In my youth I began a transition from a liberal Democrat to a Christian Right Republican. A part of that transition was the philosophical concepts presented by Ayn Rand. She termed herself an Objectivist, however anyone could see the Libertarian slant she represented. I bought into it whole heartedly. Even today I reminisce about some Libertarian thinking. However I became a Christian, there is no compatibility between Objectivist philosophy and Christianity. Rand vilified faith as much as Marx did. Marx vilified faith as a tool to brainwash the "proletariat" masses; Rand vilified faith as illusory altruism that hindered the betterment of self. In Christ both are wrong.
That was my soap box on Objectivism. As I said though, there is a little pull that still makes sense. Professor John Lewis nails it in his essay "The Moral Goodness of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima".
If Israel and America could just comprehend the theme: To win a war, the nation must transform beyond defeating the enemy to forcing the enemies will to utter surrender. That is when the war is over and nations and people move on.
… A defeat is a fact; an aggressor's ability to win is destroyed. Surrender is a decision, by the political leadership and the dominant voices in the culture, to recognize the fact of defeat. Surrender is an admission of impotence, the collapse of all hope for victory, and the permanent renunciation of aggression. Such recognition of reality is the first step towards a return to morality.
…
To achieve this, the victor must be intransigent. He does not accept terms; he demands prostrate surrender, or death, for everyone if necessary. Had the United States negotiated in 1945, Japanese troops would have returned to a homeland free of foreign control, met by civilians who had not confronted defeat, under the same leaders who had taken them to war. A negotiated peace would have failed to discredit the ideology of war, and would have left the motivations for the next war intact. We might have fought the Japanese Empire again, twenty years later. Fortunately, the Americans were in no mind to compromise.
It sounds harsh does it not? This is the reality of war. If there is not an utter and defiant victory, like a recurring cancer the problem returns sooner than later if ever.
Posts
2 comments:
Looks like you got a little Randism left in you. Phrases like "the reality of war" have little do with the word of Christ, and prove nothing. It's like saying, that's the way the world is. The Christian right has embraced an "end justifies the means" philosophy, and it is dangerous to their faith. With Christ, it is always the other way around, the means (himself) justifies the end (salvation for sinners who are never really worthy of him). I've often wondered why the gospel is stymied in Japan.
Yours in Christ, Nick
Nick thanks for your comment. On an individual basis I am with you that everything Christ Jesus is the antithesis of war.
However, on a nation basis, those placed in authority are instruments of God to protect the Believers. In a nation where the Believers are strong in the Lord individually I believe God's Hand of protection is heavy. Thus Israel was often delivered from their enemies after the Leadership led moments of national repentance. Israel backed by the hand of God utterly defeated their enemies. This is an example today for a Godly nation. The Global War in Terror will only be won with with the full intent to win the war rather broker an ineffective peace as if in submission to ungodly victors.
Post a Comment