What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Muscular Christianity

"Army chaplain seeks prayers for meaning in rampage":

"An Army chaplain asked mourners Sunday to pray for the accused Fort Hood shooter, calling on them to focus less on why the tragedy happened and more on helping each other through 'the valley of the shadow of darkness.'

"'Lord, all those around us search for motive, search for meaning, search for something, someone to blame. That is so frustrating,' Col. Frank Jackson told a group of about 120 people gathered at one of the post's chapel. 'Today, we pause to hear from you. So Lord, as we pray together, we focus on things we know.'

"Worshippers at the 1st Cavalry Memorial Chapel hugged each other and raised their hands in prayer during the service, in which Jackson asked the congregation to pray for the 13 dead and 29 wounded that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is accused of shooting. The chaplain also urged the crowd to pray for Hasan and his family...

"...Across the sprawling post and in neighboring Killeen, soldiers, their relatives and members of the community struggled to make sense of the shootings. Candles burned Saturday night outside the apartment complex where Hasan lived..."

Pathetic.

And the army brass is no better:

"Army Chief of Staff George Casey warned against reaching conclusions about the suspected shooter's motives until investigators have fully explored the attack. He said on ABC's 'This Week' that focusing on Hasan's Islamic roots could 'heighten the backlash' against all Muslims in the military..."

I dunno 'bout you, but the first word that springs to my mind, here, is "emasculated." And the second word is "incurable" (with a tip o' the hat to Nietzsche).

I mean, when Mathew Shepard got strung up on that fence in Wyoming, did gay rights advocates go around praying and lighting candles for his killers? Did they worry that focusing on their "homophobia" might lead to a backlash against heterosexual males?

So who're the sissies now?

One of the great ironies of our time is that professional anti-Christians like Richard Dawkins and company are forever going on about selected nasty bits of the Old Testament and unpleasant episodes from the remote history of barely Christianized Germanic tribes, while totally ignoring both the New Testament and the state of Christianity today. I read their stuff, and think to myself: if only. If only Christianity still had a spine. If only it had not become a by-word for supine passivity in the face of evil.

Comments (61)

Or, to put it another way, if only guys like Edward Feser and Lydia McGrew and Frank Beckwith and Michael Baumann were calling the shots for the remnant of the Christian flock today.

Well, okay, so that particular cast of characters might lead to a renewal of the Thirty Years War ;^)

But you take my point.

One of the great ironies of our time is that professional anti-Christians like Richard Dawkins and company are forever going on about selected nasty bits of the Old Testament and episodes from the remote history of barely Christianized Germanic tribes, while totally ignoring ...
On the (potential) bright side --- I think that when we (by "we," I mean our Christianized-but-not-actually-Christian Westerns cultures and societies) decide that we want to live, and not die, no one will any longer grant much credence to those hoary tropes.

Oh, and by the way: the AP news report to which I linked keeps changing. So you'll just to have to take my word for it that the title & excerpts posted above were copied and pasted from the original.

It's really very frustrating that "news" agencies feel free to edit their "news" stories, sometimes almost beyond recognition, without acknowledging that there's been any update.

No half-way decent blogger feels entitled to get away with such stuff.

Steve,

It's really very frustrating that "news" agencies feel free to edit their "news" stories, sometimes almost beyond recognition, without acknowledging that there's been any update.

No half-way decent blogger feels entitled to get away with such stuff.

Two words: Screen Cap. Get up the page, then (on a PC anyway) hold down the "Alt" key and tap the key labeled "Prnt Scrn" -- then open Paint or your favorite surrogate and just "Ctrl V" to paste in the image. Whatever you saw will be there.

Or you can save entire pages by going to the "File" menu and selecting "Save as." Take your pick.

Classmates participating in a 2007-2008 master's program at a military college complained repeatedly to superiors about what they considered Hasan's anti-American views. Dr. Val Finnell said Hasan gave a presentation at the Uniformed Services University that justified suicide bombing and even told classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution.


