Orthodoxy and war [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Karim S. Bou Khaled

16-10-2002, 01:01 PM

Dear all, It's the first time I participate and just thought to enrich your corner by an essay to Metropoltan George:

{The Problem of Violence - and No Solution?}
{http://www.ortmtlb.org.lb/other_publications.htm}

Metropolitan George Khodr of Mount Lebanon

Vienna International Christian-Islamic 1st Round Table - 2000

-------------

Humanity is struggling with numerous problems, which are related to the present techno*logical, political, and cultural conditions. Yet, the chronic problem which has been inherent in human existence since its beginning, is what Cain put into words when he killed his brother: "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gn 4, 9). In modern terms, this means: "Am I responsible for my brother?" This is precisely the problem of violence expressed in various forms, the worst of which is belligerent actions and the like. This is violence, as witnessed within the same community or within a group of neighbouring peoples or between communities living to*gether without loving each other. It is as if the individual human person or any given commu*nity were unable to say: Here 'I' am, and there are 'you', and over there are 'we'. It is as if the widespread conviction in the Old Roman maxim: "For his fellow-man, man is a wolf", is one that is prevailing. The natural consequence of this idea is: I shall kill my enemy before he kills me, because I believe that he is altogether a danger to my interests, to my thinking or my religion, or to my way of living and my personality.

The 'other' challenges me by his mere existence, by his qualities, his way of acting, his solidarity with the other members of his people, or his religion, his alliances, or any other affiliation. Consequently, if he lives on, he endangers everything that I consider as due to me. Therefore, I shall kill him before he kills me. And if I have no chance of killing him, then I will suppress and persecute him; this will prevent him from saying to me: "move over, so that I can take your place."

Hence, I make up theories, in order to prove that I have been here before him, that I am more important than he is, or that he is harmful. And I will intensify my own tensions and the tensions between him and myself, in order to make his life unbearable. Actually, under these circumstances differences are experienced as being unbearable from the beginning, because to the violent one the word 'difference' means conflict: and hence the mere existence of the 'other' creates the conflict. And I make up reasons to destroy him: his colour, his language, or his religion. Because he is not exactly like me, and his community has no way of merging with mine, he must disappear. And until this can happen, I must turn him into a scapegoat.

And since I need to justify my own power, I make God my partner. For I must be the representative of God, in order to ground my killing on truth, or on eternity, or on the philosophy of history. Seeking this kind of legitimation, the Nazi-soldiers needed to write on their belt-buckles: "God with us"; the crusader, as well, needed the cross on his tunic in order to crucify the unbelievers on it. God was invoked in the army of Byzantium, so that he might grant to those who are faithful victory over the barbarians. And, whether this is expressed in words or not, in all armies the assertion is: "No one is victorious but God!" However, the difficulty becomes still more formidable when the two armies fighting each other belong to one and the same religion. There is a kind of divine authority that plays some role, by means of which the persecutor justifies his persecution, even though the persecutor is an atheist.

After World War II, taking into account all that happened, humanity embraced the idea of peace among peoples, as expressed in the UN Charter. Already before, and in a still deeper and more profound way, Gandhi had made his call for "non-violence" to his compatriots. His commitment had a great moving impact, for indeed, it was as if he had extended the issue far beyond the level of rights, to raise it up to the level of faith. Of course, peace is the major interest of all peoples. Yet, the conviction - as is presently the case in Western Europe - that on-going peace is possible derives equally from the conviction that the destruction of one people by another benefits no-one. It seems that it is only amidst wars of destruction that the world was brought to understand that a just or an almost just peace is better than endless killing. I believe that we are now about to go beyond the pragmatic attitude towards peace to the belief in peace.

Here, it seems necessary to refer to the interest of peoples at war. The problem is that judgements (of the referees) on neighbouring nations at war are always related to the interests of these nations, who recognize democracy in a certain country or deny its relevance to some others, according to their own perspective. Out of it results a crisis of trust between the big and the small nations. If peace is based on the welfare of all, then what about the crisis of trust between the South and the North, which in simple terms has to be described as desperate?

If one reflects on the term 'war criminal', this expression may be considered contro*versial because it depends highly on which side of the conflict one is placed. The result is that a decision has to be made concerning the legitimacy of authority to clarify what is to be con*sidered an act of violence, or rather a reaction to violence. A Palestinian child, for instance, who throws stones at an Israeli soldier: is the child initiating violence, or reacting to it?

Moreover, there is also violence as defined by law. Is, for instance, carrying out the penalty of death to be considered as an act of justice or of violence? If we do not get rid of our conviction that we represent the rule of God over the lives of others, we will remain prisoners of violence and will, time and again, participate in institutionalized killing. Certainly, the state cannot maintain itself, if the rate of crime is not kept low and the criminals, if need be, are not prosecuted by force of arms. In the case of a general, nation-wide uprising, it is unfortunate that bloodshed cannot be avoided. In this case, saving the country requires us to suppress the few, and to fight them even before one can negotiate with the rebels. This is what we should always be aware of. It may be important to know that these are the limits of non-violence we strive to impose. Do we not know that the law exists because of sin?

What is more important than international law, to which only a minority submits, is education for non-violence based on the hope that peoples, communities and groups will learn to understand that peace is more useful and sustainable than war, whatever its form may be. It should be noted here that a philosophy of peace demands a high level of civilization and cultural maturity.

Cultural progress, however, can never fully develop without love. A possible answer to Cain's question could be expressed in these terms: "Yes, you are the keeper of your brother and you ought to give life to him. To exist, for you, cannot mean to consider yourself as absolute and to see the other only as part of your absolute being; to exist rather means to be aware of the other, as a divine blessing for you. The least you can do in this case is to be fair and the best is to be loving, for indeed, love is the utmost expression of justice." "Greater love has no man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friends." (Jn 15, 13).

Dying out of love is giving life to the other; thus the 'other' exists through your dying for him. That you die is the only way to remove the guilt and to go beyond every international organization and every law, through the understanding that brings you to welcome and receive every other human being in his freedom, his being different, his weakness, his limits, his colour, his language, his religion or his ideas about religion, whatever they may be, close to you or totally unrelated.

It is important that you show to the other that you love him. Yet, what is most important is that you tell him: you are loved by God. Because only then is the meaning of his being, his existence, his destiny, and his usefulness in this world fully expressed; his intrinsic value comes from God's love for him.

How can this be implemented in the life of communities, religions, and peoples? Is it possible for a closed society to change into an open society, ready to accept the opinion of others and generously interact? This is an issue, which occupied Henri Bergson (1859-1941) in his Book "The Two Sources of Morality and Religion"[1]. His answer was that only those who are inspired by the spirit are capable of breaking through the walls which surround closed societies. It is God who can make this happen, for He alone has the power that gives life.

There is no magic formula to overcome violence. Education and the law - we have already referred to them - are two very modest attempts to promote humanity in its striving for peace. Yet, if peace is one of God's attributes, as is said in the Qur'ân (Sûra 59, 23), by seeking peace, we live, encountering God in the depths of our human existence. Now, on another level, we may ask, are there any theoretical reflections about this very issue included in religious dialogues? May one enforce the laws of God with the sword or by suppressing freedom? Are those who want to act in the name of God allowed to silence the voice of the others by means of violence? This is the answer of a saint from the Orient, John Chrysostom, "By your agreeing to have the heretics killed, you lose membership in the Church." For indeed, we need to make a difference between the error and him who errs. For it is God who has granted him the freedom to err and also to reconvert, at a moment that God knows in his infinite wisdom.

_____________________

[1] H. Bergson, Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion (1932).

Hermit

18-10-2002, 06:07 PM

"The bible tells us it is wrong to take the life of another. It is one of the 10 commandments. It is either true or it isn't. There is no middle path."

Actually the Bible doesn't tell us that at all, it tells us not to unlawfully murder another person. The Old Testament was full of commands to kill both individuals and peoples who had sinned, the killing to be done in a lawful way.

To avoid slipping into excessively vague generalities, let me give examples - my own country (USA) has the right to defend itself against Islamists (those who take a literal view of jihad) in a war on terror. We were attacked by a group intending to destroy us as a nation. We can't have lovely peaceful monasteries if we're being destroyed by aggressors who want to impose Sharia on us.

We also have the right to defend ourselves against an imminent threat - the sociopath Saddam Hussein, who everyone agrees is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons and who has already used other weapons of mass destruction on his own people (absolute proof he is not being demonized by the US, but is indeed a sociopath).

Of course he wouldn't dare to use nuclear weapons directly against us, but he wants us out of the way (we are the main obstacle to his Hitlerian ambitions), and will give such weapons to those who WILL use them against us.

This is not a "theory," the only thing that could stop this course of events is the death or imprisonment of Saddam Hussein. Diplomacy and appeasement didn't work against Hitler, and have failed to stop his tinpot admirer.

Effie Ganatsios

19-10-2002, 06:03 AM

Reply to Hermit post no. 4.

The following is what the Orthodox church believes about killing.

The Sixth Commandment
"Thou shalt not kill." Ex. 20:13.
The killing of a man is forbidden and is considered one of the three major sins. At the time this commandment was given to the people it had an important significance aimed at eliminating the destruction of one's fellow man. It is forbidden not only to take the life of a man, but even to think of killing. The faithful Christian also is forbidden to take his own life. His own life does not belong to him, but to the Creator to Whom life returns.
This commandment reminds us that one has no right even to shorten the life of man by using slander and deceit to undermine the health and dignity of others. The careless use of the tongue, gestures and intentions are forbidden by this commandment because they offend others and shorten and corrupt the health and courage of others. This commandment forbids even the careless driving by which our modern civilization takes the lives of thousands of people.
Waging war against a nation, causing the lives of thousands of people to be uprooted, is forbidden, although it is justified when a nation defends itself to protect the lives of its citizens against the offenders in an unjust war. In the New Testament, the defender is urged to use sympathy and love in order to calm the offender and to increase his welfare. The Christian is admonished not to challenge and insult the offender, but rather to cooperate with him and to pray and work for the peace of the world."

I will not get into a discussion with you concerning America's "War against Terrorism" except to say that there are many theories as to the real reasons behind it's aggressive foreign policy.

One small exception - and I know that this might enrage you and I ask your forgiveness beforehand -

All the crimes (both proven and assumed) that you have attributed to Saddam Hussein (who, by the way, was installed by the US) can also be said to have been committed by your own government. Please think deeply about this subject before making comments that might result in reactions that are unpleasant to yourself.

I don't intend to contribute further to this discussion because I can see that we see things from a different perspective. I don't mean to offend you with my comments but I need to be honest about this sensitive subject.

Peace

Effie

sinjin smithe

19-10-2002, 06:37 AM

Thank you Effie for your comments. I kind of what to add a different perspective to this. There are some religious groups in the world that are pacifists and do not believe in war. Is there such a thing as Orthodox pacifism?

Hermit

19-10-2002, 06:49 AM

Obviously I don't believe that the US has killed large groups of Americans with a combination of mustard gas and nerve gasses, Effie, but let's examine the common ground of Exodus 20:13 in a dispassionate way. If one were to read it in the most literal possible way (only examining the King James Version), it tells us not to kill ANYTHING - it doesn't say people. Try eating something that hasn't been killed, you'd have to fill up on dairy products and honey! Hmmm... land of milk and honey ....

A slightly less literal interpretation has us not killing any HUMANS (the NIV translates it as "You shall not MURDER"). But that's obviously not what the original Hebrew wording and intention was, since the Bible is full of commands to kill people, to take human lives! Here are some examples:

Exodus 31:15
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD . Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

Exodus 32:27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

Lev 20:9 " 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 " 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
12 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Is there anything justifying lawful violence in the NT? Yes, according to Paul in Romans 13:3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

God bless!

Effie Ganatsios

19-10-2002, 07:39 AM

Thank you Hermit for your reasonable reply. I was afraid that I was going to get a polemic reply. Re nerve gas, etc. I was thinking of the thousands (or hundreds - not sure about this) of US soldiers who were ordered to be present when the first atomic tests were carried out and who were subjected to radiation.

