One Year After (Operation Iraqi Freedom)

Memo to the New York Times: we won the war. The most important fact about the War is that Sadaam is gone. He was a terror to his people and to the region. He supported terror, refusing to condemn 9/11. Now he is gone. Nothing else matters. We won. Terror lost. This is not “sophisticated” and misses “nuance.” It does have the advantage of being true.

What if one viewed the world through a religious framework? Not because one had to out of fear (you never know when to expect the Spanish Inquisition), but because it is interesting and after much experience of the world seems true? What if one decided that a holy book, like the Bible, contained the truth by which mankind should live? Surely this could be as viable as a secular point of view. Logic and the dialectic don’t promise secularism. The dialectic is a way to live, not a promise of answers. Are there answers? I think (however dimly I see them) that there are some. The dialectic allows for this limited certainty.

Lately, during this War, such religious people (mostly Moslem) have come under fire. Need a traditional religious way of living lead to terrorism or intolerance? First, tolerance (by itself) is not a virtue. Tolerance seems to me to be good party manners. You don’t make fun of the stories told by a tipsy relative at the party. It would not be polite. However, no one would tolerate Uncle Fritz telling his pro-Nazi stories. There is a limit to tolerance and it would seem to be morality. Both secularism and religious world views give many different types of morality.

Morality is going to have to come from somewhere. Secular morality, badly understood, led to Stalin and the deaths of millions of people. Religious morality, badly understood, leads to Bin Laden. My point is that what we oppose in the War is a false world view, Bin Laden’s form of Islam. I am against it, because it is wrong. It is ethically wrong, historically wrong, and philosophically indefensible. It is not because he is a fundamentalist, or somehow too “conservative” or committed to his world view. If his world view (a variation of Islam) were not wrong, then being very committed to it would not be bad.

My belief is that traditional Christianity, that holds the fundamentals, is the best way to go. I think it true, good, and beautiful. Acting on that belief would never lead to terrorism, since war for any Christian is a bad thing. Terror would be an unjustified action in any circumstance. It can be justified in some cases in a broken world, but it is never our first choice. Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace, not Henry V. The War on Terror is just, but it is sad. I work for a rapid end to the War, because no Christian can like war.

Now in fact, I think there is no secular morality that does not (in the end) lead to monstrous moral problems. That does not mean most secular people are bad, they are not. But to the extent they are not, they are not acting consistent with the variation of secularism they hold. Many are almost saintly in their private and public lives. Religious people are not always good. We do not always or even mostly act in a manner consistent with our view of the world. (In my own life, God forgive my twenties, I was not a good person. Many secular people, if not most, were much better.) However, Christianity provides a way of rebuke, repentance, and restoration. This is a good thing. It is such a good thing, I don’t understand why people do not want it. But there you go. That makes me think that I may be not following the dialectic with enough vigor. On to the Euthyphro!

This is the real news of today. FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Pakistani Forces Ramp Up Siege Nations like Pakistan are the serious allies we need in the War on Terror. Nobody thinks the government there is great. Nobody is likely to confuse Pakistan with Shangrila any time soon, but there you have it. We had to fight with Stalin to defeat Hitler. While Kerry worries about the French reaction to the War, Pakistan does what pundits a year ago said they would not do: helps us win the War. Kerry wants allies from nations where Kerry likes to vacation. Bush wants allies where terrorists live. Which man is the grown up?

This piece of tripe is what passes for reporting today: MAGNIFIES - Predictions off mark on Iraq war’s impact Notice there is no actual field work done here. Anyone with google and a dial up connection could have written the story. It also puts the worst possible spin on the White House plans. Missing for example is the fact that the military battle itself was much easier than critics had anticipated. In fact, the entire piece misses the chance to point out how wrong headed the critics were. We freed Iraq for less than 600 lives. We are well on our way to building a democratic nation there. It cost more than we hoped, but less than some feared. Someone should go back and compare our hopes in World War II to the actual events. If optimists are often, well, optimistic, at least they win wars. Pessimists are often right about the details, but are losers.

