was on the fence about the Iraq war until the Pope came out against it strongly, I figure if he and Opus Dei oppose it then there must be a compelling American interest. And im not some fanatic of another religion I was technically baptized Catholic myself but the more I learn of the church the less I like about it.
The Pope and Opus Dei were also strongly against Hitler and Stalin, you know. (And don't even try any revisionist crap about Pius XII being "Hitler's Pope"; if I could set Polycarp straight on that record, I'll set you straight, my libertarian FRiend)
The Pope is Often Wrong.
Occasionally the Pope gets something right.
He may be Right here, or he may be Wrong.
But you must always think as an individual.
It's all well and dandy to be "Anti-Papist", but it does not behoove you to dispute the Stopped Clock twice a day when it happens to be right.
Alright, this is where I have to disagree with you, Jim.
Probably because I was raised "FDR Democrat". But I was raised "Midwestern FDR Democrat". Polk City, Iowa. And that's a different thing entirely from the Left Coast.
Out in Black Earth country, you Love America because it is the place, the Soil, the fatherland ("Pro Patris") where you grow your Crops and you lend your Neighbor a dollar when he needs it and you go to Church together -- even when you disagree with the "commander-in-chief" and the "war efforts".
I know you fought in Vietnam, Jim. Well, I hafta confess... My Folks never believed in the Vietnam War. They thought it was the Wrong War, in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time.
But they taught me one thing, which I have never forgotten (in my passage from Socialist to Libertarian)...
My dad was almost a Trotsky-ite, and I have forgotten everything else he believed in... but from the age of five (1980, in my case), I have never forgotten he said that.
So I respectfully submit, Jim...
I may have moved out to the East Coast, but a MidWestern Boy will never stop loving America, or respecting our Military. It would be almost like forgetting the Name of Jesus... I don't even know how I would do it. The freakin' Concept doesn't make sense to my Mind.
But I have always reserved the right to disagree with "the commander in chief", and the "war efforts".
Cause' out in Black Earth Country... that ain't America, that's the Government.
And you always have the right to disagree with the Government. Especially when Communists like Bill Clinton are in control; but you always have the right.
Particularly, on the Religion Forum, where it concerns Religious Questions.
Anyway, that's Just My Opinion.
I have strong opinions about that line. It should read, "once the decision was made NOT to pursue unrelenting, unrestricted victory, then 'those boys shoulda never been sent over there...'" Originally, the war in Vietnam was to prevent the spread of communism. Events after the war proved (dominoes falling) that to have been an accurate assessment and, therefore, a noble mission.
The fact that the war became an exercise in political correctness NEVER detracts from the valor of the sacrifice by the troops who responded to the nation's call to go fight. They were patriotically observing their allegiance to their country by supporting its call to arms. That should NEVER be besmirched.
The problem, however, is with the families of those who were killed after it became apparent that the war had become pointless because it wasn't being pursued with a mind toward total victory.
When the pundits/religionists/whoever tells a family member that the war in which their loved one gave his/her life was pointless/unjust/wicked/for-commercial-interests/ignoble, THEN what message are you sending about the DEATH AND SACRIFICE of their loved one?
Simply that their life and their death was NOT noble but was wasted. It adds bitterness and resentment to their grief rather than pride and patriotism.
I assure you that this assessment is right on target. I spent 20 years as an Army Chaplain. One job we have is serving on notification of death teams who let family members know that a loved one has died. It is a bitter pill for them to swallow.
Can you imagine how Shuggart's family felt after the Somalia adventure when Clinton tucked his tail between his legs and ran and did not carry that mission through to completion? Waste....the country wasn't willing to fight for what Shuggart had been sent to die for.
Shuggart's own integrity was the hopeful side. He had responded with bravery and courage and patriotism and decency. That was the consolation to his parents as it should have been to the parents of Vietnam Vets....personal integrity trumps national cowardice and waste.
However, would that we had pursued both those wars to just ends, since we considered them just wars at their inception.
That is the danger of CatholicGuy's mischaracterization of the Afghan War. First, the troops are entirely honorable in their patriotic response to their country. Second, by the Just War criteria, it was in response to an attack on our homeland, and was, therefore, honorable and just.
How long do you entertain ideas of the injustice of a war before you undermine the patriotic will of those who are called to defend the country?
I don't want you JUST to say to me that my two sons who are on alert for this are "individually patriotic." I want the CAUSE in which they might give their lives ALSO to be RIGHT AND JUST. You rob families of important, additional comfort if you rob them of that consolation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.