This SOB gave every opportunity for anyone with any wits to see his stone cold commitment to all that is intolerable in the Islamic religion.

Or how about this:

word surfaced that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan apparently attended the same Virginia mosque as two Sept. 11 hijackers in 2001, at a time when a radical imam preached there.


We're at the point where suspicion of the Islamic religion must be a matter of principle. The sandpounding stupidity of the authorities on the subject is so blindingly obvious that only a nitwit can deny it. Most everyone in this country in a position to defend us from Islam would rather let people die than say something offensive about it. Our minds are sunk in dhimmitude already.

Tim - many thanks. I did not know that.

Depending on the content and layout, another way to save a webpage -- and it's generally better than the screen-shot method -- is to right-click on the page and select the "View Source" menu-item. This will open up an instance of (genrally) the program NotePad, in which will be the HTML code which generates the web-page in question.

Then, one can either save it to one's harddrive directly from NotePad, or copy the content to the computer's clipboard and then do something with that (by pasting it into a different text-editor program).

This method doesn't save the graphics of a web-page to one's harddrive, but it does save the addresses of the graphics into the file one saves. Thus, so long as one is connected to the internet and so long as the graphics still exist as originally given, one still has access to them.

The method I just described isn't as simple to use as the "Save content offline" method which Tim mentioned, but it's the one I always use. The reason for this is that several years ago, quite by accident, I saved the content of a web-page with the "File/Save as" method and I could *never* get rid of the folder that IE created on my harddrive to put that specific content into. I had to reformat the HD to get rid of the folder.

The "Prnt Scrn" button alone captures an image of the entire screen. The "Alt" + "Prnt Scrn" button combination captures an image of only the active window.

Yep, Paul, and there's this:

His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan's "anti-American propaganda," but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3801716,00.html

Right out there, in black and white.

I'm going to put up a post probably later about Casey's remarks, but there's a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon I'd love to find to put with it, so...

If one wants to save an image from a web-page, right-click on the image, then choose the "Copy" menu-item. Then, in a Windows Explorer window, right-click and choose the "paste" menu item. The file which gets created will generally have "[1]" as the last part of the file-name before the extension, but one can always rename the file to remove that.

Paul - "Most everyone in this country in a position to defend us from Islam would rather let people die than say something offensive about it. Our minds are sunk in dhimmitude already."

Precisely so. I used to read reports on the spread of Islam in England & France with, on the one hand, horror, but, on the other hand, a certain amount of smugness.

That's just *them*, I thought. It's not *us*. It's not the United States.

Turns out it *is* us, too.

I think I've got just the guy for you, Steve: Mark Driscoll is a well-known, young Christian preacher in Seattle who is renowned / notorious for "macho man" version of Christianity, complete with a Jesus who can & will kick your ass, and for his railing against how "chickified" so much of the Christian church is (and so many Christian leaders are). It's not the way I roll, but if you want a "muscular Christianity," he's your guy. You can just google him: there are lots of youtubes of him, etc. Or you can find a good discussion of this aspect of his ministry by one of my favorite Christian bloggers, Richard Beck (his blog is "Experimental Theology"), by googling the title of Beck's post:
"thoughts on mark driscoll while i'm knitting"

Sorry, Steve, I don't get it. Apparently I'm contrarian.

Since when is praying for our enemies un-Christian or weak? I thought Jesus commanded us to do that. Yet you find it "pathetic"—or did I miss something?

Since when is "innocent until proven guilty" a weak stance? I thought it was a bedrock principle of American justice. After all, we don't yet know whether Maj. Hasan was a traitor motivated by Islam or just a psycho. You cite lots of circumstantial evidence that he may have been a traitor; but circumstantial evidence I've seen (including what you cite) doesn't add up to proof.

And—for crying out loud, Steve—since when are gay-rights activists, of all people, good role models for Christian activism? Yup, they jumped all over the Matthew Shepard thing—and ten years later, it came out that it was a robbery. Jumping to a false conclusion is a pretty poor move morally, even if it may be rhetorically (and politically) effective.

