I was recently on campus at Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena. One note on a campus billboard discussed "Why I'm voting for Kerry." It was, essentially, saying that there was no reason for the innocent, civilian deaths that occured in Iraq. One note that was inscribed in retort to this was, "Kerry will kill more innocent civilians with his indecision and indifference." As a conservative who usually votes republican but has had a hard time with the overall "mistake" in Iraq, this comment was persuasive to me. Let me know what you think. Chris
I assume this refers to Kerry's pro-choice stance. Let me add, however, that if Kerry were elected President, he would not end the war nor would he pull the troops out. As a matter of fact, we would end up being more bogged down than we are now. Once one is the Commander-in-Chief, a whole new perspective emerges. Remember McGovern, the "peace candidate," in 1972. Just before his nomination he made some comments about the military that ruffled the feathers of some of his most ardent anti-war supporters.
Yes. Actually, this just states clearly what I have been feeling all along. I just got done talking with some close european friends, and they are terrified by Bush because they think his power-wielding is arbitrary and reckless. However, my private thoughts on this were best captured by this statement that was posted on a campus bulletin board. And yes, I agree that Bush is very reluctant to admitting his mistakes. However, that doesn't mean he doesn't learn from them. He has learned a lot in his presidency so far. When I was referring to "indecision" I wasn't referring to Kerry's pro-choice/pro-life stance. I was referring to his character as indecisive. That was brought out by Guliani's speech quite well last night. Let me add that, at least in my opinion, Clinton's tragic mistake was indecision on the issue of international terrorism. That doesn't make him a bad man, or even a bad president, it just means that his indecision was tragic for America on 9/11. Kerry shows more indecision than Clinton did. Here's the thing, and this is a very "TEDS" graduate way to look at the war on terror. Our populous is divided not by whether or not we are Democrats or Republicans. We are divided on the issue of whether or not there is a transcendent discourse that is teleological, a moral discourse that stands over and judges our legislative and judicial action. If there is such a discourse, there is such language as "wrong" and "right" for the assailants on 9/11. If there is no such consistent and transcendent moral discourse, there is no indictment against them. Bush acted the way he did and responded the way he did on 9/11 because he has a personal, religious belief system that avails him the category "evil" (which we saw so dominantly) and "wrong." Kerry doesn't. He said recently, I think, that even though he doesn't believe abortion is right, he's not going to force his understanding of "right" and "wrong" on anyone else. That is, in practice, his morality is not applicable and therefore, not true. He would approach international war the same way, surely, if he can't stand up to his own party. Let me explain. The idea that some beliefs may be "true for you" but must be kept to yourself is a dichotomy between private and public. In essence, what that says is that my personal beliefs are "true" but they have no public value. They are not "true" for everyone, and thus the category of "truth" loses it's useful meaning. In that case, my beliefs are shaped more by my environment and my culture than anything metaphysical. In fact, since my environment determines reality and not anything metaphysical, the garnering of private "truths" that have no validity is, in practice, atheism. If God or the gods do exist, there is a transcendent discourse that stands over cultures. If not, no moral discourse. Sorry. Kerry doesn't have one. Bin Laden thinks that western society is debauched and decayed and ready to be toppeled. That may be true. But if we are, it is because we lack no discourse, like Muslim countries do, to indict falsehood, evil and wrong. That is a necessity in a war like context. Kerry doesn't have this, even facing his own party. Bush does, even against members of his own party (in the homosexual marriage) debate. Chris
Chris: I wish everyone thought as much about these things as you do. That being said, here's my take: I'm not afraid of relativism in beliefs. I don't think there is a right or wrong. Just what we agree is right or wrong as a culture. What does scare me is people that believe they are absolutely right because God/other tells them they are. That's when we get into the unsolvable problems like Israel/Palestine. God promised the land to both. Both are absolutely right, according to them. Where do you go with that? You fight: that's all you can do. There's no arguing with people who believe God told/promised them something. I don't want religion elevated, especially now, because I don't want to make this a holy war (faith-based cruise missles). Muslims are the largest religion in the world and they are on every continent (I think). I just want to leave it as a pissed-off little minority faction going after the big guy on the block. I think a pious man of God with steadfast beliefs is last thing we need right now.
Good argument. The problem I see in this line of reasoning, even though I'm sympathetic with what you are saying, is that this election is a difference, not between someone who has a metaphysical "map" and someone who doesn't. It is the difference between someone who has a metaphysical map and someone who is AGAINST having maps. Not having maps, when you push it, is pushing athiesm. That's what I'm saying. It's like you say, "don't push your beliefs on me" and I'm saying, "don't push your athiesm on me." To separate private and public is athiesm. It is bred into our individualism in our culture. Maybe you are right. Maybe we need to let this kind of athiesm reap the consequences it has sown. What you said, "where do you go with that"? is why I am a Christian pacifist. I don't fight because I believe God is the judge. I don't think Bush takes this stance, but I do think this controversy shows that we are a decayed society with no moral discourse. My religion is defined by its center, which is the cross of Christ, not an abstract and intellectual concept of a secular God. That is the message of the cross of Christ, is that the hostility that is latent in our warring nature was placed on one individual, absolving us not only of our guilt, but inaugurating a new society, a society of peaceful sabotage that is commissioned to conquer through the self-giving love of Christ. Chris
i should have known. whenever i go off on my pacifism thing no one comments on this board. I suppose this board thinks pacifism is irrelevant. just one more thought. this is already a holy war. it is a war between Allah (among the Muslim fundamentalists) and the secular "no-god" of American athiesm and tolerance. Chris