Wednesday I was on the radio with Frank Pastore and called John Kerry “Count Chocula” in a bit of fun. . . and because I think the Kerry policies are either: a. the product of a sophomoric advertising agency (not sincerely held) or b. likely to suck the blood out of the economy. I also think he looks like Count Chocula and in our present age think this not good for his electoral chances. A few people have been offended with this. . . as not Christian. I would rather be called “Count Chocula” in fun, than “an old fox” by our Lord in anger. Some people are nicer than Jesus Christ.

Really.

The Fairest Flower in all of Christendom

I love my wife. (Though not in the same way I love Eric Alterman!) Given my life, I am so unworthy of her or her love. The best case of God’s mercy that I know is that He has let me grow older with Hope. He has not given my what I deserve, but what I need. My dating life was such a disaster, full of hurts given and received. Sin, even old sin, never stops hurting. But Hope, my wife, has the right name. We serve a God of hope. Thanks be to God.

I love Eric Alterman. See his blog. MSNBC - Altercation He is living proof of the decline of Western education. . . and before he says it: I am another one. Alterman has the whole smarmy, superiority persona down cold. Is he really this way? I doubt it. It is his “academic” voice that is so cloying, hard won by many years of school. I bet he is a nice guy in private. . . see his reviews of music. However, whenever those of us who went to a secular grad school (I will let seminaries off the hook this time) try to write for the “folks” we end up sounding like the aging, petulant Oxford don without the charming accent.

It has taken me years to try to overcome this tone. I am still not there. Humility: the Christian virtue that no one wants. Yet. . . Lent reminds me to keep trying to learn this trait. Lord make me humble and yes, do it now.

Packer fans are very, very passionate. I know. I am one. However, is there any other team that would worry about their punter? Big prediction: the Packers will not win or lose the Super Bowl based on their punter. The great thing about sports is that it does not much matter. We all get to opine without fear or worry about being wrong. Hurrah!
JS Online: Packers may regret losing Bidwell

The placement of stories at MSNBC is interesting. The following is the main story. MSNBC - Wave of attacks ahead of Iraq war anniversary At the same time, they acknowledge on a side bar, that the Allies are about to capture a major terrorist figure. Now more terrorism, horrid as it may be, is not news. At least not the sort of impotent terrorism, noted. The terrorists are trying to matter. . . but cannot disguise that they are losing. On the other hand, the leaders of the terrorists are dying. It is easy to find “troops” on the Arab streets, but not so easy to find brilliant, though evil, leaders. The big pieces are being captured. The pawns will soon vanish or become even more impotent in their rage. The terrorists know it. Why don’t we?

I am at a meeting in Dallas, Texas where very thoughtful Christians are dealing with issues related to religion and science. Led by one of California’s brightest citizens, Phillip E. Johnson of UC Berkeley. Too often the stereotype of thoughtful Christians is that they are bound by dogma, unable to engage in the dialectic.

But wait: we are starting with academic jargon already! What is the dialectic? My entire life has been transformed by two books: the Bible and the Republic. The Republic taught me a lesson I could have learned from the Bible. However, if you grow up in the United States it is sometimes hard to hear the Bible as the intellectually stimulating document that it really is. The Republic taught me that we everybody has questions. Most of us never really pursue these questions. Life tends to get in the way. Mortgage. Kids. We think Big Questions are best left for late night beer and pizza sessions in college. We “outgrow” the questions and settle on “answers.”

Perhaps at forty, I should confess to never having grown up, if this is growing up. The Republic presented me with Socrates who grew older, but not old. He followed the discussion where it led. . . the pathway I now think of with the Greek word for “word” or discussion: the logos. This life under the microscope, the examined life, has made me a very traditional Christian. It led me by hard labor and with many sins on my part to Jesus Christ. Of course, my parents. . . who also have always asked hard questions and never stopped growing. . . could have told me this long ago. That depresses me in a sense, but as usual Plato helped me. Socrates once stretched out his hand and encouraged one of his followers to seek for themselves. Jesus Christ also allowed His followers to seek for themselves, even to the point of rejecting him. So I shall go on following the logos, that I now believe to be the Logos, where it leads me.