I realize that the old testament is quite violent and, even though I might not be correct in a religious sense here, I tend to regard it as a narrative of events leading up to Christ's birth.
Quotes from the bible can be found to support just about any position we want them to.

Jesus said "...if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.." and he is even more specific in Mathew 5.21 " Ye have heard it said by them of old time, "Thou shalt not kill", and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement, but
I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement, ....."

The phrase "without a cause" is included by some ancient authorities. My quote is from the King James version of the New Testament.

How can something that is wrong, be right?

Dietary laws - I eat meat but I can also understand the viewpoint of those who don't. Animals kill other animals to survive - it's a law of nature. As far as I know animals don't murder other animals as humans murder humans. This, by itself, seems to me a good reason to stop killing animals. Their instinct has ensured that in one sense they are more moral than humans.

Hermit, as you may already know, in Ancient Greece the punishment for killing a dolphin was death! Now that we know that, after man, dolphins are the most intelligent species on earth, doesn't this seem an odd coincidence? Who knows what we may discover in coming centuries?

Thank you for not responding aggressively to my previous post.

God's peace to you as well.

effie

Effie Ganatsios

19-10-2002, 07:53 AM

Reply to Sinjin

Hi Sinjin. I'm sorry, I don't know whether there is such a thing as Orthodox pacificism (or pacifism) per se.

As Christians, aren't we by definition pacifists?

On the practical side, just think of the stages a person goes through to reach adulthood. The care that is needed to raise a child, the love of it's parents, it's teachers, the tender nurturing.

Suddenly this is all wiped out in one second, either by a bullet or by some other weapon. All it takes is one second to wipe out years and years of love and care. That's why I'm against killing.

Effie

Nektarios Ferguson

19-10-2002, 02:52 PM

Effie I can't imagine anyone who truly examines the carnage in war as glorious - Orthodox or other wise. This topic is always loaded with emotion as long as it is discussed within the context of international events as it brings up all of the emotions attached to various national interests and side issues. Perhaps another way to discuss it is in the context of police and law enforcment. There are occasions when to protect police must kill. Does your position on taking a life prevent this as well?

Nektarios

Nektarios Ferguson

20-10-2002, 01:11 PM

Effie The subject is only Orthodox as pacifists or not i.e. an Orthodox perspective on war. the reason I brought up police is so that the principle of the use of a viloent act could be gotten at rather than the politics of this or that action as to keep the focus. Gun control crime rates all take the focus away. Is it moral to use force to the point of taking a life? If so when and within what guidlines? Nektarios

Effie Ganatsios

21-10-2002, 05:46 AM

Nektarios, I think that the two excerpts that I am posting will answer some of our questions. In reply to your last message I should say though that it's hard to separate politics from what we are discussing because isn't that what war is about? And, when discussing a subject, in order to understand it fully, there are bound to be side issues that we sometimes get diverted by.
I found this at this link : http://www.wfn.org/2002/10/msg00132.html

Orthodoxy and War
.2 The "Ecumenical Decade to Overcome Violence" has caused us to reflect on the links between "religion and violence." In the Judeo-Christiantradition, violence is notably absent in the creation story, yet present inthe journey of the Hebrew people. Orthodoxy provides a non-violent alternative to western Christianity's atonement theology based on Christ as sacrificial scapegoat by an incarnational soteriology in which Christshares our mortal human nature, restoring it through His death on the Crossand His resurrection. Violence is clearly a part of our sinful, fallencondition. While disagreements may exist as to whether it is permissible,much less necessary, to limit violence through violent means, such meanscan never be viewed as a "good." There is no just war theology in the Orthodox Tradition.

While love of one's homeland is a positive value, nationalism orethnophyletism is destructive when it rejects pluralism, i.e.,"when I tfails to acknowledge, or deliberately ignores the distinctiveness ofothers." Phyletism may be characterized as the idolization of nationa lloyalty, which is not authentic to Orthodox tradition, but rather reflects the manipulation of the Church by the State. While the Orthodox Churches condemned phyletism in 1872, "nationalism remains one of the centralproblems of the Church," in the words of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.Ethnic violence and ethnic cleansing caused by excessive nationalism must be condemned by all people of faith. Violence against one nation in order to "save" another nation sets us against Christ by applying the same logic
used to crucify Christ. The Church's rejection of ethnophyletism is basedon Orthodox theological anthropology, which sees the image of God in allpersons, and on an incarnational soteriology, which proclaims that Christdied for all."

I also found this link : another essay by Fr. Stanley Harakas: "No Just War in the Fathers"
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jim_forest/Justwar.htm
I can't reprint it because I would need the author's permission.

I will however include the following because it seems to me that it might apply to the police when they are forced to kill someone in self-defense :

This is from The Teaching on Peace in the Fathers*
by Fr. Stanley S. Harakas and can be found at the above link.

"..The locus classicus illustrating this view is the 13th canon of St. Basil from his first Canonical Letter to Amphilochius. The canon struggles to free killing during war from the ethical judgment of being equivalent to murder, while concurrently refusing to call the act good or just. Here is the text:
Our Fathers did not consider murders committed in the course of wars to be classifiable as murders at all, on the score, it seems to me, of allowing a pardon to men fighting in defense of sobriety and piety. Perhaps, though it might be advisable to refuse them communion for three years, on the ground that they are not cleanhanded. [53]
The major early patristic passage, which Basil may have been referring to, is found in St. Athanasius' Epistle to Amun. [54] In passing, and by way of illustration, as he seeks to show that circumstances serve to modify moral judgments, St. Athanasius refers to killing in war: "...thus it is not right to commit murder, but to kill enemies in war is lawful and praiseworthy" [55]
His conclusion, however, does not place him so far from Basil as might first appear. "Therefore, the same thing on the one hand according to which at one time is not permitted, is on the other, at appropriate times permitted and is forgiven." [56]
The inclusion of "forgiveness" needs to be understood as reflective of the strong tradition in Eastern Christianity of the concept of "involuntary sin". This widely documented teaching acknowledges the lack of direct and willed responsibility for an act, while concurrently acknowledging the involvement of the moral agent in an act which in itself is not good and not in accordance with the divine will..."

Fr. Stanley Samuel Harakas, now retired, was for many years Archbishop Iakovos Professor of Orthodox Theology at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts.

I hope you read these texts in full, because after I read them, I understood the Orthodox position on war and violence much better.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

21-10-2002, 05:48 AM

Something that I omitted from my above message :

in reply to Sinjin's original question :

"I was wondering what the Orthodox view of war is? I mean is there such a thing in Orthodoxy as a just war?"

No. According to the Orthodox Church there is no such thing as a "just war".

Effie

Owen Jones

12-04-2003, 03:55 PM

This topic has come up briefly in other threads. Mercifully, perhaps, it has not dominated our discussion. But some comments I have seen require a response.

I don't think Orthodoxy per se has a position on this war. The proper spiritual position is one of detachment and self-condemnation. War is testimony to the fallen state of man. It is an opportunity for me to examine the fact that I am chief among sinners, I am at war against God and His creation. I am in no position to judge others.

As a participant, however, I have to take a stand. I am, afterall, paying for the war out of my pocket. My position is that if there ever were a just war, this one is it. I have seen precious little if any anti-war sentiment that is seriously grounded. Most of it is grounded in hysterical anti-American sentiment. The anti-war crowd has come out of the woodwork, so to speak, on this one. Where were they when we were bombing Serbia, or invading Haiti in order to impose regime change there? (It was notably a staunch leftist dictator who we were installing as the head of Haiti). More notably, where was the UN when hundreds of thousands of people were being hacked to death in Uganda?

This was a war that had to be, in order to pre-empt other terrorist attacks on the U.S. If an angry, well-armed mob started to move into my neighborhood, intent on raping and pillaging, I would have a moral obligation to take pre-emptive action to defend my family and property, and to organize others to assist me in that defense. By the time the threat was on my personal doorstep it would be too late.

I am skeptical of the argument, that passes sometimes as a Christian argument, that all war is bad, or that any killing is unjustified. The people of Iraq and the region and the entire world will be far better off because of this war. The peace of God's Kingdom is of an order quite different than the secular realm, in which there will always be wars and rumors of war. Thank God we have an administration in Washington that is not willing to bend to the wishes of terrorists and extortionists, which would mean the end of civilization as we know it. As for something called Western Civilization, it is indeed in a state of decline due to secularization. But free institutions and the rule of law are worth preserving and defending, and sometimes military action is necessary when those things are threatened. And who would now say in hindsight that taking pre-emptive action against Hitler when he was still weak, say in 1934 or 35, should not have been undertaken?

I think there has to be a sound, common sense basis to Christian thinking when it comes to war and politics. And here is a case where I think Christians can definitely support war, albeit with tears for the suffering of innocents. But where were the tears for the victims of Saddam's madness?

Mark Flory

13-04-2003, 07:31 AM

There is no such thing as a Christian war. Full stop, end of discussion, no mitigation, no compromise.

"War is testimony to the fallen state of man."
"My position is that if there ever were a just war, this one is it."

Exercise: reconcile these two statements.

I am reluctant to support the anti-war folks on the principled basis that they tend, in my opinion, to contribute to the atmosphere of contention and strife rather than to ameliorate it. However, at the very least, they don't want to see anybody die. Anyone who says that they "support" any war, and in the same breath says that they mourn the loss of life, is lying to themselves.

"Let the dead bury the dead." This, rather than other commonly cited scripture passages, is the essence of the Orthodox rejection of violence. What EARTHLY thing have we to protect? You say you would defend your family - how? Can you save their souls? Can you get them into heaven? I too would LAY DOWN MY LIFE for my family; but I believe that the second I use violence or kill another person, I have DAMNED myself. Now, that's just my opinion against yours, Mr. Owens, not doctrine, I know.

For doctrine, see the website of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship.

God save us all! God, please bring the troops back home safely! God, please protect and guide the future of the Iraqi people!

God, teach us to pray! God, pray for us!

God bless you, Mr. Owens. Please pray for me! -Your worthless servant, Mark

Owen Jones

13-04-2003, 02:41 PM

Dear Mark,

This is one of the disturbing things to me about the so-called anti-war crowd today. No discussion. They are right because they are morally superior. Not because of reason, or traditional Christian dogma, or common sense. But because of their own personal sensitivities. No point in any debate. It has a totalitarian tinge to it.

Nor am I convinced that the so-called anti-war crowd doesn't want anybody to die. They apparently don't care about people who die in the hands of politically correct regimes like Castro's. (nor do they care about unborn babies dying). What they do care about is if America kills anyone. So it is more important to them who does the killing, than how many die. IF it's not on the left-wing agenda, they don't care about it. If they did, they would have been out in the hundreds of thousands protesting Bill Clinton's bombing of Serbia and his regime change in Haiti.

As for historical facts, for good or for ill, there have been numerous Christian wars throughout the centuries. The battle of Lapanto was a Christian battle. If the Christians had not won, we would all be praying to Allah.

I certainly respect Christian pacifism on the individual level, if someone is consistent about it and it's not just an excuse to be cowardly. But one cannot rationally impose the principle of pacifism on a nation, especially when it has suffered an unprovoked attack by an enemy. But let's look again at Christian tradition on this. Surely Our Lord was not a pacifist. He had bodyguards carrying sidearms to protect him against physical harm until the time was right for His Glorification. What was the point of him having armed bodyguards if they were not permitted to use their weapons? And, in fact, one did for sure that we know of. And it was a pre-emptive strike!

Owen Jones

13-04-2003, 04:55 PM

Dear Mark,

Taking your advice, I went to the website of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship. I believe my views on the Iraq War are consistent with Harakas' treatment of Patristic sources on the subject of war and peace. I believe the the war in Iraq is a "necessary evil." I think the U.S. commanders on the ground, and President Bush would also be very comfortable and in full agreement with that characterization of the war -- a necessary evil.