Backbone isn't about how much noise you make. It's about a disciplined focus on the Gospel. It's marked by fighting your own fight, not the other guy's. If we fight like terrorists (or gay-rights activists), we will lose, because we're not terrorists or gay-rights activists. If we fight like Americans and Christians (I know, that's the reverse order of priority, but it does help to keep the non-Christian Americans in this too), we'll win.

Peace (not passivity),
--Peter

Since when is praying for our enemies un-Christian or weak? I thought Jesus commanded us to do that. Yet you find it "pathetic"—or did I miss something?
Did Jesus tell us the deny that -- lie to ourselves about the fact that -- our enemies *are* our enemies?

Keith: never heard of Mark Driscoll, before. Could he hold his own in a philosophical discussion with Prof.s Ed & Frank & Michael Baumann & Lydia? If you say yes, I promise to check him out.

No, Steve. I feel quite confident in saying that he couldn't. (Not that he doesn't seem a smart guy.)
Driscoll is pretty important in some Christian circles. He writes books that sell pretty well -- though I get the definite impression that his audience (actual and intended) is mostly "ordinary" -- by which I guess I mostly mean non-intellectual, non-academic -- Christians. (Beck's post goes into the correlation between "chickified" and highly-educated men, and credits Driscoll with seeing that it's women and such men who will feel most at home with how a lot of Christianity is packaged, leaving ordinary "dudes" out in the cold.)

Peter Brown: thanks for your comment. I'll be interested to see if it provokes any discussion.

After all, we don't yet know whether Maj. Hasan was a traitor motivated by Islam or just a psycho.

Yes, we do. Here's another one:

One of Hasan's neighbours described how on the day of the massacre, about 9am, he gave her a Koran and told her: "I'm going to do good work for God" before leaving for the base.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html

How much evidence does it take? We already have a mountain of it.

But I swear, if this man rises from his hospital bed and tells everyone he talks to that he committed his murders for the sake of Allah and to "rise up and fight the aggressors" (to use his own words to his colleagues), they will not be persuaded.

Talk about living in denial.

Steve,

Mark is one of my former students.

I am interested to see how this all plays out for Maj. Hasan, if he survives his wounds and finds himself the perpetrator of a vicious crime and not the husband to 70 virgins. I am interested to see if being alive to face the consequences sobers him up and douses his Muslim fervor with ice water. It's one thing to fantasize about dying a martyr and gambling that the rewards are on the other side. It's another thing to wake up a paralyzed mass murderer whose family is disgraced by your actions.

There need not be a backlash toward Muslims in any walk of life in America, but at least there should be a reevaluation of just how much "freedom of speech" should be tolerated before someone is called on the carpet and held responsible for remarks inconsistent with an American soldier's duty, honor and loyalty to country.

Lydia - the stuff that keeps coming out on this case just staggers the imagination.

I was particularly impressed, btw, by this message from a certain "Roland D.," posted by Lawrence Auster:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014711.html

"I've spent a significant portion of my career as a contractor working with various U.S. governmental agencies, departments, and bureaus, and especially DoD and the service branches. Over the last 25 years, I've noted the Long March of political correctness through the national security apparatus, and the Fort Hood massacre is a direct result of this transformation. If this chap had been a Caucasian officer who'd made even a single derogatory statement about ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, or Muslims, he would've been broken, his career over, and possibly even dishonorably discharged. In today's Army, the slightest hint of judgmentalism or 'insensitivity' is treated as a moral outrage and is a career-ender.

"Maj. Hasan, however, is a member of two protected classes; he's of Middle Eastern extraction, and he's a Muslim. This puts him beyond reproach in today's military. It turns out he was being investigated by the FBI, and surely Army CID were involved, as well, since he's a serving Army officer, and yet nothing was done about his treasonous statements which alone should have resulted in his removal from duty and cashiering.

"In the modern U.S. military, it is career death to criticize females, minorities, or Muslims on any grounds, as this will be taken as prima facie evidence of 'racism' or 'bias.' And so our military and supporting organizations are riddled with incompetents, malcontents, and, as we've now seen, traitors..."

