What is truth? The modern deluge of information makes the ancient question more pertinent than ever. Here may be found those musings, lengthy and otherwise, which represent my pursuit of the answer.

 
MORALITY AND NECESSITY (OPINION, NOT FACT)

Much has been written of war and peace in this small circle of the internet by many with a far better knowledge than I of history, philosophy and the fine line where theology must weigh in on political matters. I hesitate to disagree with the prevailing opinion that Bush is committing a heinous crime against the people of Iraq, that his war is a sin against God and against humanity.

The sheer volume of evidence and argument both for and against war is such that I find myself completely at a loss to condense it all into a convincing argument that this American president is acting as he ought, or at the least as he must. Nor can I reconcile the apparently inevitable clash between the moral and the necessary for this president. Before I venture to pass judgement on him, it seems I ought to come to some conclusion regarding the interaction of morality and necessity; I would far rather state an absolute moral rule (Thou shalt not kill) which forever subordinates the necessary to the moral. But I find myself unable to escape one simple fact.

George W. Bush is the leader of the United States of America. He carries directly on his shoulders the burden of millions of lives. For these four years, his sole concern is the safety and security of the American people. In that capacity, he will inevitably be forced to kill?worse, to order others to kill.

This is an office which I could never dream of seeking for myself. I have no desire to be bound by duty and necessity to decide for myself which imperative I hold higher. And yet it seems that the office is necessary to human society?necessary, indeed, for the sake of peace. All I can hope is that he who rules also bows before a higher Ruler and will not abuse the power given him?and that he will also hold sacred the trust given him, and will not unnecessarily risk the lives he has sworn to protect.

For, after all, one can always find hope for peace?that hope can never be killed if one is determined to find it, to never fight a war until every chance for peace is exhausted. Such determination, however, binds one to fight only defensive wars. Moral theorists?who do not rule, who do not bear the burden of a hundred million lives?can commit to this. A ruler cannot.

Especially in these sad times, such means accepting as a matter of course that anyone who chooses can have one good crack at killing your people before you act against them. With nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, millions could die. A good ruler has no choice but to act first. And again, the people he rules can only hope that he has the wisdom to see clearly who must be dealt with.

In theory, I think Bush is doing well. His policy of preemption is far from universal. It simply redefines those actions which the United States will?and I say must?view as attacks upon its people. If a nation supports terrorists, Bush will view it as an act of war. So too with pursuit of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps my only objection is to his choice of first target. Saddam Hussein simply does not appear to pose a threat comparable to that of North Korea.

And yet I have little doubt that Bush feels himself bound to do as he now does. Every decision he has made since September 11 has been one he found necessary to his task of preserving American lives. For all it appears hasty at first glance, there is no way for him to turn back now. Consistency, reputation and strength are all, unfortunately, necessary considerations for a ruler.

Yes, pride is a sin?but what if humility were to show weakness that would jeopardize a million lives. Vengeance is a sin?but what if turning the other cheek might end with a mushroom cloud over Chicago? So many sins?so many duties?small wonder rulers are so seldom saints.

May God have mercy on them.
posted by Fr. A at 2:14 PM 0 comments

 
This site is probably the best I have ever read on the issue of Iraq, terrorism and this strange new post-9-11 world. I cannot recommend it more highly.

A few comments, though, as I read, I realize how flat my prose falls:

Mr. Lee Harris is right in his assessment of the effect of September 11's terrorism on the world. Whatever happens, our former assumptions, policies and even terms are largely obsolete.

The options left us for dealing with such nations as Iraq and North Korea under the former rules of engagement are intolerable. They afford no guarantee of safety and no means of protection against another attack.

The harsh names and outmoded vocabulary that pundits on both sides have been throwing at one another are not capable of leading us to arrive at any real conclusion. Whether or not one agrees with Mr. Harris' conclusion, one must answer not with criticism alone but with a viable alternative.

