Aiya Iluvatar

Stephen Colbert Gets Tolkien-Geeky

Senator Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) has used a somewhat lame Tolkien analogy to the War in Iraq. He said, "As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else. It's being drawn to Iraq. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the eye to come back to the United States." Stephen Colbert breaks down the analogy further:

Thanks to Tolkien News Gateway for pointing this out....

Technorati Tags: humor, iraq, politics, colbert, tolkien

Looking Back on Iraq

I was looking back through some of my files and came across this, a speech I delivered at an anti-war rally at Murray State University on March 12, 2003. I have to admit, I never thought I would be speaking at an anti-war rally, but my examination of "Just War Theory" and its application moved me to do so. I can't say I'm proud that so many of my concerns were valid, but I can ask the question, "If I, an armchair general, saw these things as obvious in 2003, why didn't the administration?"

---

I am here as a priest in the Episcopal Church, a member church of the Anglican Communion, which consists of the churches descended from the missionary activity of the Church of England, and has more than 80 million members worldwide. I am also here as an American with a deep sense of patriotism. Being here to protest the current policy of my government is only painful. I have no baby-boomer nostalgia for the protests of yesteryear. There is no joy in this. I also need to specify - I am not a pure pacifist. I am against this war at this time.

There are many reasons why I am opposed to this war - the projected casualties, instability in the Middle East, the reservations of respected military commanders like Generals Shwartzkopf and Clark. But I speak today as a Christian leader. The message we preach as Christians is overwhelmingly one of peace. Just War Theory was developed as an allowance that the Kingdom of God is not yet completely here. It was designed as a way to limit war, rather than sanction it.

Just War doctrine as it has been developed usually invokes six principles:

1. Just Cause - the war must be fought in order to right a previous wrong. The first reason being given are purported Iraqi Links to Al-Quaeda. There is no real evidence of this unless we are painting with broad racial and religious brushes. The second reason is Iraq's reported possession of weapons of mass destruction. Although the Iraqis probably have chemical weapons, and possibly some basic biological weapons, no one seriously beleives they have a nuclear program. If we are to go around bombing anyone who can produce chemical weapons, we'll have to bomb everyone who has the industrial capacity to produce fertiziler or any petro-chemical. The Serin produced by the Ohm Shin Rikyo cult in Japan was produced in a basement. The question is, does Iraq's capability pose a clear and present danger to the US? I cannot see how it is. The other question is about pre-emption, which we are currently considering. In traditional Just-War theory, pre-emptive action is only allowed if the threat is immediate - usually phrased as the enemy's forces massed on a border readying itself for an attack. I think it's very hard to argue our nation faces this immediate a threat. In any case, for Just Cause to be satisfied in a democracy, complete transparency to the public is required - something the administration seems unwilling to contemplate.
2. Just Authority - the war must be backed up by proper authority. President Bush claims that any such action is being taken to uphold UN resolutions, but it seems obvious that the current plans of the administration are extremely unpopular with the UN, and no further resolution supporting American plans is likely. I'm not sure we are required to have full UN approval, but we can't even get our NATO allies to agree. The idea that we are going to be able to form any coalition with any real representation of international authority seems unlikely.
3. Right Intention - The war must be fought with the right intentions on the part of the combatants. Many are claiming this is just a pretense for an oil grab. I'm not going to question the administration's intention, although I still question the cause.
4. Last Resort - Violence must be the absolute last resort. Although claims are being made that this point has been reached, I question this. Hussein has been effectively contained for 15 years. He has not attacked his neighbors, his military forces are 1/3 the size of the army he fielded during the first Gulf War, and UN inspectors seem to be making some headway in regards to the WMD question. Are we really at the point where this is a last resort, or are we looking for what appears to be a deceptively easier solution?
5. Probability of Success - The war must be likely to succeed. I don't think there is any question as to whether we can win the conventional war. There are questions about how many casualties we will take, but we should be able to crush Hussein's conventional army. The real question is what happens afterward. We've spent a lot of time talking about how we are going to attack Iraq, but very little talking about what we are going to do after the military campaign is over. During WWII, we spent years preparing for the occupation and re-building of Germany and Japan. Where is our Marshall plan? This is more important in the long-run than our military strategy. Will this war actually lessen terrorism, or will be we exchanging one Saddam for many Bin Ladens? Will we increase peace in the Middle East or further stir up this already violent area? I am concerned about this. In the American Civil War, A Union soldier asked a confederate prisoner why he was fighting since he didn't own any slaves. The confederate replied, "Because Y'all are down here." Even the most moderate person can become fanatic when his home is invaded.
6. Proportionality - The good must outweigh the harm. Does the good of removing Hussein outweigh the harm of the projected 35,000 to 500,000 Iraqi civilian casualties? Considering the cause is muddled, I am not convinced. I am also concerned about what will happen to the Chaldean Christian minority in Iraq which Hussein has protected. I fear what will happen to them in the confusion of the aftermath.