I believe I am consistent in my views with the general Patristic view in support of the Pax Augusti. Only now we have a Pax Americana in Iraq. A quite different issue is one of whether the Church should permit its members to serve in combat, and if so, what the penalty should be for killing in combat. These are profound issues, and I would be all for a Church today that was robust enough to be able to enforce a consistent, tough standard on its faithful in this regard. But give me a break. There is absolutely no Orthodox Bishop in the world who has any credibility on that subject! Patriarch Alexy is condemning U.S. military action in Iraq, but where is he when it comes to his own flock serving in the Russian military which has killed many tens of thousands in Chechnya? I would simply like to see some consistency among our Orthodox Patriarchs and Bishops for a change. Instead, they love beating up on the U.S. I see no evidence in any of the statements by Bishops that Saddam Hussein is the chief culprit here. There has been no peace in Iraq since he came to power. He has probably been torturing and killing, on average, a few hundred Iraqis a month, perhaps weekly, since he came to power. He launched an unprovoked war against Iran that killed hundreds of thousands. For what? He launched an unprovoked war against Kuwait, and there are Kuwaitis still wondering where hundreds of their relatives have disappeared to. But no, it is much more politically correct to attack the U.S. for enforcing a Pax Americana on Iraq. These are essentially cheap shots, designed for sucking up to domestic political consitutuencies (All of the Middle East primates live in dictatorial regimes and serve at the pleasure of those despots -- do we seriously think that the Antiochian Patriarch would serve more than five minutes -- let alone live -- were he to criticize the regime in Syria for waging war in Lebanon, and waging terrorism against innocent Jewish civilians?).

Their pious statements on the subject of peace are not grounded in Patristic thought whatsoever, but instead reflect contemporary political realities. I have utter contempt for their self-serving statements.

John Curtis Dunn

14-04-2003, 01:02 AM

Owen Jones Posted on Sunday, 13 April
"Their pious statements on the subject of peace are not grounded in Patristic thought whatsoever, but instead reflect contemporary political realities. I have utter contempt for their self-serving statements."

Masterfully worded commentary Owen, in my opinion. I found the opening paragrah of the OPF Plea noxious and indefensible.

For the record, perhaps the single most poignant words which our Lord spoke addressing the issue of war was during his own interrogation by Pilate.
These words were simple and to the point:

"My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting, in order that I should not be delivered up to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from this place." (John 18:36 Orthodox New Testament Version)

In these words our Lord gives the ultimate political commentary concerning the kingdoms of this world, "My servants would be fighting." What prerequisite does our Lord establish as the premise for war? "If My kingdom were of this world."

The world cannot promise us peace, even with the best laid plans of Geneva or the UN (mice and men). However, there remains a yearning in the heart of sane persons for a peaceful co-existence with men, families, nationalities, countries and conteninents. But how this sane yearning can be actualized and maintained is within the sphere of discussion of what constitutes a just war.

Some Orthodox (most notably those identified with the OPF) have maintained there is no such concept as a Just War theory within the Orthodox tradition. I am skeptical of this position because St. Basil most definitely identifies two examples: "Defense of Virgins and Defense of the True Faith (religion)." Neither do I believe St. Basil was intending to limit a "just war" to only these two realms. Indeed, our Lord said that if His kingdom where of this world, his disciples would be fighting to prevent his arrest and trial and execution by the Jews. Thus, perhaps, permitting that a just war would include the defense and protection of even "one individual."

Furthermore, St. Basil states with certainty that our Fathers did not consider a soldier killing in a war (I presume he meant under orders to attack or defend a military position or opposing military force)an act of homicide.

This latter sentiment seems concurrent with the general ideas expressed in the Geneva Convention (in my opinion).

The doubt may be raised that this war is not really to defend Virginity, either here or in Iraq, and nobody wants to suggest that it is about defending the True Religion against the False Religion (except perhaps for certain Islamic factions more/less); yet, both I believe are within the sphere of possibility.

Perhaps that latter argument would require some creative thinking, by which I mean thinking outside of the box of accepted perceptions and/or concepts of what is "true" (remember the meaning of "is" remains questionable). But such analysize from within Orthodoxy should be expected, rather than the simple tripe I read in the opening paragraph of the OPF Plea.

It has already been pointed out to me the list of signitures attached to the Plea (and I know a couple persons who signed it personally), that however does not in my perspective of matters constitute proof of the "Orthodoxy" of their perspective. I am not questioning their Orthodoxy, or their Patriotism; I will let each answer to that for themselves. I do question the serendipitous manner in which the Plea has claimed to present the "Orthodox Position/Perspective" and thus claim to speak authoritively for all Orthodox, everywhere, and at all times. Needless to say, I have refused to attach my signature even when urged by one of the OPF members (of course this is no big loss to the OPF).

john

Alvin Kimel

14-04-2003, 09:06 PM

I visited the OPF website and read two of Harakas's articles. His article "The Teaching on Peace in the Fathers" is particularly interesting: Harakas (http://www.incommunion.org/fathers.htm)

I do wonder, though, if his distinction between a just act and a evil but necessary act holds up under analysis.

My question is this: In his attempt to formulate an Orthodox moral view on war, Harakas ignores St. Ambrose and St. Augustine. Why intentionally ignore the moral reflections of these two saints of the undivided Orthodox and Catholic Church simply because they are western?

Fr Alvin Kimel+

Owen Jones

14-04-2003, 09:47 PM

This is a common bias among a lot of contemporary ORthodox thinkers. Example: some Orthodox want to completely disregard and reject any doctrine of forensic atonement, when it is clearly bibical and a vital part of the tradition. The fact that some protestants focus ONLY on forensic atonement does not negate the doctrine.

Also, as I suggested, I think there is an ideological bias at work here. My assessment is that many Orthodox theological writers condemn the American brand of individual liberty as altogether bad, and the only thing they have to substitute for it is socialism. They confuse socialism with the idea of communion. There is a bad faith argument at work here because they should know better.

It's important to understand that socialism is a secularized version of monasticism, enforced from the top down, either through terror, or through a kind of bureaucratic tyranny -- what James Burnham called The Managerial State.

The only theological writer that I know of who tried to sincerely come to grips with the fact that Americans are individualists and have a strong pioneer spirit, and not simply condemn that, is Fr. Seraphim Rose.

As for the war issue, I wonder how many people who say they are against war under any circumsntances -- using Orthodoxy as their justification -- would have denied arms to black slaves to revolt against their masters.

Effie Ganatsios

16-04-2003, 09:39 AM

Marina, this is a very long message. I’m sorry about that.

Marina, I read the article from the Observer that you posted. I have read so many articles recently on this subject that it makes my heart ache. Why? Because 3 images come to mind each time I read something like the above article or a recently read article that listed the known weapons each country has. e.g. America has 10.000 nuclear warheads, Israel has 400 or so (I'm not absolutely sure about the number Israel has - it was about that if I remember correctly). Other countries don't do too badly either. To my shame, Greece has depleted uranium weapons in its arsenal as well.

The three images that come to mind are the following :

The picture of a young girl with half her head blown away. The scene with the young boy (he couldn't have been more that 7 or 8) crying while, at the same time, desperately giving the kiss of life to a man lying on the ground (his father?) and the teenager who had fainted and started crying so pathetically when the people around him revived him. We can only guess at what the poor boy had seen and experienced. These were true images and not something deliberately staged for the cameras.

When we conveniently forget just what war is we have no right to call ourselves Christians. Nothing, nothing can excuse the suffering of civilians, especially children.

Everything else is just patriotic nonsense to either disguise ulterior motives or to “protect” us from the harsh reality of war. In the last few years, veterans from WWII have complained repeatedly about the use of the film industry to glamorise what is essentially a brutal, bloody business. Books about WWI were more realistic – I suppose that was before governments awoke to the fact that if the majority of the public weren’t behind them then they didn’t stand much of a chance of going to war in the first place. One- armed or even one-legged soldiers returning from the war might even be considered to be romantic figures. But what about the thousands of body parts that the survivors had difficulty even recognizing as having once belonged to a human body. I read an article a while back about the Canadian regiment that was landed at Dieppe as a “rehearsal” for the Normandy landing. The German artillery massacred them and the German soldiers wept when they inspected the area afterwards. There have been dozens of films made about the Normandy landing but I don’t remember seeing even one of this massacre. Dieppe reminds me of Gallipoli during WWI and the Australians who were sent there by the English (Churchill to be specific, who lost his position in the government over this incident).

Is killing ever justified? That’s probably the most difficult question a Christian can be expected to answer, isn’t it? “ Thou shalt not kill” is a very definite commandment. Jesus was even more specific : Mathew 5:21 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

Now that’s pretty clear-cut, isn’t it? But what happens if someone comes into my home and tries to kill my husband or my child. Would I sacrifice my loved ones because of my religion beliefs? I know my husband would kill to protect his family and he’s one of the most gentle people I know besides being a deeply religious person. I don’t think any mother would hesitate to kill either. The female of every species, including man, will kill to protect her offspring.

Being forced to kill a person bent on murdering you or your loved ones and killing another soldier during the course of a battle are surely two different things. So what is there to say about using deadly weapons such as cluster bombs, weapons made with depleted uranium or those new mini-nukes that Bush threatened to use (we won’t know if the US actually did use these for another couple of years at least I suppose). Especially when such monstrosities are used against a civilian population…….. Can you find anything to justify this, because I can’t!

It’s not just the US. America at the moment has the upper hand and unfortunately seems to think that might is right. Other countries might not be guilty to the same degree at this given moment in time but they are just as capable of being. History has proven that all too well. The problem is that the weapons being manufactured keep getting more and more deadly. Marina, did you know that at the time of WWI 90% of war casualties were soldiers and 10% civilians. But now 10% (if that) are soldiers and 90% civilians. We are progressing, aren’t we?

Effie

This is the Prayer for Peace from the Orthodox Prayer Book

“Almighty God and Creator. You are the Father of all people on the earth. Guide, I pray, all the nations and their leaders in the ways of justice and peace. Protect us from the evils of injustice, prejudice, exploitation, conflict and war. Help us to put away mistrust, bitterness and hatred. Teach us to cease the storing and using of implements of war. Lead us to find peace, respect and freedom. Unite us in the making and sharing of tools of peace against ignorance, poverty, disease and oppression. Grant that we may grow in harmony and friendship as brothers and sisters created in Your image, to your honour and praise. Amen.”

A prayer that should definitely be included in our daily prayers.

Effie Ganatsios

16-04-2003, 01:00 PM

Father Averky, I’ve been discussing this subject with my husband and I thought I’d just let you know what he said.

He said it’s a shame that so many people have turned against the US. He remembers how the US helped Greece after the 2nd World War. He had just started primary school and he remembers the powdered milk that the children received at school. It was from America as were the sacks of flour etc. for the general population. Things weren’t so bad up here in Northern Greece but I know that in Athens lots of people starved during the German Occupation and then again during the Civil War that followed. Greece was a mess, economically, and the reason many more people didn’t die was the help given by the people of the US. The Marshall Plan, of course, also helped many European countries after the war. Things are never black and white, are they?

In a previous message I mentioned the US involvement in the junta takeover in 1965. Most Greeks remember that but the older Greeks also remember the kind-heartedness of the Americans. It’s a shame that the positive things the US has done are not emphasized a lot more than they are. I’ve seen quite a few documentaries about 1965 but I don’t remember any about U.S. financial aid in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. And let's not forget the financial help that England gave during the civil war here - the Greeks fought courageously but without this help (even if it did sometimes find its way into hands that were never meant to receive it) Greece would have been a part of the communist bloc and we have all seen the results of that!

Father Averky, I can’t deny the fact that I am anti-war. Being anti-war isn’t the same as being anti-American though. Australian boys are also in Iraq at the moment. I pray for them – I pray that they’ll return safely to their families – and not just physically but also mentally. I pray that they won’t be forced to do anything that they won’t be able to live with later on. Australians are terrific people, Father. I don’t agree with Howard’s politics and I certainly don’t agree with Australia’s involvement in East Timor (not that I’m an expert on that subject). But that doesn’t affect how I feel about Australia and Australians. The same applies to the US.