These are the facts as I see them. If I err, enlighten me.
posted by Fr. A at 4:09 PM 0 comments

 
To begin with the obvious: The Iraq issue is extremely complex. Absent hard facts, both sides in the war debate insist that what little is known for certain lends credence to their position. The argument attracts all sorts of special interests: American imperialists, pacifists, anti-Semites, the oil lobby, the anti-oil lobby, human rights activists and both haters and lovers of America. Amidst all the rhetoric, however, a few facts remain clear. We would do well to remember them in the days ahead.

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has murdered an innumerable portion of his own population. He has no moral right to rule or to live.

America?s leaders in the decade or so before the Gulf War share Saddam?s guilt for the blood shed at his orders. Many of the means by which Iraqi and Iranian soldiers and civilians were slaughtered were acquired from America as our leaders strove to ensure that Iran?s dangerous radicalism was contained. In pursuing American national security, our leaders enabled a bloodbath.

Despite all the horrors of war, it is difficult to imagine that the results of an American invasion will be worse for the Iraqi people in the long run than continued rule by Saddam. Even should he die naturally in the near future, his regime will likely continue in the same vein as it has since his accession to power.

For all America?s faults, its effect on the world has been generally positive. True, it acquired the atomic bomb first, launching the Cold War and the incredibly perilous nuclear proliferation we face today, but it did so in the face of the threat that Hitler?s Germany might do so instead. Setting that issue aside, the world today is not ruled by Nazis or Communists because America exists. What peace there is today is America?s gift to the world.

Americans, for all their greed and apathy, are, generally speaking the most idealistic people the world has ever seen. That idealism is na�ve, it is true?but American prosperity both creates expectations of how life can and should be lived and affords Americans the leisure to care about more than simply surviving the next day. Americans care deeply whether or not they act morally?the opinion of the rest of the world carries great weight with us.

Americans are individually arrogant, but, generally speaking, we do not consider ourselves so superior to the rest of the world that we have a moral right to rule. The American idea of manifest destiny is grounded in an idea of service to the world, not in theories of a national right to dominate. This also is quite unique.

The world today faces greater danger than ever before in the now-clich�?d ?proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.? The potential for unimagined numbers of deaths in the 21st century is staggering.

No other nation or group of nations has anything near the power, money or commitment necessary to address this threat successfully without America. Whether America leads by unilateral action or by diplomatic wrangling, if she does not lead, no one will. Shortsighted squabbling will break out, as it indeed already has, between Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Israel, etc. Only America has the power and influence to bring these nations together in an effort to make the world safe for subsequent generations.

These are the facts as I see them. If I err, enlighten me.
posted by Fr. A at 10:57 PM 0 comments

 
THE TRUTH SO HELP ME GOD

The Internet has deluged modern society with information. Cutting through the tremendous amount of drivel is all but impossible. The primary news sources are trustworthy to a point, but all too often, taking refuge in the safety of the press release and the quote, they provide their readerships with information that is at best misleading, at worst utterly false. In their effort to simply "report" the news, they have abandoned the goal of perfect credibility. It is simply not possible for a reader to take the news as reported by any single source and be assured that what he has read is perfectly true. It seems there is a niche to be filled by the cautious observer--one who seeks to present only those facts whose veracity he can willingly back with his own reputation and indeed his life.

Here, then, I will post links to what news items I consider important, with my own analysis of what is actually true in the situation. I will say nothing without research sufficient to verify the truth of the matter to my satisfaction. My lack of time will limit me, but look for posts at least once a week.

This site is intended to be subsidiary to my primary blog, The Musings of the Wanderer, where I write on whatever interests me in a more speculative manner. Attempts to follow the news there have taken me away from my primary interests in theology and philosophy. Henceforth, my more journalistic blogging will take place on this site, according to the strict criteria outlined above. If you care to see what I REALLY care about, please take a look.
posted by Fr. A at 10:16 AM 0 comments