Does anyone think anymore?
Seriously. Have we lost all capacity for simple distinctions and rational thought? Is this a good faith misunderstanding or are some people so anxious to believe that the U.S. is responsible for all the evil in the world that they just hear what they want to hear?
RELATED: Christopher Hitchens will be debating another rabid anti-American about Iraq. This time it’s Scott Ritter instead of George Galloway. It seems all of the apologists for the Hussein regime have murky financial dealings. I suppose Hitchens will be asking Ritter about this.
related articles
- The Case Against Adolescence (June 12th, 2007)
- The Clash of Civilizations (June 9th, 2007)
- Feminist Anti-Americanism (May 14th, 2007)
- Getting Hitched: Who is? Who’s not? Who splits? Kay Hymowitz takes a look. (April 8th, 2007)
- Do we really need government-run social programs? (March 27th, 2007)
December 14th, 2005 at 11:10 am
“Is this a good faith misunderstanding or are some people so anxious to believe that the U.S. is responsible for all the evil in the world that they just hear what they want to hear?”
You are right to question those who want to blame the U.S. for every evil in the world. However, I find it disturbing when others on the opposite side are unable or unwilling to see and appropriately recognize when the U.S. is to blame for some of the evil that goes on in the world.
Is the U.S. responsible for all of the evil and suffering of the world? NO! Is the U.S. completely innocent and not-responsible for any of the evil and suffering of the world? NO!
It seems that both extremes should be avoided. Certainly the U.S. does some great things in this world which contribute to the well-being of the entire world. Certainly other countries are responsible for some of the world’s evil and suffering of which the U.S. can do nothing about and is therefore not responsible. BUT surely the U.S. is responsible for some of the evil and suffering of the world, either as an active agent in the cause or as a passive agent.
In the cross of Christ, God has triumphed over all powers and authorities (Col. 2.15). The U.S., along with all other worldly powers, governments, and authorities, is just one of these “powers and authorities” which God has made a fool of and will make a fool of in the second coming of Jesus Christ. For in Christ AND IN CHRIST ALONE is the one and only true hope for the world.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Rex,
Do you care to identify any of the evils for which the US is responsible?
December 14th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Where was the U.S. in Rawanda? If the U.S. is so concerned about justice in the world. Why is the U.S. willing to spend 226 billion dollars for war in three years under the Rhetoric of justice but will not spend that amount of money in that short of a time period on Poverty? Loook at U.S. history, we have such things in our country called Indian Reservations because the U.S. felt it was ethical to drive non-white people out of there living space so that we could have the land all to ourselvs. Do you want me to continue?
I personally think that our war in Iraq is evil. Why can our government make cutback on the budget and start with Medicaide? Have you ever lived with someone so sick that the HMO’s and the private health care systems refused to insure that person? I have and it is wrong. And our government (or at least some in the government) sleep at night knowing this goes on right in the land of Milk and Honey.
I never said the U.S. was all evil and I never said that other countries and governments are not to blame as well for much of the continued problems this world faces — but when people think the U.S. is the perfect white rose — God’s little gift to the world — they only fool one person and that person is in the mirror.
To think the U.S. shares no fault in some of the worlds problems is just a bit ethno/national-centric.
December 14th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
And by the way, as long as politician get paid an upper scale salary — why should they care about the military veteren who cannot find an insurance company that will cover the medical cost of his diabetes and cancer? It is not the polotician who suffers but maybe if the polotician was forced one time to have no affordable medical option besides the Veteran’s hospitial (which is a joke of adequate medical care) then maybe that polotician would finally get it.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Rex said…
Of course both statements are false. However, your formulation implies that both “extremes” are equally wrong. That presumes that the truth is at the 50% mark between the two extremes.
