By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
The Medical Consequences of Attacking Iraq:
By Helen Caldicott
This San Francisco Chronicle editorial was on the subject of using U238 for armament and projectiles. The article implicated the morality of the Bush Administration for choosing to use these weapons in this war.
An Examination of Morality in War
Using Uranium in warfare, whether for creating nuclear explosions,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide the most obvious and graphic examples of using these weapons The tradeoff in that conflict was the potential death of millions of Japanese and Americans Horrific weapons should be employed in times of appropriately dire need. There may be a time and place for all things, but this was probably not the time to use weapons with such long-lasting collateral damage.
The SF Chronicle correctly informs us of the dangers of using U238 in Iraq. But, the larger question is the morality of
But, this simple concept has been obscured by the religion of pacifism. Non-violence has replaced Godliness as the highest standard.
The real problem is the degradation of the moral atmosphere that pervades the entire country – the boardrooms, bedrooms, and courtrooms of America. The moral failure of one party or administration cannot explain the culture-wide deterioration.
The Democratic Party has been polarized to a significant degree by the radical/far-Left religion of secular humanism. The innuendo and rhetoric of the Left attribute the Christian system of morals as the causative force driving attempts to pass “freedom-limiting” laws. The Left has framed the War and the reduction in privacy and freedom of movement on the “evil” Republican philosophy. These following attributions capture some of the Left’s slogans against the Republicans: 1) Republicans have
Demonization is a common tactic used in war to mobilize public sentiment against an enemy and to give the troops courage and the moral authority to destroy their opponents. The Left has demonized the Right as morally degenerate because of the supposed alliance with Big Business and their “oppressive” Christian morality. The Right has demonized the Left because of its anti-Christian stands on the recognition of God in society, wealth redistribution, and their nanny-state/welfare-state mentality. Given that a fundamental disagreement between the two parties surrounds the existence, accuracy, and authority of The Christian God in the affairs of man, one side or other may be on the wrong side of God’s Law. The Left may be wrong in declaring that the God of the Bible is irrelevant and non-existent. But, the Right may be incorrect in its interpretation of Biblical text and its application to the governmental sphere.
I have chosen to defend the proposition that God exists, and that Biblical Christianity is relevant and authoritative over the affairs of men. (I note that our Founders had a strong pattern of “endorsing” Christianity in their legislation.) This is not to say that there were no divisions in the theological orientations of the Founders. But, we can say for certain that the “wall of separation” concept as it is used today, to keep the influence of Christianity away from every governmental program, was not the manifested outcome of the legislature, judiciary, and executive branches of the early nation.
Just as God has allowed free will in the choice of a religious path, it is appropriate that governments allow each individual the right to choose the direction of his soul. The prohibition in the establishment of a national church by the Constitution provides that freedom. No one should be required to bow to any god because of the rules of man. But, the behaviors of men must necessarily be restricted and organized so as to prevent the violation of the space of his fellow man. The question is only, “How much regulation should be codified and enforced by the State?”
Thus, regardless of whether an individual citizen believes in a Christian God, an Islamic (etc.) god, or a Secular Humanist “man as god” perspective, the same obligation to regulate the affairs of
Given the historical precedent of our country including Christianity at the center of the public legislative debate, I believe we should overtly allow, and expect that our government “endorse” the Christian standard of conduct, and then legislate based upon that standard. Such a posture of overt promotion of the Christian debate in the public realm is the moral equivalent of “free speech” on the issues of public policy. But, free speech does not imply a debate without standards or preconceived notions of principles that govern life.
As long as we engage in honest and open debate about the merits of the various moral dilemmas of the day, and include the Christian perspective overtly in the debate, we have engaged in
The purpose of such debate is to establish
Political Parties are the medium through which we categorize and express our position with regard to the various issues of the day. In the current debate, the Right and Left have taken diametrically opposed stands on Absolute morality (e.g. homosexual marriage and abortion). But, to categorize a party in monolithic terms minimizes the variety represented by the loose amalgamations of the various special interests and philosophies that comprise them. Additionally, the parties evolve over time; but the party’s history provides a counterbalance to prevent
Political parties are not typically identified as religions, but they nevertheless display elements of a religious system. They have codifications of creed and they are associations of like-minded men who believe in (have faith for) the manifestation of a new worldview. Political parties function as the secular arms of the congregation; seeking to manifest the righteousness of Christ (or their particular iconic view of “right”) in the public life. Within the Party, various special interests magnify their issues to a point of identifiable prominence. These groups cannot coexist within the same Party if the underlying belief structures that drive their social agenda conflicts strongly with the majority of the Party’s vision and world philosophy. Thus, an identifiable party spirit will inevitably emerge from this loose alliance of groups.
When we come down to practical matters, such as the decision to utilize U238 munitions, and other policies that have resulted in harm, we must ask if these policies and decisions are only the
But, the sense of individual moral responsibility for the potential long-term larger good has left the group consciousness to a large degree, having been replaced in the public arena with a “
We inevitably vacillate between these two poles as we attempt to strike an
We would like to think that the program directors, agencies, contractors, board members, and executives that examined the production and deployment of the U238 armaments and projectiles engaged in a long-view appraisal of the medical costs and military advantages. But, without knowing the specifics of how these decisions were created we can imagine that many low moral drives powered these decisions. We can hypothesize a lack of human compassion and mount a plausible argument that personal economic considerations drove the principles to skew policy decisions to benefit personally, payback favors, and generate influence under the guise of preparation and prosecution of
But, all these accusations about motivation and character are conjecture based on the observed and regrettable, long-term collateral health effects. We have little information about the actual processes and motives that generated those decisions; thus to impugn character with this level of data is premature and speculative. Negotiations and group decisions are
For this reason, in a Godly/prospering society, every person along the pathway leading toward a decision should be infused with the fear of trespassing the Way of the Almighty God. God’s nature is love, but the opposing force that allows such purity is justice. And,
Every person should be serving His Kingdom and attempting to expand its goodness. The servants in the Kingdom should be governed by the still small voice of
Simply cursing the military-industrial complex is absurd – it is not an entity that can be identified; no one controls it who can be held accountable or directed to alter course. Its life arises from the diffuse masses of individuals that
The machine is not simply the product of the Conservative/Christian/Republican intent to dominate the world for the purpose of advancing Big Business. No; it springs naturally from the bowels of man’s inner drives and weaknesses. We all give the machine our lifeblood, and we must retrieve our souls from its clutches. We can only bring down this modern day Leviathan when we as a group
Those who simply curse the darkness, the Administration, and the lies… are engaging in a misdirected exercise in futility. The only hope for America is Revival. It is not a Renaissance of the Age of Reason that will save us. It is a new octave above the previous Enlightenment, an Age of Reason governed by the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit that will produce the New Golden Age.
To make a difference, each person must use his intellect and energy to attack the trite self-righteous rhetoric of those who simply criticize and embrace man’s intelligence and sense of morality as adequate to solve the problems of mankind. Each man should work in his own camp to change people’s hearts to perfected Godliness. Until that happens, all the exposé’s of the wrongs of the world will have
The enemy isn’t James Dobson, Rick Warren, Rick Santorum, Condoleezza Rice, Antonin Scalia, Roy Moore, or George Bush. The enemy lives inside each of our beating breasts. We must transform our souls and come under submission to the Lordship of Christ in a way that actually makes a difference in the daily conduct of the affairs of men.
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Email comments about
Links to original article: