[quote]Sloth wrote:
As opposed to a Rothbardian/Rockwellian?[/quote]
I am much more Misean and Jeffersonian than that, which is distinctly Austrian and Austrian.
And please, by all means, keep exploring that issue.
We might have a quality discussion on the PWI forum.
Shame on whoever tramples that delicate flower.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Speaking of Paul.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God?s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God?s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5
Romans 13[/quote]
Yup, the Roman emperor Caligula was God’s appointed leader and we should all bow down to despots like that. Kings rule by divine right, so we should accept their divine rule. If you believe that, how can you be an American and hold to democracy?
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
[i]Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’[a] For the things concerning Me have an end.?
38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.”[/i]
Luke 22:36-38 (New King James Version)
This strikes me as a rather odd interpretation of Luke 22. If we look at the verse in a little more context…
35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written:
‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
The point isn’t that the disciples needed a sword, but that they needed to trust in God for their material needs. Dare I say, even for their own defense?
Just a few verses later …
49When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
Christ specifically told his followers that they must not take up the sword, even in defense of Jesus.
[/quote]
Again, Christ had a specific mission.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Speaking of Paul.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God?s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God?s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5
Romans 13
Yup, the Roman emperor Caligula was God’s appointed leader and we should all bow down to despots like that. Kings rule by divine right, so we should accept their divine rule. If you believe that, how can you be an American and hold to democracy?[/quote]
Because I believe rulers also can’t do evil, without making themselves illegitimate.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Speaking of Paul.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
4 For he is God?s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God?s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5
Romans 13
Yup, the Roman emperor Caligula was God’s appointed leader and we should all bow down to despots like that. Kings rule by divine right, so we should accept their divine rule. If you believe that, how can you be an American and hold to democracy?
Because I believe rulers also can’t do evil, without making themselves illegitimate.[/quote]
Does that not give you a bias, for if you ever became convinced that they were doing evil things, you´d have to act?
Maybe you are giving them some leeway you would not give someone else?
[quote]orion wrote:
Does that not give you a bias, for if you ever became convinced that they were doing evil things, you´d have to act?
Maybe you are giving them some leeway you would not give someone else?
[/quote]
I’d like the meet the person without any bias. Though I suspect I’d find him in a hospital, in a vegetative state. Outside of that, I’m not too sure what you mean.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As opposed to a Rothbardian/Rockwellian?
I am much more Misean and Jeffersonian than that, which is distinctly Austrian and Austrian.
[/quote]
I can deal with Mises, Hayek, and Ropke. Rockwell and Rothbard though…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Does that not give you a bias, for if you ever became convinced that they were doing evil things, you´d have to act?
Maybe you are giving them some leeway you would not give someone else?
I’d like the meet the person without any bias. Though I suspect I’d find him in a hospital, in a vegetative state. Outside of that, I’m not too sure what you mean.[/quote]
I mean that if you ever came to believe that an American leader was doing evil you´d feel the need to resist.
In order not to feel the need to resist and to avoid the resulting cognitive dissonance you feel that the American leaders can do no evil?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As opposed to a Rothbardian/Rockwellian?
I am much more Misean and Jeffersonian than that, which is distinctly Austrian and Austrian.
I can deal with Mises, Hayek, and Ropke. Rockwell and Rothbard though…[/quote]
Rothbard is extremely sharp. Seriously.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Does that not give you a bias, for if you ever became convinced that they were doing evil things, you´d have to act?
Maybe you are giving them some leeway you would not give someone else?
I’d like the meet the person without any bias. Though I suspect I’d find him in a hospital, in a vegetative state. Outside of that, I’m not too sure what you mean.
I mean that if you ever came to believe that an American leader was doing evil you´d feel the need to resist.
In order not to feel the need to resist and to avoid the resulting cognitive dissonance you feel that the American leaders can do no evil?
[/quote]
No, that’s not the case with me. Any leader can do evil. Fortunately, I still have a system that gives me an option to resist politically.
I hope my nod to the existence of evil doesn’t come off too preachy.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
War wasn’t even an option for the defense of the earliest Chistians. Paul didn’t have many options.[/quote]
But we had plenty of options at the start of the Second Gulf War. There were UN sanctions that were actually working. We had a no-fly zone that was keeping the Baathists out of the Kurdish north.
(which, by the way, is where Ansar al-islam, the only group in Iraq that was actually allied with al-Qa?ida. They were Kurdish and funded by rich Saudis, you know the folks like the bin Laden family and those defenders of democracy, the Saudi royal family.)
The war in Iraq was immoral because we had not exhausted our other options, so even if you accept the ‘Just War Theory’, you cannot use it to justify an attack against Iraq.
The war was stupid because it violated the dictum, ‘Never get involved in a land war in Asia’. (This isn’t just a quote from Vizzini in the Princess Bride. Dick Chenney advised the same in '94, see http://www.futuremajority.com/node/634 Field Marshall Montgomery also gave similar advise in a speech in the House of Lords on 30 May 1962).
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
War wasn’t even an option for the defense of the earliest Chistians. Paul didn’t have many options.
