Palin’s Wrongheaded View of God’s Plans
by Jacob G. Hornberger
In an address to an Assembly of God Church in Alaska, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin suggested that church members pray “that our national leaders are sending [soldiers to Iraq] on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan.”
It would be interesting to hear Palin explain her understanding of how God’s plans can possibly involve violations of His sacred commandments.
The commandment is simple: That shalt not murder. God did not provide exceptions to that prohibition, not even for agents of the CIA and the U.S. military.
Lest we forget: Neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States or threatened to do so. No matter how many contortions that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush have engaged in (e.g., WMDs, the war on terrorism, 9/11, spreading democracy, UN resolutions, and radical Islam), the simple truth remains: The U.S. government attacked Iraq, not the other way around.
Thus, we should never forget: In the Iraq War, the United States is the aggressor nation and Iraq is the defending nation. That means that no agent of the U.S. government had any moral right to kill even one single Iraqi, much less the million or so that have been killed.
Some people calculate the wrongful Iraqi deaths only in terms of civilian deaths. They have it wrong. Since the U.S. government had no right to invade Iraq, U.S. agents, including those in the CIA and the military, had no moral right to kill any Iraqi, including Iraqis who were defending against the wrongful invasion and occupation of their country.
The standard neo-con religious position is that whatever the U.S. government does overseas against foreigners is right and moral as a matter of law because the government is operating as an agent of God and simply fulfilling His plans.
The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children killed by the pre-invasion sanctions? A million Iraqis killed in the invasion? Well, you see, those killings can’t be murder because it was the U.S. government that did the sanctioning and invading. It would only be murder if, say, the Russian government committed those acts. Since it’s the U.S. government that killed all those people, it’s all good and moral because it must be all part of God’s plan.
Moreover, keep in mind that in the neo-con mindset the U.S. government and the American people are one and the same. Since everyone knows that the American people are kind, caring, and charitable, that means that everything the U.S. government does, including kidnapping, renditioning, torturing, and sexually abusing people, is all good and moral. It’s all part of God’s plan, you know.
This attitude, of course, is what distinguishes Christian libertarians from Christian neo-cons. Christian libertarians adhere strictly to God’s commandments, refusing to draw an exception for agents of the U.S. government. Unlike them, we hold that murder is murder, even when committed by agents of the U.S. government. Since the U.S. government had no right to invade Iraq, it had no right to kill any Iraqis, much less a million of them. The same principle holds true with respect to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children killed by the pre-invasion sanctions. The same holds true for the murders, torture, and sex abuse committed by U.S. agents against Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison.
Christian libertarians, unlike Christian neo-cons, do not conflate the American citizenry with the U.S. government. As such, we are capable of recognizing immorality and wrongdoing committed by the U.S. government and we are unafraid to take a stand against it. Unlike the neo-cons, we don’t try to excuse away evil and immorality by claiming that they must be part of God’s plan.
Indeed, unlike the Christian neo-cons we Christian libertarians don’t view the government as an agent of God but instead as simply a bunch of ordinary people who use government force to satisfy their self-interests, including the ever-growing lust for more power and more money.
14 comments:
I simply don't understand people who call themselves Christians and then claim the moral upper hand in the Iraq war. I really like Jim Wallis' views - if you haven't read his book God's Politics - pick it up. It's worth a read. He does some oversimplification and it's a little preachy for my tastes as a non Christian. His basic premise, though, is that the political right does not have a monopoly on morals when they ignore moral imperatives such as unjust war, poverty, and human rights. He hurls some pretty heavy criticisms of the left as well.
I read at least half of God's Politics a few years back. It's a decent book and a pretty good manifesto for the "Christian Left", but it's not really the politics I subscribe to. I do think it's more inline with the Christian faith than the standard American Christian Right ideas, but not quite all in line. Actually I think my politics are the most inline with the Christian, but I suppose all Christians think that.
I agree - it's far from perfect, but I think it's a good jumping off point for people on the far right to think about how to expand those "morals" beyond wedge issues and for people on the far left to recognize that not all religion is bad.
I had a lot of friends who were initially very enthused about Sarah Palin - but the biggest thing I have against her is that she agreed to be John McCain's running mate.
John McCain (and Obama) are both members of the CFR - the goals of this organization are in direct opposition to the US Constitution and any acceptable norms of Judaeo-Christian values.
Under a McCain/Palin administration, I would expect to see lip-service given to red meat conservative issues like the Second Amendment and the right to life, even as they appoint more judges who will work to undermine those issue.
We have a one party system in our country and that party is the CFR.
"God's will" is not so cut and dried, and people have struggled with these biblical paradoxes for millenia.
The Ten Commandments are not all of God's commandments. We are also commanded to proclaim Liberty throughout the land; to love our neighbors and do unto them as we would have them do unto us; I don't know about you but if I were living in tyranny I would want someone to help me out.
If you see a woman being raped, is it God's will that you should stop it, even if it means killing the rapist?
If a man is raping a nation, is it God's will that you should stop it?
There are no easy answers here.
The fact is these questions are less on of morality and God's wishes, but much more ones of prudence.
It may be RIGHT to overthrow a dictator, especially one that WE helped gain and keep power -- but the real question is, is it the best course of action for the people?
These are all difficult questions with no easy answers.
This is true, but then it's not I or the article author pretending to know God's will, but rather Palin making the outrageous claim that our invasion is God's will.
It is a reasonable assumption that God wills all to be liberated. It is a standard in Americam Churches since before the inception of our nation that God is on the side of the liberators and our troops and their mission and tasks.