In order to meet just war criteria, the war MUST meet all of the above before it begins, and even if it does, it must be conducted in such a way that proportionality is not violated during its course. A war cannot be declared just until long after fighting has stopped, but for it to have a hope of being one, it needs to meet all the criteria in its preparation. In my opinion, the current justification does not even come close.

Many Christians feel this way. The Episcopal Church has declared its opposition to this war, as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury and many church synods within the Anglican Communion. John Paul II and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the church councils of the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Disciples of Christ, UCC, and American Baptist churches are all on record as being against it as well. In fact, I think it would be fair to say there has been more heard from the church in opposition to this proposed war than has been heard before any other American war, including Vietnam.

This is not a Liberal/Conservative issue. Many conservatives are questioning this war. It is a issue of whether we follow the dictates of traditional Just War doctrine or ignore it. Many of us who are against this war supported the first Gulf War and operation in Afghanistan as having a much clearer mandate. We also need to make sure we continue to support our troops. No matter what we think about the possible war, our men and women in uniform are heroes and need to be treated as such. We must not allow the kind of reception that our troops in vietnam received upon coming home happen again. We need to remember that people can differ in our opinions and still be patriots.

For those of us who identify ourselves as Christian, we need to continue to pray for our president and the armed forces, but we also need to pray for our enemies, as Jesus commanded us to do. We need to pray for the innocents in Iraq who will be caught in the crossfire and chalked up as "Collateral Damage." We need to remember that when we sing God Bless America, we are ASKING for something, not stating a fact.

My prayer is that someday our nation will once again be seen as a beacon of hope, rather than a military and economic oppressor. Then I believe we will know that God has blessed us richly.

---

Of course, since then it has been worse that I imagined it could be. There were NO WMd (not even chemical), the re-building plan is even sketchier than it appeared, Iraq has become a training camp for Al-Quaeda, the Chaldean Christians are being terrorized daily and are leaving Iraq as fast as they can, and the latest figures of 650,000 civilian casualties outnumber even the most pessimistic projections before the war.

Before the war, the leaders of over 30 denominations asked to speak with the president as a group. He refused. How might it have gone if our nominally Christian president had actually listened to his brothers and sisters in Christ?

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, bush, episcopal, ethics, history, iraq, just war, military, politics, religion, theology

Llewelyn House in Fall

Homely House of the West,

Securely nestled between the riven hills,
Your deep, rich silence enfolds me like the waves of Ulmo's waters.
It feels as if from an elder time, although newly-wrought.

The echoes of ancient rite are novel in sound to these elderly hills of Arda,
The Angelus bell curious in it's rounded, measured tones, but yet intimately familiar -
the veil already thinned by offerings of bread, wine and incense.
What echoes of Eru's theme do they hear?

The leaves of Fangorn turn golden,
Crisping the breeze with a gentle rustle,
They trust in the three interlocked rings and do not fear the yearly dying.
Their whisper carries amusement at hasty folk.

Soon I will leave, taking up again my own ancient-forged burden,
And turn not to The West but east.
But I must return some day,
For Elvish singing is not a thing to be missed in October under the stars.

David+

---

Llewelyn house is a branch house of the Order of Julian of Norwich, a contemplative monastic order of the Episcopal Church of which I am an affiliate.

Technorati Tags: Angelus, anglican, Anglo-Catholic, christianity, episcopal, Julian of Norwich, monasticism, Order of Julian of Norwich, Poetry, religion, tolkien, Ulmo

Jesus Camp?

If you are a Christian, you owe it to yourself to look at this trailer for the upcoming documentary, "Jesus Camp." There are SO many scary things here. One of the scariest scenes is one you don't see where the pastor brings out a cardboard cutout of G.W. Bush and asks the kids to "pray their blessings" over him. The scene continues with all the kids prostrate on the floor with their hands outstretched to the cardboard cutout (You can see this on a Today Show segment.) When did we forget the story of the Israelites and the Golden Calf?

But what I find even more interesting is the theology here. Evangelicals are descendants of the Anabaptist tradition, of which the Amish and Mennonites are somewhat more primitive (meaning "older," not "less developed") representatives. Anabaptists hold that you cannot be baptized until the age of consent (which is usually 13.) This was over and against the Anglican/Lutheran/Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox practice of baptizing infants. The idea is, you don't know what you are doing until the age of consent, so anything before that is not valid. I don't agree with this theology, but it is classical Anabaptist/Evangelical teaching.

In this video, you have kids saying they "Chose Jesus" when they were five, as well as a strange ceremony where the pastor tells the kids they are all bad people and then invites the crying kids forward to have Evian poured over their hands. Has the idea of the age of consent been abandoned? Do these evangelicals really think a five year old can make this kind of commitment and know what it means?

Of course, those of us who believe in infant baptism will point out that nobody really understands what happens to them at baptism at any age, and that it is an entry rite into the Christian community, not a personal moment between you and God (although that can happen).

Sigh. This movie is just going to make non-Christians even more convinced that we're all looneys. The similarities to the Islamic extremist schools are going to be pretty easy to pick out - I see 'em.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, christianity, episcopal, evangelical, sacraments