Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Where Have All the Good Guys Gone?

Antonin Scalia is without a doubt the most intelligent and capable justice on the Supreme Court. So I was a bit taken aback to see this article. Scalia endorsed orgies as a means of eliminating social tensions. I guess this speaks for itself. Is this what Republicans mean when they say we need more judges like Scalia? Doesn’t it also make you wonder what might be going on in chambers?

The writer of the Guardian article mentions “The Ice Storm,” a fantastic film by Ang Lee. Lee is one of my favorite directors. He made a marvelous movie about the Civil War (“Ride With the Devil”), “Sense and Sensibility,” "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and more. Since I’ve been shamelessly plugging my website, please visit my movie page, too.


Moving from judges who have lost their morals to an evangelical leader who has lost his mind, we have the strange case of Charles Colson. Colson, formerly an aide to Dick Nixon, and the founder of a wonderful ministry to prisoners, recently had this to say about the debate over homosexual marriage:


I’m delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this telecast to churches across the country about what is to me the most urgent, cultural question in America today: the question of same sex marriage and the federal marriage amendment.

This is the “mother of all culture war battles.” This is the one that decides what kind of a country we’re going to be … this is a fundamental question. How should we live?How do we organize our society and every society through the millennia?

Every society in history has recognized heterosexual marriage as the normative arrangement for people for very good prudential reasons. Let me make one caution to those of you who are going to be carrying this fight forward through our neighborhoods and through our civic associations and through our communities and through our churches—and eventually to the halls of political power in America.

The Bible is all truth, it is God’s truth, it is revealed propositional truth without error. But you can’t argue from that when you’re arguing the question of marriage in society.
So it turns out that the Bible is not complete, is not sufficient, is not enough to answer our critics. Since our countrymen don’t like the answers that God’s Word provides, we invent something different that “works.” But as Protestants, ought we not to affirm that the Bible is the one fixed and unchangeable thing in our midst? Is it not our concrete universal? Once the Bible is abandoned as the only source of unrevised stability in a world of unceasing change, then men have nothing to stand on. We will be toossed to and fro like a wave on the sea (James 1:6).

I have to admit that I lost a lot of respect for Colson when he became a shill for the war party. Here is what Colson had to say elsewhere before the war in Iraq began:

If America decides to go to war with Iraq, and we have gone through all the diplomatic stages, depending on the factual case made by the President of the United States, and the U.S. military and intelligence and the British Government, depending on the factual case, war can be morally justified under the Just War Doctrine.

Augustine's original formulation, which is now 1,600 years old, never contemplated the pre-emptive strike because wars weren't fought that way when the Just War Doctrine was originated. There were armies who would invade neighboring countries, and so this is a unique situation. But, there's a precedent. The Israelis took out the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1982 with an air raid -- and well that they did -- and the factual situation is such that Saddam Hussein gives evidence of having weapons of mass destruction and the disposition to use them. If that's the case then we would be justified in attacking to prevent a greater disaster if he would use weapons of mass destruction.


Again, just today we saw another report putting to death the lie that Saddam was packing WMDs:

The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday.


The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West. President Bush has continued to assert in his campaign stump speech that Iraq had posed "a gathering threat."



Nevertheless, 42 per cent of Americans still believe that the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on 9/11, and 32 percent believe that Saddam planned them in person (Not getting their news from Dow Blog, evidently). So now that the verdict is in, will Colson and his evangelical compatriots admit they were wrong? I won't be holding my breath.

1 Comments:

Blogger Deleted Blog said...

In melodic answer to your post's title ... "Long Time Passing". :-)

2:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home