Effie

M.C. Steenberg

16-04-2003, 02:51 PM

Dear Owen, Alvin, John, Mark and others,

I have placed, as a new subthread/archive of the current discussion on Orthodoxy and the war in Iraq, a collection of messages on Orthodoxy and war/warfare, posted some time go in another area.

You may find these messages interesting, for their perspective offered before the onset of the present conflict in Iraq.

INXC, Matthew

Adam Cody

16-04-2003, 03:31 PM

Euterpe Ganatsios wrote:
Is killing ever justified? That’s probably the most difficult question a Christian can be expected to answer, isn’t it? “ Thou shalt not kill” is a very definite commandment. Jesus was even more specific :
Mathew 5:21 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

Response: I always laugh when someone uses this verse and then fails to notice the verse also has "WITHOUT A CAUSE". So, with that...one could actually use this verse to justify the position that our Savior was actually making clear that it's not "thou shall not kill (generalized)" but rather "thou shall not murder without cause".
Adam

Fr Averky

17-04-2003, 09:59 AM

Effie,

I share your feelings, I am vehemtly against war. However, war is as old as mankind itself, ever being an important aspect of a nation's interests. We could talk forever about the the legality or morality of any given war, but heads of state and generals do not think in those terms, they only think in terms of agression and victory, or in terms of defens - and victory. The cost in human suffering and loss of life can in no way be compensated, no matter how wealthy or well-meaning a conquering country might be - it still is a conquerer, filling the hearts of the vanquished with fear and anger. Yet, in time of war, I along with Church, pray for our armies, asking God to grant victory to our troops. I do not judge the morality of legality of war, I pray for our young men risking their lives. In the original wording of the Troparion of the Cross, we sing :"grant victory to our pious Orthodox Emperor over his adversaries, and by the virtue of Thy cross, preserve Thy commonwealth."

Yet, if some wars had not been fought and won, where would we have been. Not touting the U.S. because I am an American, but what would present day Europe looked like if at the last minute the Unites States had not decided to come to the aid of her allies. If the Christians had lost the Battle of Lepanto, we might all be praying to Allah.

Until the First World War, the U.S. was guided by the prinicples of the Monroe Doctrine, which called upon America to turn its back on the aged old rivalries of Europe, and to concentrate on building a free, democratic nation. Seeing the real threat of Germany, this country broke its promise to itself, and joined the war. Again, in WWII, historians now tell us that the European allies were on the very brink of losing to Hitler, and he himself was not aware how close he was. Thousands of American young men, boys really, gave their lives on the beaches of Normandy, fighting bravely to keep England, France,Greece, and the other peoples of Europe free.After the war, billions of dollars of aid were given to all the nations, even to the aggressor, Germany.

Thousands of Australians, Filipinos and others in South East Asia, imprisoned and brutally mistreated by the Japanese, were aided and rescued by American troops, who lost thousands upon thousands in the Pacific Theater.

And now, in France people are painting swastikas on the crosses of the Americans who fell, giving their own innocent lives for a people that these young men did not know, but value of whose freedom meant the willingness to die for them. So too are WWII monuments being defaced with anti-American graffiti. The year before the Olympics in Sydney, a group of young Americans went to Australia to get to know their Australian counterparts, going with feelings of friendship and good will. To their amazement and dismay, they were roughed up, called names, and had to tolerate ugly anti-American insults from those who would soon be their host country to that event "Where the young people of the world gather together in peace..." Older Australians, saddened by the news, commented on how some of the people of their nation had forgotten how Americans had helped keep them free.

Such sentiments are the real ugliness of war, Effie, there is no winner. Everyone, everyone suffers, everyone, everyone loses. Only the Evil One is the victor, sowing distrust and hatred among the nations. Of course in matters of anti-American sentiments (or sentiments against any country), it is always only a few who hurl insults and show ugliness to American visitors, but those few unwittingly become representives of their entire country. As in all human relationships, we can do a thousand good deeds, but people remember the one bad one.

God in the Old Testament says "Thou shall Not kill," and Jesus Christ speaks of mercy, but never does God say to men that they shall not wage war. War and man's agression is yet another aspect of the Fall, part of our sinfulness. During the Christmas season, people become sentimental and blubber about world "peace," but Christ Himself said that he did not come with peace, but with a sword. World peace, like happiness, is something for dreamers, a fantasy -for as long as man continues to hate his neigbor, covet his goods, or hate him for his color or religion, and cannot come to love God with all of his heart and soul and his neighbor as himself, then wars, injustice, inhumanity and human suffering will continue

. An army may conquer nations, destroy entire civilizations, but no army can destroy the heart, the soul, or the good in men. And it is by love, and love alone that men are truly conquered. God bless you Effie, and Marina, God bless all members of this community. Pascha is soon upon us - let us concentrate on these last days of Great Lent. If only we all could say the words "Lord have mercy," and mean it from the depths of our soul, we could look around us and see every man for who he truly is-someone created in the likeness and image of God. Every person is an icon of Christ -see how lovely the people of Irag are, even in their suffering, fear and anger: God sees their suffering, for they are His children, and He loves them. Look at the young American soldier, a girl of only nineteen, saved by the good hearted Iraqi lawyer. As a man and a father, he could not bear to see a young girl suffer at the hands of her captors. She was not a hated American, the "Great Satan," she was a frightened little girl, and he risked his life, going back forth several times, telling the American soldiers where she was, bringing about her rescue. In the end, we are all people, and God's children. This man understood that, and how gracious God will be to Him. His fear and hatred for the aggressor was overcome by that which he shared with a young stranger: she was his fellow man. He acted in a Godly manner, not considering who might be Muslim or Christian, but as one who valued the life of another child of God

Our Saviour assumed our humanity, suffered with and for us - let us now turn to Him, and with every fibre of our being desire to be like Him, loving all that He has created. Let us hope that this discussion will close now, for we have solved nothing, we have become passionate, waging our own "war," a war of words. Now, let each of us prepare for the Feast of Feasts, the Bright Resurrection of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Forgive me, my brothers and sisters, for I am a great sinner. Pray for me, as I do for each and every one of you. Marina, I don't know you at all, but your soul and your salvation is precious to me.

Hieromonk Averky

Effie Ganatsios

18-04-2003, 08:07 AM

I have found a wonderful site : In communion Website of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship
In communion – Peace from Above includes an Orthodox Resource Book on War, Peace and Nationalism . Reading the above messages I find that this site is already well known to the participants in this discussion. It's a fact of life that two people can read the same thing and understand two different things.

I am still exploring this site (and will still probably be exploring in a year or so!!!) but what I have read so far is very helpful.

The URL is : http://www.incommunion.org/resources/PeaceFromAbove.asp

"God is not a God of war and fighting. Make war and fighting to cease, both that which is against him, and that which is against your neighbor. Be at peace with all people, consider with what character God saves you." -- St. John Chrysostom

This site also gives you practical guide-lines on what you can do personally to help the peace effort e.g. pray, fast, join peaceful demonstrations, study and discuss the issues, protest against one-sided reporting . take part in merciful activities designed to help the victims of war, etc.
* * *
I also found another terrific site where you can download beautiful recordings of Orthodox hymns in midi or MP3. http://en.liturgy.ru/zvuk/zvuk.php
The choir of the Saviour-Transfiguration Cathedral.

Effie

Effie Ganatsios

19-04-2003, 07:54 AM

I watched a documentary on TV two nights ago and it made such an impression on me that I decided to search the Internet for additional information.

The documentary was about Vietnam and Orange Agent (dioxin) and the efforts that are being made to salvage whatever can be salvaged from such a tragedy.

I was particularly impressed by George Mizo – his calm way of speaking and the wise things he said.

I don’t think he was Orthodox but he was obviously a deeply religious person. I say “was” because I learnt from the Internet site that he died in 2002. His immune system had been damaged by Agent Orange and at the time the documentary was being filmed he was very sick. He, and other soldiers with him knew that they were being sprayed but thought that what was being sprayed on them was insecticide for the mosquitoes. Agent Orange (named so for the orange band around the container) was used as a defoliant but what it contained was one of the deadliest poisons known to man. The company who manufactured it was 100% aware of its deadly properties by the way.

What is particularly interesting to me is the number of veterans who are against war. It’s easy for men who have never experienced war to glibly state that certain passages in the bible give us the right to kill, but I notice that men who have actually gone to war either shut up about it or are against it – except of course for those individuals who find themselves suited to the art of killing and whose souls are forever damaged by this brutal “art”. I also notice that the leaders of nations who are most vocal about their patriotism and the need to go to war are usually those who have managed, sometimes quite cleverly, to avoid going to war themselves.

A brief biography of George Mizo, a couple of quotes and the poem he wrote :

“An artillery sergeant and glorified war hero with almost two years of experience in the combat zone, by the end of 1967 George Mizo had begun to question US involvement in Vietnam. But it wasn't until the horrible moment during the 1968 Tet Offensive when George learned he was the sole survivor of an assault that killed his entire platoon that his understanding of the war's deception and immorality crystallized. From that moment on, George's life was no longer about war, but about peace and reconciliation. In his words (spoken at the grand opening ceremony for the Friendship Village), "Those of us who have seen firsthand that horror called war know how fragile life is, and how precious life is, and know that war is not the answer but part of the problem."
“The veterans who have participated in seeing the true horrors of war have a particularly credible voice in speaking out against war. I think it is important also for veterans not just to demonstrate and speak out against war, but to set examples of the kind of things that we can do. And the Village of Friendship Project is one historic example. There are veterans and caring citizens from six countries at this point, who were all former enemies, now working together."
--George Mizo, US Vietnam War Veteran (1945-2002”
“Dear Friends, We can't change the past. We can't bring back our friends, our sons, our fathers or brothers . . . nor can we bring back the Vietnamese, no matter which side they fought on . . . nor can we bring back the children or other innocent victims of war . . . but we can change the present and the future.”
An Important Lesson
You, my parents, taught me that it was wrong to kill . . . except in war.
You, my church, taught me that it was wrong to kill . . . except in war.
You, my teachers, taught me that it was wrong to kill . . . except in war.
You, my government, taught me that it was wrong to kill . . . except in war.
Then you sent me to war
And when I had no choice . . . except to kill,
Then you told me I was wrong!
And now I will tell you . . . my parents.
. . . my church.
. . . my teachers.
. . . my government.
It is not wrong to kill . . . except in war.
It is wrong to kill period!
And this you have to learn . . .
Just as I had to!
--by George Mizo
I have neglected to mention that the effects of Agent Orange are still being experienced by the Vietnamese people. Children are still being born with a wide variety of horrendous diseases. The areas that were sprayed with Agent Orange are still polluted and, what is even more disgusting is the fact that large amounts of this poison were dumped into reservoirs by pilots on their way back to their bases.

Links : http://www.vietnamfriendship.org/mizo.htm
http://www.vietnamfriendship.org/

Daniel Jeandet

19-04-2003, 12:47 PM

In my opinion, the question about this war is, is it justified?

Leading to the question, has the american government lied about its reasons for this war?

If this war was not fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people or to disarm the Iraqi regime, then this war is immoral. It does not matter what the Holy Fathers say about just causes, if the cause is not just.

So the question is, has the american government attacked Iraq for an immoral reason? To answer this question takes alot of courage for americans that trust their government.

I dont know the whole truth, but many americans outright deny even the possibility that they may have been lied to by their goverment (and media) and I think that is why this is a very difficult issue to discuss and examine.

Owen Jones

19-04-2003, 03:10 PM

Euterpe,

If you had had the opportunity, would you have given weapons to black slaves in the Old South to enable them to rebel against their masters? Or would you have given them a sermon on the immorality of killing under any circumstances ["slaves, obey your masters"]?

Owen Jones

Owen Jones

19-04-2003, 03:26 PM

Dear Daniel,

Any reasonably intelligent, aware person in the West can learn how to parse government statements and tell the difference between spin, stupidity, and the truth, unless, that is, they are blinded by leftist ideology which says that everything is a conspiracy against them personally and they have a right to be angry and resentful.