Alinsky-rule # 5 ...'make the enemy (Christians)follow their own rules--'
remember - Alinsky gave honor to Lucifer in the opening pages of his book _Rules for Radicals_
the Dark Side (Lucifer's kids) have no rules...

Christians - stand up!

Exactly, Steve. I thought that information from Roland D. was extremely insightful and rang true. But a liberal on my other thread asks, "What could we possibly learn from this?" Well, you know, not to be like that. How about.

Peter Brown:

Since when is praying for our enemies un-Christian or weak? I thought Jesus commanded us to do that. Yet you find it "pathetic"—or did I miss something?
Praying for your enemy is one thing. Closing your eyes to evil and denying the guilt of the guilty party is another, which is what this "Christian" chaplain is doing. There's nothing Christian about it.

There is, however, a Christian mandate against suicide, which is what our officials are committing.

Since when is "innocent until proven guilty" a weak stance? I thought it was a bedrock principle of American justice. After all, we don't yet know whether Maj. Hasan was a traitor motivated by Islam or just a psycho.
You are simply in deep, deep denial. We are practically swimming in evidence that Hasan was motivated by Islam, enthusiastic about Islam, and murdered in the name of Islam. I suppose that no matter much evidence there is, you can always handwave it all away as "circumstantial", but some of us prefer not to ignore the noses circumstantially in front of our faces.

Steve,

A muscular Christianity does the heavy lifting of bringing about more not less good in the world. So a Christian rightly forgives his enemy. When a Christian forgives, he gives up his wrath to clear his heart and mind to do justice to his enemy. That justice is what will make his enemy repent of his evil deed and so seek redemption. Typically that means suffering a just punishment for the deed, which if he is truly repentant he will accept and endure. That can even mean the death penalty, if that is what is takes to effect repentance. (Hence, the less-than-reverent phrase "a jerk to Jesus" for a hanging.)

So this is how a Christian loves his enemy. He forgives him, prays that justice will be done to him to bring about his repentance, and hopes for his redemption and salvation as a consequence.

A Christian may additionally be merciful to his enemy. If it is within his right and authority to do so, he may relieve his enemy of the punishment he deserves should that punishment frustrate rather than facilitate his repentance. But it would not be merciful to pardon his enemy if that punishment is necessary to make him repentant. This important determination is what makes forgiveness critical. Without giving up wrath and vengeance against an enemy, a Christian will not have the clear heart and mind to judge what is best for his enemy.

Having said this, I do not know if the preachers in Killeen, Texas, are actually calling upon their congregants to do this when exhorting them to pray for the mass-murderer Hasan. I have my suspicions that they are not calling for a muscular Christian response that makes "love thy enemy" a tough love that genuinely brings good out of evil. To the extent that is not the case, I would call that preaching weak-kneed and confused in confronting evil.

Since when is praying for our enemies un-Christian or weak? I thought Jesus commanded us to do that. Yet you find it "pathetic"—

Both pathetic and phoney.

Only one who unswervingly fights the enemy can genuinely pray for the enemy. If you pretend you fight the enemy then your prayers for him are a sham.

The preacher in Killeen does his part of the farce urging soldiers to pray for the enemy but not encouraging them to fight it.
Heck, his career would be over if he as much as mentioned enemy’s identity.
Good dhimmi.

Ah, Steve. Maybe you should get involved in this enterprise...
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Only one who unswervingly fights the enemy can genuinely pray for the enemy.

This is found in the Bible or the Church Fathers, where? When Jesus prayed for his crucifiers at Calvary, how was he fighting them, per se?

This comment makes no sense in any Christian interpretation of which I am aware, unless you are using the word, "fight," in a reserved sense. What do you say to this:

Mat 5: 38 - 48 :

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;
and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well;
and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.
["You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Have you never heard of St. Peter Martyr, one of the early Dominicans? On his way from Como to Rome in 1252, he was attacked and beheaded by the assassin, Corino of Balsamo. As he was being attacked, St. Peter was heard to be reciting the Credo, not fighting his enemies.

