Great stuff at untiedmethodist.com

I just want to take time to point out a whole set of really significant posts at  untiedmethodist.com.

First a series about homosexuality which I feel present Dean's point of view very well.

• The Question I Am Most Often Asked By People Visiting My Church's Website -- Part One.
• The Question I am Most Often Asked -- Part Two.
• The Question I am Most Often Asked -- Part Three.

Secondly, a series of interviews with people who have very different views relating to the War in Iraq.

• The War in Iraq -- An e-interview with Jim Winkler of GBCS
• The War in Iraq -- An E-interview with Shaun Casey of Wesley Seminary.
• The War in Iraq -- Q and A with Bishop Klaiber of Germany
• On peace demonstrators -- Q and A with Donald Sensing.
• Rev. Donald Sensing on Opposing the Iraq War: Part Two.

What prompted me to write was the 2nd interview with Donald Sensing. I have concerns about some of the views expressed there. For example:

I happen not to believe that pacifism is a morally sustainable position

Sorry but that one just took my breath away. I can quite easily accept that some Christians may feel that pacifism is too demanding, too dificult, too idealistic for them to manage. I am reasonably comfortable accepting that not all Christians will be pacifists. BUT to suggest that pacifism could not be morally sustainable is bizarre and I would suggest incompatible with Scripture.

My reading of Scripture keeps leading me to a Christ whose life and teaching are wholly compatible with pacifism and more than that would lead me to expect pacifism to be the default position for all Christians.

The Donald dismisses various reasons for arguing against the War in Iraq, in that he misses out things that are important to me (maybe these are due to my coming from a British perspective).

I have always believed war in both Iraq and Afganistan was wrong. This in itself does not make me Anti-Bush or indeed mean I am not a loyal citizen . Instead I am

• anti politicians who lie to me
• anti politicians who (with their key supporters) make large amounts of money waging wars they cannot persuade the International Community to sanction
• anti politicans who deny human rights to anyone
• anti politicians who go to war without having properly counted the cost of the likely outcomes

It just so happens that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have between them covered all the things I am anti. Therefore I do not support them.

Comments

[Hyzenthlay]

I, for one, agree and look forward to the restoration of the free Iraqi government once the sexist, racist, and homophobic empire of the United States is leveled to the ground. There will be no freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan, or America until the Bush regime is locked away in prison.

Free Palestine! Free New Orleans! Free Mumia!

[Joshua Claybourn]

Why are you opposed to the war in Afghanistan?

[DaveW]

John, Your disguise is not very good. I did not support Saddam Hussain as a leader at all. But two wrongs have never made a right. The UK and US governments should have thought more before supplying him with Arms in the past when they disliked Iran more. We rush from one "band aid" war to another without thinking or being ethical.

Josuha,

I am opposed to the war in Afganistan because it has failed on many counts

- lives on both sides were lost
- Bin Laden was not caught
- terrorism as measured by the US govt (until they stopped publishing the figures) has risen
- Al Quaeda have still bombed since the war

I also do not believe that you can impose democracy as an invading force. It just does not last.

Oh and I have pacifist leanings.

Dave

[Hyzenthlay]

Precisely, Dave! Because the US and UK have supported evil policies re Iraq and Iran in the past, for sake of consistency, they should do so in the future. The US in particular helped Iraq become a major military power in the region, which permitted Hussein to be the tyrant that he was. It was therefore obligated to continue to support his soveriegn government, since it had done so in the past.

Josh -- it's important to understand that this war was based on a false pretext: that Iraq had WMDs. The US (both Bush and Clinton Administrations) , British, French, German, Chinese, Russian, and Israeli intelligence agencies all lied when the publicly said that Iraq had WMDs.

And as Dave has argued, democracy has can not be imposed with military force. Look at the despotic tyrannies present in Japan, Germany, Italy as examples of the political disasters that follow Amerikkka's wake.

[DaveW]

John,

a) If we (US and UK) never sold arms then this inconsistancy would not be an issue. If we took a long term view about which governments to support and yet were willing to update that quickly if people prove to be untrustworthy and generally nasty like Saddam. Then we would have stopped supporting him long ago (as soon as he showed signs of wanting to go to war with Iran for example).

b) The facts remain. No WMD have been found at all! Certainly there are problems in the UK as what was presented to the public was untrue (just who is to blame is a very political issue).

c) There is a big difference between WW2 when we were attacked, defended ourselves against an invader, won and the situation in Iraq where we are the invader. If Hitler had won the war and then imposed a democracy in the UK and USA would we expect that to be stable? If not then why is it different when we invade and impose democracy?

[Hyzenthlay]

I agree. On a recent French exam, I misconjugated a verb, thereby lying. I also used an incorrect pluralization, thereby lying. I seem to have an honesty problem at times. You're right that the US and UK failed to stop Saddam early in his despotic career. Once you make a bad decision, you are morally bound to continue making it, regardless of the consequences (hence my Calvinism).