NOt in all specific cases, but certainly in a general sense, it's not that hard to figure out what's going on, and in the case of this war, we had many months to read and hear all of the opinions and make up our minds. So yes, indeed, there was a spin on this war -- weapons of mass destruction that could get into the hands of terrorists to use them against the U.S. As in all wars, the focus on the spin changes to the evils of the regime, and so on. But you are making an argument implying that Americans who back the war are all a bunch of simplistic idiots who lack your sophisticated world-view and superior insights, and have no clue that we are all being lied to. Fact is, we've all heard the arguments of the left that we are really there to steal Iraq's oil, or of the Islamists, that it's just a grand conspiracy by Jews who control the American government and the world banking system. And we've rejected those arguments by a common sense process of elimination. Personally, I would have used this argument -- if you "**** with" the U.S. we are going to come after you. But that's not terribly sophisticated and I don't think it would fly. But that's what most Americans think. And there are plenty of reasons to put Saddam Hussein's regime in the target hairs. He funds and promotes terrorism, he harbors terrorists, he's a terrorist. We declared war on terrorism, terrorists, and the states that harbor and support terrorists and terrorism. We did that after 9/11. Before that, the Bush administration was attacked mercilessly by the left for not being engaged in foreign affairs.

I think the reasonable debate ought to be over the right tactics in the war against terrorism. But it's very difficult to have an intelligent debate over the right tactics, when the debate is clouded by ideology.

Regarding Vietnam, I think it was America's finest hour. But we used the wrong tactics. Our military refused to adopt the proven tactics of counter-insurgency warfare. But what we were trying to do for the Vietnamese was heroic and selfless, and history has born out the validity of that cause. When people complain about war, they don't want to talk about the re-education camps, the gulags, the concentration camps, the forced starvation -- the kinds of terrible injustices that often cause wars in the first place. If America turned a blind eye to all of the injustice in the world, the same anti-American leftists complaining now about our war, would be complaining that we don't care about anyone but ourselves, and are not willing to commit troops abroad under any circumstances, despite various holocausts going on around the world.

Ronald J. Brotzman

19-04-2003, 09:07 PM

I think that all can agree war is bad, it is the real hell on earth. Having said that, I think at times it is necessary. Is this war justified, whether justified or not it is now a reality, which cannot be changed. History can not be changed it can only be judged later, that judgment is worthless because the actions judged are in the past. Thoughts about war retrospectively are worlthless. Can we learn something from wars in the past surely, not only how to fight better in the future, but maybe how to avoid them. Look at WWII, if we would not have appeased Hitler, there would have been a short limited war rather than the millions killed. War and appeasement go hand-in-hand. History will judge wether or not this small war either limited a future Middle East confligration, or ignited it. At 56 years of age I might never know. Peace is the goal, but only when it can be reasonably maintained, peace at all costs, is in reality peace lost. The tyrannt always wants peace in order to further his control over his own country internally . Once external factors are withdrawn such a threats of war, then he may take any action against his own people, and strenghten himself in a manner to prepare war outside his borders. All the whining of the various heads of the Orthodox church are irrlevant their own ox was not being gored at the moment. Change oxes and the whinning would stop and the war drums would be blessed. Governments make wars at this point in history not churches or religious leaders. The influence of the clergy is so minimal all it does is incite distrust among the faithful both pro and con with in the church. The Orthodox Peace Initiative is a fuzzy World Council of Churches, (a neo-pagan organization to which no credence or participation should be given by right thinking Orhtodox,) manifesto so devoid of true God inspiried action as to be laughable. Political history will be evaluated, Christian action in this instance is a waste of time for all concerned. If this war does bring about peace in that part of the world it will have been worth it, if not then it may have been a wrong, which once done cannot be corrected by Monday night quarterbacking. It is what it is and will be what it will be, it is still no matter what part of God's eternal plan for this world.

Alvin Kimel

19-04-2003, 09:59 PM

A question about the Orthodox view of war. The 13th canon of St. Basil reads: "Murder in war our fathers have not counted as murder -- in my opinion, making a concession to those who fight in defense of temperance and piety. But it is good to advise those whose hands are not clean to abstain from communion for three years only."

What authority does this canon have within Orthodoxy? Was Basil's suggestion that soldiers who have killed should abstain from the Eucharist merely a suggestion or did it actually enforce a canonical penance? Did Byzantium follow this canon? What about more modern nation states like Russia or Greece?

TIA.

Fr Alvin Kimel

Owen Jones

19-04-2003, 10:14 PM

Thanks Ronald. I appreciate your hard-boiled realism. You are the Raymond Chandler of Orthodoxy.

Effie Ganatsios

20-04-2003, 07:06 AM

20/4/2003

Euterpe,

If you had had the opportunity, would you have given weapons to black slaves in the Old South to enable them to rebel against their masters? Or would you have given them a sermon on the immorality of killing under any circumstances ["slaves, obey your masters"]?

Owen Jones

Owen Hi. I’m not trying to avoid answering but I would prefer that we continue this discussion after Easter. Tomorrow is Palm Sunday and God Willing we’ll both be around in a week’s time to continue the discussion.

Just two points : Slavery - Greece was occupied by the Turks (the Ottoman Empire) for 400 years and when we rebelled our Orthodox priests were in the forefront of the fight. In fact, one of the key figures of the Greek Revolution was a monk who fought against the Turks–Papa Flesas or Gregorios Diakaios. And Bishop Germanos of Patras raised the Greek flag at the monastery of Agia Lavras, inciting the Peloponnese to rise against the Turks.

Were we fighting to be free or for Orthodoxy? Both, I would say. The Turks are Muslims and even though they didn’t try to convert the general populace they selected and took an estimated 200.000 Christian children. Some authorities think the number was many times that if you include other Christian countries in the region. These children were selected for their intelligence and their appearance and were taken to Turkey. They were converted to Islam and became either members of the janissary corps, the most effective fighting force on the earth at that time and fanatically anti-Christian, or they were trained to be future administrators of the Ottoman state. Some Muslims even today do not see the cruelty of what happened and argue that “the status of slave was not necessarily demeaning. To be a slave of the sultan was an honour that conferred high social position and material benefit.. “.

Our Orthodox religion, which was taught in secret at night, and our national pride, enabled us to rebel and fight for our freedom. Both President Monroe of the US and the former US President Thomas Jefferson, who spoke and wrote Greek by the way, praised our fight for freedom.
So, I don't know what I would do in the situation you referred to because I can't relate to it. I do know what I would do if another country invaded my country and occupied it. I would do what all Greeks would - I would fight. Freedom or death was the call of our revolution and it still applies.

Owen, I don’t sermonize. I have come to a certain way of thinking after years of reading and studying politics. I don’t think either of us feels the need to change the way the other thinks about war. We can however put forward our arguments and hope that the other person is willing to at least try and see things from a different perspective. I’ve noticed that you use the term “left-wing” fairly frequently. This term doesn’t apply to me but even if it did does it really matter what label is used to describe a person’s politics. And, in the final analysis, just what does left-wing and right-wing mean? Stalin was a monster and so was Hitler. How would you describe them? Left wingers or right wingers or both? An honourable person is honourable no matter what label the world chooses to stick on him. Are only “left-wingers” anti-war? Are all “right-wingers” warmongers? Do you see how ridiculous these terms are when used this way.

Have a good Holy Week.

Effie

Owen Jones

20-04-2003, 02:59 PM

Dear Effie,

I didn't expect that you were against all war per se, but thanks for making that explicit. Yes, I do use the term leftism a lot in this threat, because that is the dominant political theology in the world today and it is the only way to properly contextualize the issue of anti-war sentiment.

Daniel Jeandet

28-04-2003, 05:16 PM

Hi eveyone,

Thanks, Owen and others, for your comments on my post. Im glad to find a place where these things can be discussed reasonably. I hope you dont take offence with anything I write.

I am not a leftist. Im not for the left or right. Being an australian, I fully understand how empty those terms are. Its one of the few ways the aussies are ahead of the yanks http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Although we are more apathetic than Americans, it is sad to see all debate in your media expertly channeled into endless debates on the right way to fight terrorism.

"the only way to properly contextualize the issue of anti-war sentiment" Do you mean that only left leaning people are anti iraq war? I know there are many many people in many different countries who are staunchly conservative and also oppose the war. Thier ideology doesnt get in the way of thier thinking on this issue.

Perhaps the current U.S. leaders as representing neither left nor right, but another ideology altogether. It is no secret that George Bush is a member of the Skull and Bones society. What does that mean exactly? What does it mean to his supporters, especially Christian ones? If you dont beleive me, read his autobiography.

The only way to properly contextualize the issue of anti-war sentiment is to understand why some people think the U.S. administration is waging war on iraq and other countries, for reasons other than those they are claiming.

Thats what I said in my origional post. That the question is one of intention. What is your governments intention? That question has nothing to do with ideology.

Can you discover the true intentions of your government through the mainstream media? if not, why not?

Why does a just cause need to be spun? This is a big question.

One of the reasons I am interested in the actions of your goverment, and the intentions behind them, is the way the government of my country supported the goverment of yours in regard to the war. We had a couple of thousand troops sent over to fight, even against the majority opinion of the population.

America is not hiding the fact that it wants to govern the world.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I posted this link to another Orthodox discussion forum, after they visited it, they were laughing at me, telling me I had been duped by anti-american propaganda. Then they realised the site was for real, and all they could say was: well, its better than another country governing the world. Not much to discuss there.

Of course, I am not against all war, it is perpectly moral to defend yourself, your people and your country from an invader, however, my country was conquered without even a shot being fired.

Owen Jones

28-04-2003, 07:09 PM

Dear Daniel,

Let me try to respond point by point as best I can.

Ideological slogans, if used descriptively, are not empty. A lefist or a rightest believes in certain things that are generally accepted by them and can be described. If we say that the terms are meaningless, then we are saying that language is meaningless. I think the task for any Christian is to try to run a fine tooth comb through our thinking to remove any ideological presuppositions, since all ideology runs counter to faith. I'm using the term ideology in a philosophical, descriptive sense as a libidinous obssession to re-order the world, to make it better than God made it through some kind of new organizational principle. All ideology is at war with God.

I don't know that Australia is more or less ideologically driven than the U.S. From what I can gleen, it is probably far more secularized, and secularism is, of course, an ideology. It's the idea that a society can exist without God.

All media debate in the U.S. is not by any means channeled into endless debates on the right way to fight terrorism. Although in light of 9/11 it would certainly appear that this would be a worthy topic of debate. Why not? Are we supposed to not fight terrorism? That argument has, in fact, been made by many in the U.S., mostly leftists, but some on the right as well, including Pat Buchanan, and the more extreme libertarians. But most Americans take what I think is a common sense position that, yes, we have a right and duty to figtht terrorist organizations and the states that sponsor terrorism in order to try to prevent another 9/11 or something even worse.

As for conservatives who oppose the war, it's hard to say that it's not for ideological reasons. Pat Buchanan has an ideology. I have yet to hear from him a Christian reason for not doing it. His reasons are ideological. He believes in an America-first foreign policy and a populist domestic policy. These seem to me to be ideological positions that he is taking.

If, by conservatism, you mean the more traditional view of being prudential in politics, then I think you can make a strong, conservative case against military intervention in the Middle East. But, strangely, it is the left in the U.S. that is using this argument (among many others that seem contradictory) against intervention -- e.g. that it will create more hostility toward the U.S., bog us down into a Vietnam like quagmire, be horrendously costly, etc. Frankly, I have yet to see the prudential argument stated coherently by anyone in the debate here in the U.S. to oppose intervention in Iraq. Most Americans seem to be using the prudential argument in favor of attacking Iraq, and as far as I can tell, this is President Bush's argument.