Interesting story, that, because a while later, Corino fell on hard times and near death was found by monks at the Dominican monastery of Forli. Instead of railing at him for killing one of their brothers, they simply bound his wounds and cared for him. Their care cause a conversion in him and he not only repented, but joined the Order. He died in the odour of sanctity.

The Chicken

What also comes to mind is the response of the Amish to the massacre up north: instead of fighting or condemning the man (who killed himself after the murders), they took up a collection and gave it to his wife. I believe there is something in the Bible about treating enemies well being equivalent to "heaping burning coals on their heads." I am no pacifist, but the strength shown by the amish is amazing. What is the 'muscular' defense of a tragedy like Fort Hood? Surely not condemning all of Islam, even if that was the killer's primary motivation. The Klan also has some 'Christian' ties, but I don't think it is fair to associate them with my church.

I get where you are coming from, I think, but I confess I am surprised this blog gets so much attention. This is 'Wild at Heart' level thinking at best. I was 15 once too, but I got past that phase. This is silly. What should the chaplain have done? He's a pastor, not a policymaker.

I too asked my congregation to pray for the victims and the killer on Sunday. I admitted that this was not easy to do. But what else is a pastor to do? Ask everyone to firebomb their local mosque? The Church, as the Body of Christ, has a duty to witness through prayer and worship. Christians can and should participate in making justice (retributive and distributive), but as a church our effectiveness is found in truth-telling. The chaplain did this; it was not his place to try to offer an explanation (for he is not God), but it was his place to lead his people in prayer for all involved.

To equate prayer with passivity means you think that prayer has no effectiveness. I believe that could be a working definition of an atheist...

MC, your bringing all of this up is just contributing--probably unintentionally--to Steve's picture of Christians as a bunch of pacifists. Probably you don't mean to imply that Christians are all pacifists or should be pacifists or anything of the kind. But I think you were just "pushed" by Bill Tingley's comment to say all this stuff.

Not every Christian is called to fight. We all have our vocations. For that matter, the medical personnel in the hospital right now presumably have a professional responsibility to take care of Nidal Hasan to the best of their ability. However, every human being is called to look at the evidence he has as honestly as he can. And it is not being a good Christian to wear blinders. Even if one tends one's enemies' wounds, because that happens to be one's vocation, one shouldn't blind oneself to the fact that this is a bad guy one is tending.

And some Christians _are_ called to fight, and they should be allowed to _do_ it, not to consider it contrary to their Christianity.

I suspect, MC, that you actually agree with all of this, but I'm just giving you a chance to say that you agree.

Now, as for the chaplain, he didn't need to babble about "searching for motive, for meaning," blah, blah, blah. That is not clear-eyed Christianity. Here is a prototype of a prayer he might have prayed, and I do not offer it in any blasphemous spirit.

"Dear heavenly Father, an evil man has deliberately murdered those around him, unsuspecting and unarmed people, because of his worship of a false god. We pray for his living victims, that they would be healed. We pray for their families and the families of the dead, that you would give them peace, comfort, and provision. [Insert here prayers for the souls of his dead victims, if you believe in prayers for the dead.] And we pray for this man who has deliberately embraced evil. We pray that you would turn his heart from evil, that he would come to know you, the one true God, and your Son Jesus Christ whom you have sent, and that he would repent. And we pray that just punishment for his crimes would be meted out in his trial and sentencing if he lives and recovers from his wounds. We pray that you would strengthen our country in its fight against its enemies, including those who follow the religion of Islam. Deliver us, we beseech you, from our dangerous leaders who are leaving us open to such attacks. Protect us from our enemies, O God of battles. We thank you especially for those who had the courage and the ability to stop this man's rampage and who saved lives thereby. Bless them and bring them, too, to yourself if they do not already know you. In Jesus' name, Amen."