In fact, the truth is much closer to the second statement than to the first.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
I guess it is more a matter of opinion. From what prespective do you wish to view U.S. history and the present U.S. involvement in the world. I never intended to immply a certain percentage. I am not sure what percentage you would give as a score or how one would quantify such a score. My intention is simply to point out, that from my Christian perspective, the U.S. is neither completely to blame nor completely without blame for the worlds problems.
The U.S. government is made up of falible humans as well — who all sin. It bothers me to hear some of the extreme liberals that only know how to criticize the U.S. on everything as if the U.S. is the tantamount to the next Hitler regime. This is wrong and forunatley I do not see much of this attitude in the circles of which I roam. However, equally troubling to me is the attitude that U.S. is next to perfect and the best thing to happen to the world since Jesus Christ — and it is this mentality that I see pervasive in much of the Evagelical World.
I am not sure why many Evangelical seem to think that the U.S. is the “chosen” nation. I have often wondered if that has something to do with a view of the Apocalypse/Revelation (pre-millenialism) which I do not hold. What ever the reason is, we need to be aware that no matter how much God has used the U.S. for his purposes in the past, we too can suffer the same fate of Israel — and that has to do with more than just abortion and morality issues. It has everything to do with pride, concern for equal justice, and idolatry (which has many forms).
December 15th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Rex,
Did you notice that all of the supposed evils of which you think the US is guilty are the result of the US government failing to act (except the Iraq War, which you qualified as a subjective on your part)?
The US failed to intercede in Rwanda. The US fails to provide healthcare for someone. The US fails to ________________ (fill in the blank with your favorite would-be social program here).
I am sure you get my point…
December 15th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Oh -
And by their own admission and philosophy, the Indians didn’t claim to own anything. Therefore, it is impossible to suggest “the white man” took anything from them…
For example, you don’t claim to own a bird that lands on my deck, so if I kept it, it would be impossible to say that I kept it from you…
December 15th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Rex, by your logic, God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel because He didn’t intervene to stop it.
December 15th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Baron: Not everything I mentioned is passive. The U.S. government actively forced Native American Indian out of their living space. Get my point? Also, what about the U.S. policy on placing economic sanctions upon your enemies, in which it is innocent people who suffer the consequence? This is an evil too.
Extremist:
If you believe God is sovereign, then you must believe that God had the potential to prevent Abel’s death. This is precisely why the “problem of evil and suffering” is a thorn for Christianity and the biggest charge leveled against Christians by atheist.
If you read the narrative of Job, you will notice that God allows satan to inflict every amount of suffering EXCEPT death. God is responsible in the passive sense because he obviously had the power to prevent Job’s death (and did prevent it) but also had the power to prevent the rest of Job’s suffering (and did not but rather allowed it).
Though humanity has free will of choice, God is still sovereign and can — when he chooses too — limit and even prevent the events and consequences of our choices.
Now, if you do not believe God is responsible for what goes on in his world, when he allows activity as a passive agent, I would like to know how you explain the sovereignty of God.
For the record, though I claim to be know expert on the subject, the problem of evil and suffering is something I have studied some both academically and in reality (through the death of a father, son, and brother). The explination I gave is the most common among those who try and uphold the sovereignty of God and the free-will choice of humanity.
December 15th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Rex,
You couter that the US is evil because it fails to trade with a certain country?
Do you have anything objective that the US actively does (instead of failing to do) that has occurred in the past 150 years?
I guess my point about the Indians went clear over your head…
December 15th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Dropping the A-bomb (not once, but twice), using explosives in warfare that our military knows will injure or kill innocent victims, our foreign policy is selective (and that is an objective-active offense); Go read Amos 1:13 and then ponder on how Western Democracy has spread through the use of warefare (on this point I am inditing Great Britan as well); Read Amos 2:7 and ponder the way we treat the poor and oppressed around the world (need I remind us that in the name of “justice” our government can spend roughly 225 Billion over three years - and counting -to fight a war in oil country but would never approve of spending 225 Billion in three years in central Africa in order to build good irrigation systems for an aguarian society); about the budget cutts to programs which bring aid to the poor (Amos 5.12?).