I'm not sure what Skull and Bones has to do with invading Iraq. Bush, like many Americans who are Christian, is a walking contradiction. Many Protestants belong to occult societies, such as the Masons and use terms like "New World Order" which should make any conservative and especially any Christian quiver. I don't agree with going to war to create a "New World Order," but that terminology has been around since the Renaissance. Elizabeth's court believed that she was creating a New World Order. The slogan exists on our dollar bill. Jefferson believed in a New World Order -- a liberal democratic empire. This is a lot different than ruling the world. It is an ideology, to be sure, but it is not empire building in the classical sense. If we wanted to create a classical empire for ourselves, we could do so with our military. But in the case of Haiti, Serbia, Iraq, and many other examples, American might is typically used to try to force other countries to become democracies. But we don't end up ruling those countries.

Now to the hidden agenda argument. Many have claimed that there is a hidden agenda behind the war against Iraq, because they cannot comprehend it otherwise, their own ideology blinding them to the obvious, that most Americans support it for prudential reasons, to remove a dictator who is supporting terrorism that can be used against the U.S. Cuba, China, North Korea might be far more dangerous countries in some sense, but they have not armed and trained and funded people who have attacked the U.S., causing thousands of deaths, and trillions of dollars of economic loss. So they look for some hidden agenda that is satisfying to their ideological presuppositions. The Marxist presupposition, for example, is that all wars have an economic cause. So, most leftist arguments claim that Bush wants to reward his rich friends with contracts to re-build Iraq and steal their oil. If that were the cause, we would have other cases as well. Why not attack Venezuela? Or Nigeria? Or if we wanted a very easy military task, why not Norway? The other typical hidden agenda argument is that Israel controls our foreign policy establishment. Getting rid of Saddam is good for Israel, therefore, we got rid of Saddam. This does not explain why our policy in the Middle East has actually been, in many ways, so even handed that we fall over backwards to reward the PLO, which is nothing if not a terrorist organization. We are pressuring land that Israel believes it needs for its security (ever looked at a map of Israel?)

It's really hard to find any credible evidence that attacking Iraq is the result of Israeli influence on the White House. Does anyone really suppose that we would have done that, absent 9/11? In fact, Bush said hardly a thing about foreign policy in his election campaign, and when he did, it implied that he wanted to disengage from Clinton's agressive, interventionist, militaristic foreign policy. He was criticized by many for not being engaged in Foreign policy, that he was in fact a numbskull of sorts when it came to foreign policy. But he did not want to get bogged down in foreign policy like his father. His campaign was almost entirely based on reducing taxation and developing what he called a compassionate conservatism toward entitlement programs. To transfer the administration of welfare programs to private organizations -- and to partially privatize social security. 9/11 changed all of that. The war on terrorism is the result of that, not the cause of that. Regarding "mainstream media" I'm not sure of the thrust of your question. I don't rely on mainstream media alone, depending on what you mean by mainstream. But the implications of your question is that we are all duped in America by the news media into only thinking one way. It's true that in a mass democracy, public opinion is easily swayed by the media, one way or another. But the major broadcast news network coverage and analysis before and during the war was outright smarmy in its cynicism and conjecture about the war. You would really have to go to Fox News for any coverage that was patriotic and pro-war. The New York Times has been totally against the war from the beginning, and continues to be against it.

I think the challenge for Orthodox Christians is to come up with some kind of political/social philosophy, something which we have nothing of at present. It used to be that Orthodoxy supported certain Christian empires that were ruled by Orthodox monarchs. That no longer exists and is not likely to exist any time soon. So what is the relationship to the secular state? I've yet to find any kind of coherent answer to that question from Orthodox thinkers.

Meanwhile, I think well meaning Christians can support our military and diplomatic efforts at regime change in Muslim societies in good conscience. (Do we ever talk about the extreme persecution of Christians in many Muslim societies?) Will it work? Who knows? But I think most of the anti-American feeling misses the mark.

I think the fact that both Britain and Australia supported us in the war is telling. Britain has a socialist government. Australia has a center-right government like in the U.S. Both did so because of historic, cultural alliances with the U.S., as well as, I should think, an honest belief by those governments that some action needs to be taken so as not to convey the message that mass terrorism can go unpunished.

Finally, much of the mess in the Arab states was created by totalitarianism of the 20th Century. The Baath Party is a totalitarian party that was created by the Nazis as a means to expand their hegemony into the region and to thwart the British hold on the former Ottomon empire. After the fall of HItler, the U.S.S.R. swept in to fill the vacuum. They were behind several violent coups against legitimate monarchs that swept the region and instituted despotic socialist regimes in alliance with the Soviet state against the U.S. and Isreal. Total destruction of the U.S. and Israel was the party line. These states were funded heavily by the Soviets, and many thousands of "volunteers" were trained in Soviet terrorism techniques. We are still living with that legacy, but the mainstream media does not wish to speak about this legacy. They act as if we are the villain. The secular despots that rule most of the Middle East cynically manipulate public opinion far more than anything done in the U.S. or the West in general. They are constantly fueling resentments toward the west to deflect any potential criticism of the fact that they rule despotically, that they have destroyed their economies.

Moderates in these countries have had little or no forum. But that may change with the defeat of Saddam. I predict a counter-revolution in Iran, where most people are sick of being ruled by evil clerics. And I see possible regime change in Syria. There is great discontent against the regime in Syria. And why should they be occupying Lebanon with a 50,000 man army?

But the real villain in the whole Iraqi situation is the UN. They skim tens of millions off the top of the "oil for food" program and give it away to corrupt cronies of Koffi Anan, and appoint thugs to run committies that supposedly stand for human rights. No wonder the UN did not want a war. Their gravy train in Iraq is over. Their true cynicism is now revealed in that they refuse to lift sanctions and want to hold onto the millions they have stolen from the Iraqi people.

Fr Averky

28-04-2003, 09:01 PM

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Daniel and Owen,

I had promised myself I would not enter into this question, but I had a few thoughts.

I personally have never been interested in politics. I have usually voted Republican, but only because I did not like the way the Democrats made use of funds.

I was very much against the war in Iraq, and I would say that the vast majority of Americans were not exactly infected by some sort of a war frenzy. I would say that most of us wondered out loud why the President was not willing to wait for the inspectors to finish their work, or at least a few more weeks. Most people that I spoke to wanted to wait until the UN could come to some sort of an agreement so that the US would not look like an imperialistic aggressor. I also would say that in the end, Americans did not so much support the war, as they supported our men and women in the Armed forces, many of whom are but teenagers.

Americans are painfully aware that the U.S has lost face in this whole affair, and that we worry that the Iraqi people will be made all kinds of promises as were the people of Afgahnistan, who were promptly forgotten once we turned our attention to Saddam Hussein.

A thouroughly frightening aspect of the war against Iraq is that President Bush really felt as if he had some Messianic duty to destroy Saddam. Unfortunately, he is surrounded by prominent Evangelical Protestant leaders, who see everything they do as being part of Bible Prophecy, thus their over-the-top support for the Sate of Israel, and extreme opposition to Palestine and to the Muslim world in general. It is extremely insulting to the integrity of the Iraqi people to allow Billy Graham's son to spearhead a "humanitarian aid" program in Iraq, when the actual intention in giving food , water and other provisions is to also preach Christ. Mr. Bush has given Mr. Graham his personal go ahead, yet another blunder, making us look insensitive and ruthless.

America has always fallen on its face in regards to diplomacy. For instance, no American president has ever visited South America, no American President has ever really been fluent in any language other than English. Very few Ambassadors or other high officials of the diplomatic corps has bothered to learn even a smattering of the language of the nation to which they were assigned. A rare exception is Shirley Temple Black, who studied the language of the African nation to which she had been assigned. When Nancy Reagan visited Queen Elizabeth II, she refused to curtsey to her, causing a quiet fuss. President Bush, whose father was the President, Vice-President, headof the CIA, and an Ambassador, travelled extensively throughout his career. George W. never wanted to go along, and it is obvious that he is woefully ignorant of the rich cultures of other peoples of the world., and much worse, not interested in finding out. I cannot remember the last time we had a President who basically did away with State Dinners for visiting head's of state. A visit to the Bush family ranch in Texas is suppoied to be the height of chic and elegance. He represents the very worst of the "Ugly American," causing discomfort to the vast majority of well-meaning American people. For a Head of State, the combination of ignorance and arrogance is not in the best interests of the nation.

I say all of this as a patriotic American citizen, proud of our accomplisments, our freedoms, our protection of human rights, and the good of which we are capable, and especially our right to disagree with our government or ots policies. Sad to say, when people "hate" America, it is her government's policies that enrage them. The American people havge no intrinsic dislike for any other peoples, for we are made up of everyone from everywhere. Like one official of the government said, "The people of France do not hate the American people - they love them - it is the policies of the United States government that brings them so much dismay. We Americans, though a few us might have done silly actions againt the French like "Freedom Fries, and so on, love and appreciate the people of France, our oldest Ally. We know that had not France stepped in during the crucial days of the formation of our country, there would be no United States. Long live France and the French people!

I to am not against any war, and the Orthodox Church Herself is not pacificist. The Church summons her faithful sons and daughters to defend the Motherland from its enemies. We know that the original words to the Troparion for the cross are "grant victory to our pious Orthodox emperor over his adversaries, and by the power of thy Cross, preserve Thy commonwealth." In the end we must ask when is war truly justified? In most cases, the answer will never really be know.n

Charles De Gaulle and David Ben-Gurion were at one point on very good terms, but at a crucial moment in the formation of the State of Israel, DeGaulle did not help the Israeli cause. Ben-Gurion, stung by what he perceived to be a betrayal, queried DeGaulle as to what had happened, saying,"I thought we were friends!" Charles DeGaulle replied, succinctly, "Nations do not have friends, they have interests."

Owen Jones

28-04-2003, 11:04 PM

Dear Fr.

It seems to me that all of your arguments are of an aesthetic nature. Until the end of your comments, where you seem to frame the issue very pragmatically. I was in fact incredulous reading your comments about George Bush, as if the fact that he entertains people at his ranch is so gauche as to turn him into the quintessential ugly American. I think this is the kind of argument that really is so ridiculous as to cast doubt on the agenda of those opposed to this war, since it all seems to be so -- personal.

A cultural aesthetic argument about America needs to be made by ORthodox Christians. As I said earlier, I've yet to see it. TS Elliot really was the last American philosopher to pose the question of what kind of society we were aesthetically -- and he left! America is not known for its aesthetic vision. It's known for its libertinism, its economic dynamism, its openness to immigrants, and, yes, for standing up to foreign tyrants when no one else could or would do so.

But it's hard for me to understand how any aesthetic arguments have anything to do with the issue of going to war in Iraq.

I live in the Deep South, which comprises the largest single population block and voting block in the country. In the Deep South the views toward the war on terrorism and Iraq are not what you try to paint as general American opinion. The general attitude down here is that we need to teach those people a lesson not to mess with us again. That might not be the kind of sophistication that you desire, but its aesthetically beautiful to me in its simplicity. I dare say that many people around the country identify with that attitude, but because they travel in enlightened liberal circles, they don't say much about it publicly.

As for Bush as an ugly American, I will take Bush over Clinton any day. Clinton embarrassed America by his personal actions, his sleaze, more than any President in my life time. I have read considerable liberal democratic commentary as well that begrudgingly admires Bush personally over Clinton, even if they disagree with him cutting taxes, being pro-life, etc.

It's really hard for me to fathom Orthodox criticism of Bush vs. some of the people we have had in the White House in my lifetime. He is probably the only really devout Christian who has held the office since Calvin Coolidge.

There is a certain smugness toward southern evangelicalism by the chic sophisticates, but I will take that over most alternatives any day, and for ORthodox Christians to jump on that bandwagon is unseemly at best. It strikes me really as a symptom of resentment.

As for people overseas who hate our policies, most of them are grossly misinformed. Talk about people who have been led by false propaganda! In Britain people have been told that we have millions of people without health care, starving in the streets. When you tell them that state and federal subsidies of health care are twice what we spend on the military, they simply don't believe it. This propaganda is used by leftist parties in Europe in every major political campaign against the right, even the moderate or centrist right (there is not much of a conservative political movement in Britain or Europe) to scare people into voting for socialist parties. They say that if they vote for a center right party people will be starving in the streets and without medical care, like millions of people are in America. So if the anti-American feeling is based on a very false, deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, what can we say about that anti-American feeling? Is it really worth noting by us? As for France, the problem is really Paris, and the problem within Paris is really French intellectuals, who have been responsible for virtually every political and cultural disaster in the world over the past 300 years.