Pastor Mack, at my church we simply neglected to mention the mass-murderer, praying only for the victims and those left behind. Why this traitor deserves mention so close to his treachery, and moreover why those who react negatively to the preoccupation with him should be chastised and accused of childishness, is a mystery and a frustration to me.

And I can't help but wonder: If the chaplain had interpreted the injunction "pray for your enemies" in a more expansive way, and prayed for the whole of the Islamic religion, would Pastor Mack be so quick to defend him?

Right on, Lydia. That's a fine prayer.

It ain't Thomas Cranmer, but it's good enough for government work. As you might say.

Since when is "innocent until proven guilty" a weak stance? I thought it was a bedrock principle of American justice. After all, we don't yet know whether Maj. Hasan was a traitor motivated by Islam or just a psycho.

Peter, please don't confuse the stance at law with general treatment of people in daily civil life. At LAW, , you can not be punished by fines, loss of liberty, or denial of other standard facets of citizenship, without a trial and guilty verdict. In social life, there is no such restriction. If I hear that Joe's kids keep pornography in their rooms, you can be darn tootin sure my kids cannot play over there, and I don't need any trial to decide whether the claim is proven fact or mere rumor. If, after I read your resume, I conclude that Bob is probably a dunce, I will refuse to hire Bob WITHOUT any direct proof that would stand up in court of law.

Muscular Christianity: At one and the same time that Christ asked us to pray for our enemies, He did not say we ought to make it easy for our enemies to defeat us at every turn. Ever since the Church had to face the fact of soldiers in the Church, She approved the general principle that for those whose office is that of protecting people from harm, using force against evil-doers is a genuine God-given duty, not a denial of Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek". So that means that the standard of turning the other cheek applies SOME of the time, for some people, for some circumstances, but not across the board. Those who have the duty to protect others are required NOT to turn the other cheek to violent aggressors. And this surely includes the military authorities.

Lydia,

I think the Chicken was responding to T. Hanski's comment not mine.

That said, my two cents is that the Chicken hasn't painted Christians as pacifists, unintentionally or otherwise, by citing what is fundamental to Christian charity. Whether or not we extend mercy to an enemy as St. Peter Martyr's brothers did to his assassin is a matter of prudence, but that decision to punish or pardon must be predicated upon Christ's command that we love our enemies, as the Chicken has informed us and your prayer exemplifies.

I'm sorry, Bill.

Overheard on the radio tonight from Michael Savage (whom I rarely hear), who was getting madder and madder about the reaction to the Ft. Hood massacre:

Only a resurgence of Evangelical Christianity can prevent this country's rapid slide into obscurity, disgrace, and defeat.

That may not be verbatim, but it's pretty darned close.

Incidentally, as I understand it, Savage is not a Christian.

Chicken,

You replied to Hanski that Christ was not fighting his enemies when he prayed for them on the cross. Would you agree, however, that He was in fact engaged in spiritual warfare? Hanski might have had a valid point if he understood that a Christian battles his enemies in both the temporal and the spiritual realms.

So a muscular Christianity calls all of us to be spiritual warriors.

No problem, Lydia. Just wanted to keep the record straight.

Could we perhaps find a win-win scenario in all this disagreement?

Like, maybe the non- and/or anti- muscular Christians could all just move someplace (away from America) where they could have lots of enemies (if they can bring themselves to use that word) to pray for?

Incidentally, as I understand it, Savage is not a Christian.

Not only that, but he's Jewish.

Hanski might have had a valid point if he understood that a Christian battles his enemies in both the temporal and the spiritual realms.

Is there anything in what I have said indicating that I don't understand that?

What also comes to mind is the response of the Amish to the massacre up north: instead of fighting or condemning the man (who killed himself after the murders), they took up a collection and gave it to his wife. I believe there is something in the Bible about treating enemies well being equivalent to "heaping burning coals on their heads." I am no pacifist, but the strength shown by the amish is amazing. What is the 'muscular' defense of a tragedy like Fort Hood? Surely not condemning all of Islam, even if that was the killer's primary motivation. The Klan also has some 'Christian' ties, but I don't think it is fair to associate them with my church.