God does not know any difference between the one who does evil by committing certain acts or the one who sees evil but refuses to bring aide (Amos 6:1-7). Perhaps the greatest evil our country is responsible for is “selective justice,” in which we show partiality in the way we act and assist “our neighbor.” And of course, it is my opinion (though I am not alone in this view) that the only reason we are so concerned with the Middle East is because there is a great benefit to our government. I really wonder if there was no oil in the Middle East, if there was not a Billion people united by Islamic religious belief rather that nationality, I wonder if our country would be so concerned about places like Iraq and Iran. Would the Middle East then be just like Africa — expendable?
I will change my tone and thinking when I see the U.S. comitt 225 Billion dollars over three years to some form of a massive humanitarian in some country or region where there is nothing to gain. As far as I know, we committed about 700 million to the Tsuanmi relef aid, which is chump change compared to what we have spent for the war in Iraq (see http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asianeareast/tsunami/).
December 15th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
Rex,
So what is your solution? Should the United States become a welfare source for the entire world, or should the United States refuse to free anyone at anytime? It seems you want it to be one way or the other, since the current system of “selective” assistance doesn’t seem to appeal to you.
Which is preferable?
December 15th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
I realize that the U.S. must use discretion in deciding how it uses money to aid those who are less forunate so that whatever assistance we provide will go to those who need it rather than those who do not.
With that being said, from where I sit it seems that the U.S. (the wealthiest nation) is more concerned with itself rather than the less forunate neighbor. This is what I would like to see change. The solution is not found in tossing money out just for anyone and everyone to come and pick up at will. HOWEVER, the solution is not found in spending 225 Billion in three years for a war “to bring justice to one country” while other people in other countries die from problems that could be prevented with half of that 225 Billion dollars.
In my opinion, I really believe the U.S. is only concerned with keeping the U.S. as the Alpha Male of the world. Yet, for a nation “under God”, we should realize that we will only remain the top political and social power of the world as long as God wishes for us to do so. The U.S., just like every “super power” before it will fall one day too. So rather than preoccupy ourselves with maintaining our own survival, we should stop hording the wealth and start allowing some of our neighbors to climb out of the ranks of poverty.
December 16th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Rex,
First, are you saying that US foreign policy should adopt Kant’s categorical imperative, offering aid only when it doesn’t benefit the US?
Second, are you suggesting that nobody outside of Iraq will benefit from the US goal of “bring[ing] justice to one country.” (I use quotes because I don’t know where you got that phrase.)
I am sure there are some Kuwaitis, Sauds, and Israelis that would disagree that nobody but Iraqis would benefit from the removal of Saddam (just to name three). In addition, I know there are some Lebanese that would disagree. Perhaps there are even Egyptians (now voters), potential victims of Saddam’s around the world, and people from former Soviet Republics (Kasaks and Uzbeks) that would disagree.
Oh, and I am sure the Afghanis would disagree.
But if you want to see the war through tunnel vision and discount the other events of the past three years in the region, that is your right. I just disagree with it.
Third, of course the US is concerned with keeping itself as the lone super-power. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty from our nation’s leaders. The goal of the government (at least in the constitution and founding documents) was not to become a welfare-giving entity for the world, but to protect its citizens. Ever two years, we elect a government to carry out that responsibility.
I cannot stop you from adopting a Kantian view of what the US government should be, but I will suggest that few people will vote for people willing to carry out that world-view. In addition, I will suggest that such a government would be a dismal failure.
December 16th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
“Third, of course the US is concerned with keeping itself as the lone super-power. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty from our nation’s leaders. The goal of the government (at least in the constitution and founding documents) was not to become a welfare-giving entity for the world, but to protect its citizens. Ever two years, we elect a government to carry out that responsibility.”
And yet at every ballgame, every first session of congress we ask for God’s blessing — the biggest joke of it all.