Revolution is a French idea which they have exported since then. They drew Russia into mobilizing against Germany which led to World War I. Their resentment against Germany led to World War II. French intellectuals thought Stalin and Mao were just really fine people. They are totally hypocritically on the unilateralist issue, since the frequently take unilateral action in Africa to topple governments and impose their own friends in office.

I must say I tire of these broad generalizations I hear about America, and American policies. They seem to lack any factual or emperical foundation, as most ad hominem arguments do.

Fr Averky

29-04-2003, 12:37 AM

Owen,

There is a Russian word to describe your reaction to my post, "Kasha." Kasha, which commonly some sort of a cereal which is stirred in this case applies to take someone's words and stir them all up, coming out with your own conclusions.

The most interessting aspect of your post is your unwillingness to allow me to have an opinion of my own. As a matter of fact, I said at the beginning of my post that what I was expressing were some thoughts that I had had, whereas as usual, you tend to speak ex cathedra about everything.

In regards to Mr. Clinton, I in no way disagree with you, and was as much ashamed of him as you seem to be. As to your saying that you cannot phathom "Orthodox criticism of Bush," again you choose to limit my right as an American to express my opinion. Being Orthodox has no play for me here. Can Lutherans disagree, or Baptists, or Mormons,or Episcoplians? Are all Orthodox thought t be Right Wing Facists? or My entire post was of a personal nature, and I most certainly have the right to express it, and you have no business whatsoever questioning my right or ability to do so.

That you should further state that as an Orthodox Christian I would "resent" Evangelicals strikes me as entirely ludicrous. I could give you my reasons for not trusting these peoples, but I know that I would be dismissed out of hand as some sort of Stupid Northerner, not understandng the sacredness of the South and its superior culture as opposed to we boorish folk who live in New York.

The main Bishop of the Methodist Church, to which Mr. Presiden belongs, met with him along with other bishops and pleaded with him not to wage war. Were they "wrong" in doing so? Or were they un-American for daring to tell one of their own faithful that they did not agree with him? In ever so many of your posts you speak down to others, as if the rest of us are some ill-educated fools who never went to a school or opened a book. What good does it do to know to know the Scriptures, Canons and the Fathers, and to have no heart?

I find nothing acceptable about your response -it is totally intolerant of my right to express myself and to have the feelings about my government or its policies as I feel as a matter of conscience. By your dismal of other peoples of the world, you have proved my point. I am neither chic nor sophisticated, ,but I firmly believe that all people of all nations are worthy of respect, despite what their governents might do or represent. As you said in another thread, you do not particularly like people, but I do, and I don't think that we have to go kicking other nations around, imposing upon them a government which will suit our interests. I did not like what France Germany and Russia did to us at the UN -especially Russia which has its own recent history of imprisoning and torturing its own people, and now is trying to pass itself off as some paragon of virtue and human decency. The State of Israel never lets the world forget about Hitler, and France has but llitle power but to be contrary whenever a crisis arises. I am not defending them, but you are inteliigent enough to know that the desires of governents very raerly realy reflect the desires of their people. It is clear that you have little respect for the rights of others except for those perhaps in the South, and it is more than made clear in the way you have responded to me. Although the South, as you tell me, constitutes this large bloc you speak of, there are many more millions who live elswehere in this country, and guess what Owen? They have opinions also.

I in no way to have make an apologia to you for what I believe I have no agenda, as you so smugly tell me. One does not have to have an "agenda" to have a personal opinion.I love my country and I uphold its constitution and all that it stands for, but my agenda is my salvation, and that goes way beyond politics.

I am very offended by your words, and find them most insulting. I have every right to disagree with any President, his policies and that of our government, and still be a patritotic citizen -thank God that people who think like you have no authoritiy or power, , for those of us foolish enough not to fall at you feet and agree with you would end up in a prison some where, and this certainly has precedence in history. Don't speak to me about "broad generalizations," I think it is better to have thoughts and concerns which can be changed, then thinking one' s thoughts more intelligent and far superior than those of others, condemning them out of hand if they do not happen to agree with you.

Had you been a little more civil, you might have moved me to look at your side more sympathetically, perhaps even agree and change my view - but when you treat me like some poor little idiot who has the nerve to not agree with you, I have no further interest in what you might have to say. When there are those who would limit the ability to disagree on the part of their fellow citizens, we are in real in danger.. Owen, you can express any opinion you wish, for it is your right, and sometimes you do have amazing insights -please, allow me to have mine. I read your experience at the mountain skete to several of the athers, and they were delighted to hear it. You are a gifted and intelligent man, but you might just be a little more sensitive to the feelings of others. I have said in several threads that I am no ilntellectual - I usually express what is in my heart. I knew I should have never broken my promise to myself -see what I did?! Forgive me, but you really hit a nerve! I have always tried to respond to you very respectfully, and often I have not agreed, but I have always read with interest your postings. I think that the driving force of this forum should always be love and mutual respect, and I don't think that that is too much to ask from anyone

Fr. A.

Fr Averky

29-04-2003, 12:49 AM

Owen.

Just a little addition -I never mentioned that the Evangelical Protestans were Southerners, we have many Evangelical chuirches here, just as there are Orthodox in the South. I did not reflect on their influence on the President because they are from the South I am always amazed at how people on this forum can react so quickly and violently without really taking the time to read what someone else has written. I was neither being "pragmatic" or "aethestic." I was was just expressing my thoughts, not even an definite opinion. Exactly what is this forum for if I cannot do that ? I will write Matthew and ask him to post a response for us.

Fr. Averky

Owen Jones

29-04-2003, 01:11 AM

This is most interesting. I say I am astonished at your opinions, that strike me as not a well-reasoned argument about the war, but a series of generalized, personal prejudices against:

a) George Bush's lack of cultural sophistication
b) evangelicals,etc.
that are hard to fathom. And I am attacked as trying to take away your right of free speech! Most odd.

Daniel Jeandet

29-04-2003, 03:47 AM

Well, sorry everyone.

I feel responsible for the way this thread has developed.

I said in my first post that this is a diffucult issue to discuss, and this is exactly why.

When we ask questions like this, it leads to all sorts of fog and fear.

I am going to think carefully about my next post. I may take some time.

I dont want to abandon this thread, but It gets very difficult when others involved have such an attachment to thier ideas about the country they live in.

Im sorry for starting trouble between people.

Fr Averky

29-04-2003, 05:56 AM

Deasr Daniel,

Don't worry about it. A few weeks ago, I had the misfortune of annoying some of the wonderful Greek people on this forum by saying something not only incorrect, but in an insensitive and unthinking manner.It is a good thing that people love their country, and we Americans regard as most precious the right to disagree with each other and our government. I have never in my life had the slightests desire to protest against my government's involvement in a war -I may disgree, but as with Iraq, once the war did begin, I supported my nation and had I been young and healthy, and had it been needed, I would have gladly given my life for my country. From the start of the war,at each Divine Liturgy, I added the special petitions designated by the Church to be said during time of war.

After responding to Owen so angrily, I saw how the Evil One never sleeps, and here it is the Second Day of Holy Pascha, and I cannot control my passions or my temper. As I had said initially, I had promised myself not to get in on this question, and now I have paid the bitter price, and I am truly sorry.

Forgive me Owen, I just felt that I did not deserve some of your descriptions. My respect for you is no less, I just have to stay out of anything political, for as you see, it does me no good. Politics is something I rarely, if ever discuss. Again, God has sent me the lesson, and I still did not get it. My Spiritual Father once said to me, "God does not punish, He educates, and if you don't learn the lesson the first time arouind, He will send it again until you do!" I usually try to react in a more sane manner, and I usually try not to react quickly,but for some reason, I just felt that I was being judged unfairly. I have many sins and failings, and impatience is one of them Shame on me! Again, Owen, forgive me.

Father Averky

Fr Averky

29-04-2003, 07:33 AM

Owen,

There is no use in discussing this any further. You have spoken from your Ivory Tower and that is that. Again, you have missed my point, and I refuse to go around and around with you.. Let us not get into what or who is "odd."

Averky

Effie Ganatsios

29-04-2003, 08:56 AM

Orthodoxy and War

The fact that an American citizen can say and believe something like the following says it all, I feel.

“…..Meanwhile, I think well meaning Christians can support our military and diplomatic efforts at regime change in Muslim societies in good conscience. (Do we ever talk about the extreme persecution of Christians in many Muslim societies?) Will it work? Who knows? But I think most of the anti-American feeling misses the mark.”

This is the way of madness and the way of war.

Even if we accept the premise that the US does what it does in an effort to bring “democracy and freedom” to oppressed peoples (something that the majority of western countries no longer believe) of the 16 US military interventions carried out over the past century primarily with the goal of defending US national interests, but also in the name of democracy , only in four cases has the goal of promoting democratic values been achieved.

Germany and Japan represent two key US successes in the wake of World War II, and it is not by chance that Washington often brings up these examples in connection with Iraq. The 1989 invasion of Panama and the 1983 military operation in Grenada have also produced positive results in terms of democratic achievement.

But 11 other US foreign military operations carried out in the name of democratic freedoms have not produced expected results and have ended in fiascos. They include Haiti (1994-1996 and 1915-1934), Cambodia (1970-1973), Vietnam (1964-1973), the Dominican Republic (1965-1966 and 1916-1924), Cuba (1917-1922, 1906-1909 and 1898-1902), Nicaragua (1909-1927) and Panama (1903-1936).

As for Afghanistan, it still too early to draw conclusions about the political evolution of that country, although from all I’ve read the US sponsored government leader can only barely control Kabul.Military operations where democracy was not explicitly sought, such as in Kuwait in 1991 and later in the Balkans, cannot be taken into account.

Every time Americans installed surrogate governments, the long-term political outcome was complete failure. No American-supported surrogate regime made the transition to democracy and only one case of direct American administration (in Japan) succeeded in ushering in democracy.

There is not an iota of evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on the 11th of September – although most of the world now expects quite a lot of “evidence” to emerge (in fact it has already started). Despite this lack of evidence the US went ahead with a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign country. And what happened to the “reason” for the invasion of Iraq? The “now we’ve found them, oops, sorry, our mistake” WMD’s? The fact that the US is refusing UN inspections and insisting on US led inspection teams should make us all pause and, at least for a second or two, wonder why. The US has been caught out in so many lies that it is no longer a joke (if it ever was) especially if we take into account that these liars have the world’s most powerful arsenal of weapons on hand to “punish” whichever country they feel might threaten them in the next 50 years or so.

The matter of “evidence” : the planting of evidence is apparently legitimate according to PSYOP guidelines.

Definition of Psychological Operations:

'Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management. ' US Department of Defense

See also : Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Creation and Dissemination of all forms of information in Support of Psychological Operations (PSYOP) in Time of Military Conflict – May 2000.

Muslim counterparts of people like Owen Jones would also like to “support military and diplomatic efforts at regime changes in Christian countries”. As I said, the way of madness and the way of war.

I feel it’s pointless to discuss this question any further. My country right or wrong is obviously what most of us believe and there is little likelihood of logic being permitted to intrude into these discussions. In my opinion, orthodoxy and war are incompatible when we refer to invasions of other countries without cause ( a war crime according to international law). The fact that pro-war enthusiasts are now gloating because the US ‘won” this war is ridiculous – there was never the slightest doubt about the outcome of the invasion given the outrageous differences in the arsenals of the two countries involved. What is truly pitiful is that we, as Christians, are discussing this matter in a political context instead of focusing on the tragedy of the human suffering involved. Is it OK because these people aren’t Christians and don’t look like us?
Effie

One more point and then I’ll stop (finally). If anyone would like to find out what America’s priorities are they should look up it’s record in the UN and the times it has used it’s veto. A true eye-opener, especially if we also take note of which countries voted with the US.