The practice of harming non-believers has been mainstream in Islam since the days of Mohammed. It is as Islamic as turning the other cheek is Christian. I can only charitably assume, for example, that you're ignorant of Mohammed's order to exterminate the Banu Quraiza tribe just hours after they fought by his side in battle. That is only the tip of the iceberg.

Dear Lydia,

Of course, I believe that having a military is perfectly in conformity with Christianity. St. Paul said that we should pray for our leaders so that we may live in peace and one of the functions of a leader is to protect those he governs. This implies that a military is a perfectly proper function of the State and supported by Christianity. What we are not called to be is aggressors. That is the sense of, "Turn the other cheek." Even in war, while we must sometimes kill, we must never murder.

For those who think turning the other cheek is not, "Muscular Christianity," I suspect these people also do not truly understand why it is that the meek who shall inherit the earth. It is easy to kill; it is harder, by far, to choose the path of love, even a love that must rebuke, but only in the right time, in the right way, and to the right extent. Saints are not wimps, by any means.

The Chicken

Dear Lydia,

One thing, just as note of proper expression. In your prayer, you wrote:

Father, an evil man has deliberately murdered those around him

Technically, the man has done evil. To assign an absolute value to the man's soul is God's responsibility, alone, and is to be done at the end of the man's life. If the man repents, that evil may be used for the good of his soul, ultimately, although he will have to suffer much (much more than those he killed); if he does not repent of the evil, he shall perish by it. In either case, the final judgments is God's and the final choice is the man's -the shooter is not dead, yet. I am not saying this to lessen anything that he has done. I understand what you meant. It is just that calling a man evil while he is still alive comes close to usurping a judgment that belongs to God.

The Chicken

Technically, the man has done evil.

It would be "technically" if the 13 soldiers were only technically dead.

I dunno, MC. I've never held to any theological position according to which live people can't be called evil. You mean no matter how bad it gets, as long as the person is still alive at the moment, you believe we're not allowed to call him evil? Some guy who is this moment torturing little kids to death for fun cannot be called "an evil man"? I've got a problem with this. Sure, the person can repent later. If he ends up in heaven he will be a redeemed sinner. But that doesn't mean that right now he can't be an evil man.

You cite lots of circumstantial evidence that he may have been a traitor; but circumstantial evidence I've seen (including what you cite) doesn't add up to proof.

You are laboring under a HUGE misconception (mostly due to poor presentation from the entertainment industry). Circumstantial evidence is accepted as proof in every American jursidiction, as well as most throughout the world. Circumstantial evidence is often the only evidence available. It simply means any evidence other than direct witness observation. Thus, a person caught with a victim's jewelry outside the victim's home with the victim's blood on his knife, his fingerprints on the knife, a wound on the victim that the knife fits perfectly, the relative heights of the victim and accused that match the forensics of the wound, DNA of the perpertrator under the fingernails of the victim, scratch marks on the perpetrator consistent with the victim's fingernails, are all circumstantial evidence, are all valid proof, and would be sufficient to convict. In fact, the whole concept of forensics is based on circumstantial evidence.

The chaplain's bathos is appropriate to a dying culture, one that neither has the will nor can find reasons for it's survival
We see thousands freely protesting federal programs they oppose, a vibrant exercise in citizenship, I needn't repeat the slanders they are covered with.

Conversely we have been tutored to understand, to tolerate, the forces that move us towards the precipice of national morbidity, even to the point of murder.
Here national suicide is not too strong a term.

Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, even Spengler, saw the pall overtaking the West. Their reasons differ but the sickness was unmistakable.

Christianity? It is treated as the real enemy. Such is the depths of perversity.


