'Above It All'
This is a clip from Reagan's historic Evil Empire speech.
A snippet from the speech:
I can't count the number of times people in the political (and spiritual) arenas claim to be above two sides in conflict so they can feel superior about themselves while they give into evil.
The Israel and Georgian conflicts come readily to mind. Every time a conflict breaks out the United Nations issues a statement condemning the 'violence' on both sides even when one side is fighting for its very national existence (when was the last time the UN had to fight for its existence?). The foolish press has also attacked George W. Bush for labeling Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an Axis of Evil.
It was Reagan's view of foreign policy that ultimately led many doves and liberals in his day to his conservative side, one of which was the provost at Stanford, Condoleezza Rice.
We would do well to remember that old Greek sage, Solon who demanded that in times of conflict every individual citizen take a side instead of pretending to be above it all. In the spiritual realm also, it was Kierkegaard who said in his book The Sickness Unto Death that to not choose is really a choice. As Wormwood and Screwtape would be eager to note (and declare victory) to ignore Satan's work is really to stand with him.
A snippet from the speech:
In your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.
I can't count the number of times people in the political (and spiritual) arenas claim to be above two sides in conflict so they can feel superior about themselves while they give into evil.
The Israel and Georgian conflicts come readily to mind. Every time a conflict breaks out the United Nations issues a statement condemning the 'violence' on both sides even when one side is fighting for its very national existence (when was the last time the UN had to fight for its existence?). The foolish press has also attacked George W. Bush for labeling Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an Axis of Evil.
It was Reagan's view of foreign policy that ultimately led many doves and liberals in his day to his conservative side, one of which was the provost at Stanford, Condoleezza Rice.
We would do well to remember that old Greek sage, Solon who demanded that in times of conflict every individual citizen take a side instead of pretending to be above it all. In the spiritual realm also, it was Kierkegaard who said in his book The Sickness Unto Death that to not choose is really a choice. As Wormwood and Screwtape would be eager to note (and declare victory) to ignore Satan's work is really to stand with him.
posted by Matthew Canonicus at
11:21 PM
3 Comments:
I'd argue that when war breaks out the choice is not between side A vs side B, but rather violence vs pacifism! In such a situation, condemning both sides for murdering innocent people (the level of criticism related to the amount of innocent deaths of each side) seems quite rational to me.
As you seemed to have already guessed, this one was for you, Tim, although I had hoped you would have had an existential note to the Sickness Unto Death remark ;)
I'm a little unclear what you mean by 'innocent people'. Do you just mean civilians? Or are the invaders guilty? Are you suggesting the people defending their nation are or can be guilty (and thus 'open targets')? If the dicotomy you present is between violence and pacifism, would you encourage Austrailia to surrender if it was invaded by a neighboring country like Indonesia or Japan?
It seems to me the difference between 'murder' and 'killing' is often very gray, especially during war. I'd like to hear your theory fleshed out a little more. Too often it seems to me like whoever fights is condemned by the UN, etc.
Hey Matt,
I agree that when something on such a large scale occurs that a choice must be made, that is why I did not dispute your use of Kierkegaard. I just believe that defining it terms of "which country has your allegiance?" is too narrow. Every nation, in varying degrees, has blood on its hands through most parts of their history. I believe that if you were to follow a number of Jesus teachings to their logical conclusion then it is necessary for a Christian to disassociate themselves when nations war. Of course, a number of difficulties arise when you hold this view. I enjoy the security of Australia while criticising violence, in a way it is pretty hypocritical. I can't really displace myself though.
Anyway, the thing that stands out to me is how in this century and the last most of the people that were killed in wars were civilians. Whereas in previous centuries of history it was soldiers. I believe, although I may be wrong, the ratio was something like 10/90 into 90/10. Whereas I honestly don't know how i'd react if Japan/Indonesia invaded Australia (my theoretical beliefs clash with my existential inclinations), I certainly would not condone killing innocent Japanese/Indonesians in order to deter their army. You can't claim the moral high ground in a war while you're killing way more of their civilians as they are. And for me possessing the moral high ground in an area as important as this is a grave matter indeed. I'm reminded of when Jesus said something like (im paraphrasing): "why fear men who can kill your body, and not fear God who can kill your body and your soul."
In my idealistic moments, murder = killing, but on the other hand I would be the first person to advocate an international military intervention into (hypothetically) an African country that was being ethnically cleansed.
Post a Comment
<< Home