Effie Ganatsios

29-04-2003, 08:59 AM

I would like to start a discussion about why we feel the need for a relationship with God. I know I sound very gauche but it’s something that I have been thinking about and I need the informed opinions of the people on this forum.

My question is : is the fear of death the main reason people seek God?

Is all religion just a self-illusion because of our fear of death?

From my own personal experience I don’t believe the above but I would like to discuss it if anyone is interested.

Effie

I know that this topic is inappropriate here but
I don't know how to start a new thread.

John Curtis Dunn

29-04-2003, 12:29 PM

The “now we’ve found them, oops, sorry, our mistake” WMD’s? The fact that the US is refusing UN inspections and insisting on US led inspection teams should make us all pause and, at least for a second or two, wonder why.
_________

Not all citizens of the world believe or feel that the UN has any more soverignty over the affairs of any State (nation, government, people). Certainly, Iraq only allowed the UN inspectors to do the most minimal of inspections that it could get away with to stay off more aggressive UN intervention into its own national soverignty.

The UN was clearly asked to be involved prior to the US-Iraq war and certain members thereof resisited the US Plea, which they had the right to do. There is however the story of the Red Hen, in which those who would not work claimed a right to eat of he fruit of the labors of others.

I find nothing moral about the UN and do not believe we are morally subservient to its policies.

I am supportive of the sentiment to "Get us out of the UN." I do not believe this is Pres. Bush's goal, however, if the present foreign policy were to end in precisely that, I would cheer it gladly and loudly.

The UN does not represent any Orthodox Worldview (IMO), and I do not believe its policies are anywhere near fulfilling the "policticalization" of the beatitude "Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."

john

Owen Jones

29-04-2003, 03:20 PM

Dear Ettie,

If you want to judge the Iraq war just on the basis of human suffering, then I would say it's a slam dunk in favor of the war. The human suffering eliminated by getting rid of Saddam far outweighs the human suffering caused by the war. On average, Saddam was torturing and killing about a thousand people a week. We are already ahead of the game then.

Also, it was not a pre-emptive war. We have been in a state of war against Iraq since 1991. There has been a psuedo cease fire.

As for cause, I would have supported the war just to get our POW that Saddam lied about.

I am not one of the people who favors U.S. intervention around the world in order to "make the world safe for democracy" or to establish some "New World Order" and I am not particularly hopeful about our ability to manage the post-war political situation in Iraq. The legitimate government that should be returned to power is the monarchy overthrown in a coup in 1958.

I think what people really don't realize is that America is a revolutionary country. It is the most revolutionary country to ever exist. But at the same time, unlike a lot of revolutionary regimes, it is not bloodthirsty, and the idea that we wish to rule the world is just ridiculous. Americans are naive optimists. As George Bush said, there is no problem that Americans can't solve. A very naive, utopian, humanistic idea. That's what gets us involved in intervening in so many other countries.

With that said, your list of countries that we have failed to liberate, you might say, only covers one side of the issue. The North Vietnamese communists were really, really bad people. So were the Soviets. Vietnam was a proxy war against the Soviet Union. It was ill conceived, and even worse, our military tactics were all wrong. But the motives, which you seem to like to question, were not. The fact that we failed to liberate Vietnam is a tragic failure, but the Vietnamese themselves are the unfortunate ones, who have had to live through decades of communist terror and "re-education." It's interesting that hundreds of thousands risked their lives to flee South Vietnam after the communists took over.

I'm always a bit intrigued by anti-American sentiment as the "Great Satan" when millions of people around the world are willing to give up everything to come to the U.S. You don't see a whole lot of people flocking to move to Saddam's Iraq, or Castro's Cuba, or communist South Vietnam, or NOrth Korea, or Lybia, or Syria. America is where people still want to come to escape despotism and be free. I think that's enough for me in terms of world opinion.

It's interesting to me that most of the anti-American sentiment on Iraq eminates from Western Europe. Eastern Europe was vociferously supportive. They know from recent experience what it's like to live under the yoke of oppression and they have high regard for the sacrifices that the U.S. made during the Cold War to stand up for the freedom of Eastern Europe. There were far more countries in Europe that supported the war in Iraq than opposed it, and had Schroeder not won the last election in Germany (he won by a percentage point or two after labelling Bush as a Nazi), then Germany would have supported us as well.

Regarding Iraq, we still do not know the long term implications. But there is a good chance that there will be some positives throughout the region. Whatever the regime in Iraq, it will be better than the last one, it will not be exporting terrorism, and Muslim moderates I think will feel more free to speak out against their own governments.

Regarding the evidence of MWD and Iraq's support of terrorism -- Saddam was subsidizing terrorism against Israel. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. There may be a direct link to not only Al Qaida, but to the 9/11 attack. Some of this is just coming out.

Our intellgence services in the U.S. have a terrible track record, so I don't particularly trust their judgments, but no one who has been involved in this on the ground seriously questions Iraq's WMD activities.

A lot of countries have WMD capabilities, among them the U.S. and Israel. But when a tyrant uses them against his own people, you really have to be concerned about what he might do with them against others.

As for America being hypocritical and inconsistent -- well, welcome to the real world. I would like my own Church to be less hypocritical and more consistent.

Owen Jones

29-04-2003, 03:23 PM

Dear Father A.,

There's nothing to forgive.

Daniel Jeandet

29-04-2003, 03:42 PM

Thankyou Father Averky, i think i learned something too, I should have just waited for Euterpe Ganatsios to post. Good post. You nailed it. regarding psyops:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_press&Number=590897&t=-1

interesting reading.

Thats enough about war for me.

We will probably have alot more chances to discuss it in future.

Owen Jones

29-04-2003, 04:01 PM

Here is an article about the Iraqi terror connection:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment042903.asp

The thrust of this article is that, if anything, American intelligence organizations and political leaders, far from overstating the Iraqi terror connection, have deliberately understated it.

Owen Jones

29-04-2003, 04:04 PM

Btw, there is also strong circumstantial evidence of an Iraqi connection to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Many of us have felt that two successive administrations have, inexplicably, downplayed the direct connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorism directed against the U.S.

Lawrence

29-04-2003, 05:08 PM

IMHO IMHO IMHO

There was no government in any moderate form in Iraq it was a totalitarian regime and Saddam Hussein was the self-appointed crown prince. This is not a war against a sovereign nation it is a war against a regime and it was why the UN and diplomatic means were ineffectual. Saddam was the weapon of mass destruction. Actually more accurately he was the spark looking for ammunition to ignite. That was how he came into power as a secular leader in a religious state. He walked through the division of the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. And yes the US was culpable in that also. But that is history and we learn from it. What we are going to try now is what was established in Japan after World War II. The fear of the US government was that he would eventually find the powder keg, an Al-Qaeda cell. This is why there was such a delay in the take over of Iraq. They wanted to be sure that Saddam wouldn't have anywhere else to strike out.

Living in a democratic republic I do have much more responsible for the actions of my government internationally and domestically than someone in a totalitarian regime. What can I do, I pray, I vote, and I pray. I love my country and served for six years in the military. As a soldier I was taught not to judge the intentions of my superiors but to follow orders. We had a saying mine is not to reason why, but mine is to do or die. This saying did bother me at first but as I began to understand it it made more sense but was still hard to accept at times. So I pray for my leaders both civilian and military my government and it's adversaries, Saddam Hussein and his regime, the innocent men, women and children of Iraq and the spouses and families of our military men and women. Not unlike most other soldier's would do also.

I found an interesting Missionary Leaflet on Christian Service in War by Metropolitan Philaret that I would like to share and in which I think many will enrichment. Here is the link
Christian Service in War (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/PhilaretWar.htm)

Euterpe,

The fear of death is not the main reason we seek God it is how we seek God. The fear of God is why we seek God - to fear God is to love God.

Christ is Risen, Lawrence

Effie Ganatsios

29-04-2003, 05:36 PM

Reply to Daniel.

Thanks Daniel. I agree that we have just about exhausted this subject. We just seem to be going round and round in circles - and the subject itself is very tiring.

Daniel, what part of Australia are you from? I'm from Dandenong, Victoria.

Effie

Daniel Jeandet

29-04-2003, 06:26 PM

I just wrote out this big long post about war. It was full of excellent remarks and persuasive arguments and quotes from credible sources and even some witty and intelligent one liners all designed to...

well, i previewed it, felt the clenching of my heart, and cancelled the post. Must have been my Gaurdian Angel looking after me. As soon as i return to this page I read your post Effie.

The subject is exhausted.

Im from Ballarat. Not far from you. I was in melbourne for Pascha, at Holy Trinity in Parkville. Im a convert, so I like to go to the english services.

It was certainly the fact of death that started me seeking answers . On attempting to become a Christian, it became the fear of death. On failing this (becoming a Christian) my reason for seeking God was fear of the other death. The living one. In Genesis, Adam is sentenced to death twice. Spiritual death, and later, bodily death. Spiritual death is experienced now, while we live under the dominion of the passions. The grip of passion is a fortaste of hell. Bodily death is out of our hands, it is inevitable. But spiritual death, since the Resurection of Christ, is overcome each time we sincerly repent and trust in our Lords mercy and Love for us. So we have a choice in whether we are dead or alive in the spirit.

Ive always feared death, and I still do. But Ive come to realise that if i do not begin to live in this life, I am already dead anyway.

Fr Averky

30-04-2003, 08:24 AM

Dear Effie, Christos Anesti!

How nice to see you name again. Ah, here we are again, at War! Taking out all of our weapons and bombing away, isn't it just like old times?

Please, I really am joking. I thought about you and your family, and hoped that all your preparations for Pascha went well, and that yours was a glorious Pascha, but then, how could it be otherwise?

As you can see, I fell into the trap -again. But I did think that you might find the following statement of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of interest: From March 19, 2003

"In these very critical days through which humanity proceeds, the Ecumenical Patriarchate repeats again its wish for peace and for the avoidance of war even at this last moment. It makes a plea to whoever is able to to contribute to this end to exhaust all their means so that humanity will not mourn new victimes and horrible holocausts.

With this opportunity, the Ecumenical Patriarchate reminds everyone that the basic prerequisites of peace is the respect for the sanctity of the human person and his freedom and dignity. From this respect are born all other prerequisites for the peaceful co-existence of all human beings on Earth in the love of one God and Father, who is not a God of war and battle, but of reconciliation."

I was rather accused of not being loyal to my country for not agreeing with our President in the war on Iraq. I also did not agree with Mr. Clinton, who bombed innocent Serbian Orthodox citizens, and our staunch ally, Great Britain, who wrote "Happy Easter" on the bombs that they dropped on Pascha. A Serbian friend of mine told me how on Pascha in the town where his brother lives in Serbia, a large crowd was leaving from Agape Vespers and were crossing a bridge to another part of the city on foot, when two British jets dropped bombs on the bridge, killing and maiming hundreds. The priest, still in his holy vestments, ran out to comfort the fallen, and most likely was seen by the pilots as they circled the city, for they were flying very low. They came back, dropped more bombs, and the priest was decapitated. How did this punish Mr. Milosevic, who is a godless person? How could just and honorable nations, calling themselves "Christians" drop bombs on fellow Christians celebrating the greatest of all Feasts? They did not make a mistake, they knew what they were doing.

I have said that I love my country and would fight for it, but I still maintain that I do not have to agree with the policies of any president or his government when such things are done. God spare us all!

Effie, I pray for you and wish you only the best, and hope that we will exchange many soul-saving ideas in the future.

Daniel, a warm welcome to our community. As I indicated, we will from time to time go at it, but usually we have the decency and Christian love to ask forgiveness and to move on. This forum is made up of intelligent, educated, and sensitive people who are sincerely seeking, each in his own way, the Kingdom of Heaven. Let us all pray that we all continue to grow in grace and love, helping each other along the way, trying to avoid words that might hurt or hinder us. I have come to care deeply for such people as Effie and so many others, who have corrected me when I needed it, but gave me love and encouragement as well. God bless all of you in this community!

Your loving well-wisher,

Hieromonk Averky