Palin's speech is pretty much in line with what every leader has said about our troops throughout history.
It only seems odd to folks who aren't familiar with the American view of the Gospel and it's history. It's fine not to feel that way yourself, but Palin's speech is completely ordinary.
Oh, it is also completely consistent with libertarianism as well -- maybe not YOUR brand, which I guess in this context we could call "legalistic" libertarianism -- but certainly overall libertarianism, and certainly Christian libertarianism as well.
I simply feel these are things that believers and libertarians can rightly disagree on.
Okay, now you've gone and leaped off the deep end.
I'll agree that there are different brands of libertarianism, but NONE of them involve blind faith in the State. Period. The problem with your first analogy is that you make the comparison of YOU (in the first person) seeing a victim across the street being attacked and equate it with supporting the State in its invasion of a sovereign nation based on THEIR (the State) narrative of seeing a victim being attacked half a world away. Furthermore, your analogy of sending US forces as the liberator removes it even further from the first person account as now you are not only using the State to determine right from wrong for you, you are also using them to initiate violence on your behalf.
Where does this fit into libertarianism again? Probably some Eric Dondero fantasy. I assure you if supporting such bile principles makes you a christian and/or libertarian I am neither.
Any critical examination of facts in the region show that the US soldiers in Iraq have perpetrated any number of crimes against the so-called liberated Iraqis including the rape you previously mentioned. Does this mean, as christian libertarians, we need to organize ANOTHER force to liberate the liberated Iraqis yet again?
What about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to our invasion? Are the liberated? What about the ones who have fled the country? Are the liberated? What IS your definition of liberated anyway? Surely nothing that exists in the present or immediate future state of Iraqi politics can look anything near to a state of liberation.
And yet, with all of this death, destruction of property, torture by the hands of American troops, and lying we are suppose to believe that somehow our government is doing God's work? What God is that you serve, sir?
What I am saying is that the question is not as easy as you imply, and that BOTH the position of using the state to liberate others and the one against it are fully consistent with libertarianism and/or Christianity.
This has nothing to do with "blind faith," this has to do with the right and proper use of force in the middle of a situation.
How the war goes down is not relevant to the discussion of whether the decision to GO to war is moral or not -- nor is the number of people involved. If one person can stop a rape or murder, than so can a group -- which is all a government is.
YOUR blanket attack on positions different than your own show a distinctly legalistic and intolerant attitude far more inconsistent with the spirit of libertarianism than anything Dondero has ever written.
My point is NOT to defend the war, which is the straw man you chose to attack -- my point is that your militaristic snap judgment of such things is wrongheaded and only serves to destroy libertarianism through narrow, non-constructive legalism -- much as we see in Fundamentalist Christianity.
That being said, I certainly tolerate YOUR views on this, and while I don't agree, understand that it is consistent with greater libertarianism. Your attitude, however, is not.
Intolerant Attitude? Spirit of libertarianism? Ah, I see. You are confusing libertarianism with libertinism. Libertarianism is only about legalism, as you put it, and the relationship between people and the State. More importantly the State's monopoly on force. it is not about accepting views or being tolerate of opposing opinions or whatever nonsense you think. That's libertinism. I don't care who agrees with me or disagrees with me, as long as they don't use the State to impose their views on me.
No, libertinism is being without morals or personal restraints -- it has nothin to do with this discussion at all. Libertarianism is broadly defined as belief in limited government and rule of law in society.
Legalism is adhering to some strict doctrine as opposed to the spirit of an ideology. One can be broad-minded as a libertarian -- accepting that libertarians may disagree about certain issues -- or legalistic/fundamentalist about it, and being intolerant of the way others interpret the broader doctrines of limited government, human liberty, and personal responsibility.
I understand the legalistic libertarian position, and used to be that way myself -- I have just found it wanting and inconsistent with both the history of the movement and actually changing the society in which we live.
I do however understand and sympathize with where you are coming from, in that I used to be there myself.
Look, you're boring me now kid. You used to be a libertarian, but then you fell in love with nationalism, war, and Eric Dondero? Good for you. We're all happy and excited for you. There's plenty of sites for that brand of politics. LitteGreenFootballs, Ericdondoero.com, or whatever the fringe neo-cons have set up. Have at it.
I am anti-state, anti-war, and pro-liberty. If actually believing the in the principles of libertarianism isn't in line with the history of the movement, and not being in line with the history of the movement makes you not a libertarian, than I'm not a libertarian. Really. I've no affinity for the term, and the more people like you that pop up and say we can love war and still be a libertarian, the less I like the term. Seems to me like your idea of broad interpretation of the ideas of "limited government, human liberty, and personal responsibility" doesn't really distinguish you at all from Republicans.
*shrugs*
You're right, you're not a libertarian. You don't really believe in liberty -- but in your cult and its dogma.
You then use straw men to attack those who disagree with your talking points, like claiming I am nationalistic (I'm not, I'm a citizen of the universe -- therefore I care about the liberty of all, something you do not). You also lump people together in monoliths. much as you view your own libertarian dogma-cult.
You can't be anti-state and pro-liberty. You can't be anti-war war and pro-liberty. Both are necessary evils in securing and holding liberty. Without the rule of law, there is no liberty. I don't love these things, I merely recognize them as sometimes necessary. To not recognize that is anarchism.
Anarchism is not libertarianism (although I might include it among "broad-minded" libertarianism as well).
Obviously, you would rather not discuss such things and prefer to hang out on your cult compound and launch personal attacks on those who disagree with you.
Post a Comment