“God bless America, land that I…” How about “God bless the world, all the people whom God loves.”
I am not familiar with Kant that much, but when I read scripture I read about God who care for the entire world — and expects us to do the same without partiality. And since this country want to invoke the name and blessing of God — at least when it is convenient and suits our pusposes — maybe this country should be a little less concerned about itself and a little more concerned with God’s agenda.
And by the way, don’t read me to literally. Of course there are people besides the Iraqi’s who will bennefit, but those bennefits aare mild in comparisson to the bennefits Iraq will recieve. And don’t get me wrong, I am happy that Iraq is now free from someone like Sadam Hussein. But what about the other countries?
You have avoided my indictment — why does one country deserve “justice” worth 225 Billion in three years but other countries are nearly forgotten? Why is justice reduced almost entirely to an act of war? Why are we not just as concerned with peace time justice? Why will we not spend 225 Billion in three years to help free places like central Africa from the oppression of poverty? Why do we have a country right below us that lives in pverty and basically do nothing to help them when compared to our spending 225 Billion to help Iraq?
What I want is to see first, the U.S. seeking justice impartially for the entire world; and secondly, for the U.S. to stop reducing justice to basically nothing more than warfare.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Rex,
I am going to wrap up this discussion because we are running in circles. Your conclusion clearly states your goals:
“What I want is to see … the U.S. seeking justice impartially for the entire world….”
Personally, I don’t think the US is capable of taking care of the entire world. Therefore we must pick and choose whom to take care of.
The US picked, and it chose Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a country sitting in the middle of a region that has the capacity to control the entire world’s economy. Further, the region (and arguably both of those countries) had a nasty habit of supporting people that sought and tried to destroy the US.
Had those people succeeded, the US would not be capable of caring for its own citizens, much less carrying out your grandiose plans of world-wide welfare.
Therefore, we acted.
Sure, we could have chosen to act in Africa (Why is Africa the only area you mention? Surely, there are other areas. No?) However, Africa provides little strategic value to the US. As best as I can tell, citizens of the US do not fear being taken over by Rwandans. Sure, we watch a movie and feel bad for them, but deep down, we don’t see them as a threat.
Choosing to act in Africa instead of the middle east would have left America vulnerable to the possibility of being exterminated. (If you don’t agree, check out the history of Islam. They were a few battles away from taking over Europe on a couple of occasions just a few hundred years ago…)
Plus there is this. Free and truly representative countries don’t attack each other. (Don’t agree? Name one.) Having a couple of free and truly representative countries in the heart of the terrorist world seems to me like a better strategic move than operations in Africa.
Of course, you made it clear that your goal is for the US to take care of all nations at all times. No? (”What I want is to see … the U.S. seeking justice impartially for the entire world….”)
December 16th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Baron said:
“Sure, we could have chosen to act in Africa (Why is Africa the only area you mention? Surely, there are other areas. No?) However, Africa provides little strategic value to the US. As best as I can tell, citizens of the US do not fear being taken over by Rwandans. Sure, we watch a movie and feel bad for them, but deep down, we don’t see them as a threat.”
Baron continues:
“Choosing to act in Africa instead of the middle east would have left America vulnerable to the possibility of being exterminated. (If you don’t agree, check out the history of Islam. They were a few battles away from taking over Europe on a couple of occasions just a few hundred years ago…)”
Thank you! You have admitted what I suspect has been true. The U.S. is not concerned with the well being of other nations, it only acts when its own well-being is threatened. Too bad the U.S. does not realize it only exists by the blessing of God. I guess the face of justice has a picture of Uncle Sam on it!
December 16th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Oh yeah, for the record I did refer also to Mexico.
December 16th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
I didn’t know I was trying to hide that. Perhaps you had me confused with someone else…
January 17th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
[…] Background: Does anyone think anymore? and Hitchens v. Galloway […]