But that doesn't mean that right now he can't be an evil man.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. Was St. Paul an evil man because he cooperated in the murder of Christians? Certainly, he was doing evil. I use evil as applied to men as a more ultimate description than you do. I let God use the description, since he is the only one who can use terms in their ultimate sense. I can only judge the actions. God has given us the right to judge actions according to his judgments of those actions, as stated in Scripture and the teachings of the Church. He has not given us the right to judge men. That is reserved for Jesus and the apostles at the end of time.

The reason I use the term in a more reserved fashion is because there may be some instances in which the evil that a man does is not directly attributable to the man as a deliberative, willed act. If someone has a stroke and runs amok, but no one knows he had a stroke, one might judge him to be evil when he is not. Obviously, each case is unique, but I would rather let God assign the state of the man's soul. That way, I may still defend against evil actions without going beyond what is assigned to me to judge.

The Chicken

My mistake then, T. Hanski.

Masked Chicken,

I think you misunderstood me completely. The righteousness - the virtue of praying for my enemy is a virtue as long as I at the same time pursue the virtue of defending myself and mine even to the point of killing the enemy. The latter virtue is natural, it precedes and doesn’t depend on the former. But the former without the latter is a caricature of virtue, a farce and sin, UNLESS you are willingly exposing yourself, and ONLY yourself to the consequences of not fighting your enemy.

You are, of course, free to follow the example of the saints you mention and I wish you the best of luck in your pursuit of sainthood.
But I don’t think it is your Christian business to urge me to do the same. You are free to offer YOUR cheek, or any other part of your anatomy to the enemy, but if in time of war, you urge me to offer MY cheek too, I must warn you, for your own sake - lest I confuse you with the enemy, to keep quiet until I finish my job defeating the enemy.

About the chaplain: what I found terribly vulgar is the stupidity and pretence of the man who in the same sermon urges the flock to pray both for the victims and the perpetrator of the crime. He should have delivered two separate sermons a few days apart if he had some brains and heart and some respect for the grieving families. If he doesn’t do so it is because he worships in the Church of the Religion of Liberalism – where Christianity is as good, or as bad, as any other religion - including the purely evil Cult of Mohammedanism.

It's OK then, Bill Tingley

But I don’t think it is your Christian business to urge me to do the same. You are free to offer YOUR cheek, or any other part of your anatomy to the enemy, but if in time of war, you urge me to offer MY cheek too, I must warn you, for your own sake - lest I confuse you with the enemy, to keep quiet until I finish my job defeating the enemy.

Since nobody here is a dhimmi, nobody owes you their silence or any special reason for quoting the Bible.

Neither do I owe anybody silence for the nonsense they produce -even if they try to back it up with Bible quotations.
It is a blog, you know.

BTW, "...is a dhimmi"? A dhimmi?

It is a blog, you know.

I wasn't the one issuing warnings about keeping quiet for their own safety.


Oh, I see what you mean now. OK, not a very good phrasing on my part.

Well, I never intended to threaten any of my interlocutors with something I personally may do to them if they won't shut up. I used the form "I" and "My" as opposed to "You" and "Yours".

I should pehaps used instead the "other", or "one". So let me rewrite:

But I don’t think it is your Christian business to urge OTHERS to do the same. You are free to offer YOUR cheek, or any other part of your anatomy to the enemy, but if in time of war, you urge OTHERS to offer THEIR cheek too, I must warn you, for your own sake - lest THEY confuse you with the enemy, to keep quiet until THEY finish THEIR job defeating the enemy.

I hope all alarmed by what they may have perceived as my threatening them can relax now.

That can happen only if the perception, mistaken though it was as to specifics, was genuine as to perception.

Ilion,
I admit I am not sure I understand the last part "...was genuine as to perception". Unless you mean that my innocent note never caused any genuine alarm to begin with. Well if so, I do very much hope it didn't.
But, being at the mercy of a nasty flu' today I am not too perceptive myself.
Cheers.

T. Hanski, I have no idea whether the alarm was genuine, and not enough information to come to a reasonable conclusion. But, yeah, I think come pretty close to getting the point -- there is a vast difference between an honest misperception and a deliberate "misperception." The one is relatively easy to cure, the other not so.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.