But I must completely disagree with your assesment of WWII. The peaceful German people never attacked Britain. It was the UK which first declared war on Germany when those brave men and women decided to put an end to the Polish menace. And on our side, I might add, the US sought war against Germany with no justification whatsoever. None of the people involved in the 'terrorist' attacks (if they can be called such) of 12/7/41 can be traced to Germany.

Anyway, Britain was occupying India illegally at the time. On what basis could it critique Hitler? It would have been far better for the UK to mind its own business on the Continent and busy itself with withdrawing from India.

[DaveW]

Hyzenthlay, being a bit slow on the uptake I get easily confused between sarcasm, irony and intent.

If you meant it seriously then where do you find anything that I have said that implies that Saddam should have been supported, ever.

Yes India was a disaster for the British, we completely mishandled the situation, we murdered innocent people, we were in the wrong. Again how does anything I have said imply that because we have done things that are wrong we should not do the right thing in the future. If anything it is exactly the opposite. Because we have done wrong in the past we should be all the more careful not to repeat the same mistakes and we should be more carefuol about doing right.

As we have the shameful history in the UK of being the first country to use Chemical weapons from the air (in Iraq under Churchill in the 1920's) the resulting mess (oh and by the way Saddam proves that liberating and imposing government does not work because that is what the british did in Iraq in the 1920's) shows yet again that war does not work for solving problems. It creates new grievances. There are now going to be people alive for the next 70 years with vivid memories and hurts of the US and UK bombing them. Their children and grandchildren will learn that Christians bombed their country. This must not continue. There is no end when we solve problems by war.

Again it is a simplistic understanding of history to imply that WWII was inevitable. Choices were made before, during and after WWI by leaders all over the world. That combination of choices and situations led to WWII. To ignore the possibility that different choices duing the preceeding 50 years would have lead to a different situation is daft.

The proponents of wars like to force war by leaving aside all other strategies until it is too late. Solving issues peacefully is costly (Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King are all good examples of that) and it also takes time. Doing everything wrong, waiting until it is too late and then saying pacifism cannot work is daft.

[John]

Pardon my slow response. I've had, like reams of essays to write in the past few days, and been sick.

I certainly don't mean to imply that Saddam should have been supported during the 80s. I can understand why the Reagan Administration did so. The threat of Iran seemed greater at the time. An Iranian conquest of Iraq would not have been a good thing. On the whole, I think that Reagan made more or less the right decision. Perhaps we could have afforded to be more heavy handed on Kurd-gassing. Hard to say.

Anyway, the reason I brought up India was this: you argued that the US has no right to oppose Ba'athist tyranny now because it supported it in the past. It appeared that you were saying that because the US has made foreign policy mistakes in the past that it must continue to do so in the future.

Now the Indians weren't terribly fond of British colonization. My people weren't either. But that doesn't mean that Britian is forever banned from doing good works. And to suggest otherwise, for the US or Britain, is morally incoherent.

Again it is a simplistic understanding of history to imply that WWII was inevitable. Choices were made before, during and after WWI by leaders all over the world. That combination of choices and situations led to WWII. To ignore the possibility that different choices duing the preceeding 50 years would have lead to a different situation is daft.

Yes, I suppose that it could have been avoided, or at least kept much smaller (e.g. allied invasion of Germany in mid-1930s). So what? How does that help the British government in 1940? Complaining about past mistakes will not help the present reality.

Which is why pointing out past mistakes of the US is useless. Okay, so perhaps we should haven't supported Saddam in 1980. So what? We're not living in 1980. We've living in now, and we need solutions for now.

The proponents of wars like to force war by leaving aside all other strategies until it is too late. Solving issues peacefully is costly (Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King are all good examples of that) and it also takes time. Doing everything wrong, waiting until it is too late and then saying pacifism cannot work is daft.

Well, pacifism works sometimes. I think rather rarely, but it's considerably speculate to say when it will work and when it won't. Judgement calls are necessary.

Even Martin Luther King recognized this when he said "if your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi. But if you enemy has no conscience, like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer." Sometimes your opponent, such as 20th Century Britain, has a conscience and can be impacted by pacifism. Sometimes your opponent does not have a conscience and cannot be impacted by pacifism.

Now we could play the old pacifist game of "Well, you just didn't try pacifism long enough or hard enough". I suppose. But I lack confidence in the efficacy of pacifism that I'm not willing to take the chance if the stakes are high enough. Right now those stakes are American cities getting blown into nuclear hell by jihadists. I'm not willing to take a chance on pacifism here because (a) the cost of failure is way too high and (b) I don't think that our Islamist foes have consciences.

On a related note: shall I take it that you are conceding that the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Israel did not lie when they said that Iraq had WMDs?