But we had plenty of options at the start of the Second Gulf War. There were UN sanctions that were actually working. We had a no-fly zone that was keeping the Baathists out of the Kurdish north. (which, by the way, is where Ansar al-islam, the only group in Iraq that was actually allied with al-Qa?ida.
They were Kurdish and funded by rich Saudis, you know the folks like the bin Laden family and those defenders of democracy, the Saudi royal family.)
The war in Iraq was immoral because we had not exhausted our other options, so even if you accept the ‘Just War Theory’, you cannot use it to justify an attack against Iraq.
The war was stupid because it violated the dictum, ‘Never get involved in a land war in Asia’. (This isn’t just a quote from Vizzini in the Princess Bride.
Dick Chenney advised the same in '94, see http://www.futuremajority.com/node/634 Field Marshall Montgomery also gave similar advise in a speech in the House of Lords on 30 May 1962).
[/quote]
I’m not objectiong to an anti-Iraq war stance.
[quote]orion wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Whatever.
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html
Why bother, just read it yourself and be the judge of his arguments.
Personally I like the part where a soldier does not really take up a sword but is only commissioned to take up a sword.
So I take it that you are more of a Thomasian, not an actual Christian.[/quote]
Can someone give me the Cliff Notes of the guy’s talk?
We are commanded not to kill. This is in the ten commands, both versions of them. Christ may have overturned some of the laws of the old testament, but he didn’t overturn ‘thou shall not kill’.
It is odd that people who are outraged at the death of an innocent are not also outraged by a war that results in killing on a much larger scale.
Ron Paul is an example of a true conservative that opposed the war in Iraq. Mike Huckabee is an example of a conservative ‘cheerleader’ who doesn’t oppose the war. Paul is a true conservative and a true Christian. (the inference is left unsaid)
Many modern conservatives:
-
are idolators for worshiping the state and the military
-
hypocrites for supporting a war when they oppose the taking of life in other political spheres.
-
think that the USA is God’s chosen people, we are the new “Israel”, and it is up to rule the world as a force of righteousness. this is arrogant hubris
3b) think that it is our duty to God to protect Israel
-
confuse ‘marching as to war’ with ‘marching to war’, e.g. Christ tells us to prepare AS IF for battle, not literally to prepare for a carnal battle.
-
sound like the religious leaders who helped to inflame pro-war sentiment in the run ups to past wars like WWI. Bloodthirsty Christianity is an oxymoron.
-
alienate any one else who doesn’t share their views, so they are driving people away from Christ.
The Iraq war was immoral and cannot be justified by the teachings of Christ or the early Church. Since it is an immoral war, so we should not pray for the success of our troops. We should pray for their safety instead.
Most conservatives do not consider strippers, hookers, drug dealers or assassins to be professions worthy of a Christian. Simply being ‘under orders’, doesn’t excuse immoral behavior.
The same is true for soldiers. There are justified wars, but they are defensive, not imperial. Since this war is not a justified war, it is the duty of citizens and soldiers to oppose the war.
That is the gist of it, this is probably too abbreviated, but in that case, just listen to the hour lecture.
Good post Journeyman, but I believe the OP is referring to ALL wars being unconscionable if one is to consider himself a Christian (this is the implication I gathered, and I apologize if I am mistaken). The Iraq war is indeed, imo, debatable. All wars, though? That would have to fall into the category of hopeless idealism. To use the simplest example: I cannot, as a Catholic, believe that Christ would have ever condoned Americans NOT doing anything to stop Nazi Germany, even if we were not directly provoked.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
We should pray for their safety instead.[/quote]
I’d just like to reiterate this. I hope they all come back safe and sound.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Good post Journeyman, but I believe the OP is referring to ALL wars being unconscionable if one is to consider himself a Christian (this is the implication I gathered, and I apologize if I am mistaken). The Iraq war is indeed, imo, debatable. All wars, though? That would have to fall into the category of hopeless idealism. To use the simplest example: I cannot, as a Catholic, believe that Christ would have ever condoned Americans NOT doing anything to stop Nazi Germany, even if we were not directly provoked.[/quote]
In the OP, Vance was clearly against most wars. He forcefully argued against wars of aggression, but he did allow for wars of defense. I believe that he would have argued against the North invading the South in the Civil War, against the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War and the US entering WWI. In these wars, the US was not attacked. He would support the US Revolutionary war, for the reasons outlined in the Declaration of Independence. So he does allow for wars of independence and wars of defense, where defense means ‘defending homeland against invaders’, not ‘defending my way of life against other who want a piece of the pie’. He doesn’t buy into the whole ‘they hate us because of our freedoms’ nonsense. See Eight Facts about Iraq at Countering the Lies of Fox and Limbaugh - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com.
Vance is a conservative, Christian libertarian. So, I am quite surprised that I have almost any points of agreement with him, but I do.
Does he believe the southern blacks would’ve been justified in taking up arms against their slavers? Clearly would be defensive. Well then, would it be immoral for them to seek help from white abolitionists willing to join their fight? Would it be immoral to aid them?