Letters
July/August 2003
Protesting the Protesters
As a Seventh-day Adventist reader of Liberty I have to say that I respectfully disagree with the logic behind statements in your "War and Peace" issue. You align yourselves with the anti-war protesters and make them out to be the voice of reason amid the angry booming of war drums. You are eager to point out the way they are labeled (by some) as unpatriotic, yet you do not even give a hint of notice to the fact that they falsely accuse America of invading Iraq in order to steal its oil. If this were true, we could have just taken it in 1991.
Some anti-war protesters call George W. Bush a warmonger and a murderer. Did Bush ever use poisonous gas on thousands of innocent people? Does Bush order beheadings in public squares and force women and children to view them? Does Bush kill conscientious objectors? If someone calls another unpatriotic, it is just their opinion, but to make the claims about Bush and America that some of these people make is downright slanderous and, yes, unpatriotic at best.
One article calls the protesters the "meek" and the "peacemakers." I think the violence and mayhem at their rallies speak for themselves. Granted, many are sincere and courteous, but their radical base, the ones who organize these things, are the extreme life-wingers, the hippies and Greenpeace-type environmentalists, and feminists. Many of the demonstrators don't even know what they are protesting against, except for what they think they know, which is "War is bad, and peace is good." I don't even call them anti-war protesters anymore. I call them anti-Bush, anti-Republican protesters, because their "voice of reason" was noticeably silent when President Bill Clinton fired more missiles into Iraq than were used during the entire Gulf War, or when Clinton sent us into Kosovo, Bosnia, and Haiti (without United Nations approval, I might add). Some think the French and German governments are peacemakers. It is because of the French that Hussein has nuclear capabilities at all. If it were not for an Israeli air raid on a French-supplied reactor in 1981, he probably would have had an A-bomb before now. The French have major financial interests at stake in Iraq, and are largely responsible for Saddam's obscene wealth. The Germans supplied him with mobile biological labs, which he did not account for to the inspectors. The Germans wanted more time for the inspectors, yet they are well aware of the fact that he has these labs and that he moves them around. I do not call these governments "peacemakers"; I call them "enablers."
You quoted Jesus as saying that we should "turn the other [cheek]" and "Love your enemies," but He was talking to His disciples and those who sought to follow Him, not to government leaders whose duty it is to protect its citizens from danger. Liberty magazine rightly embraces the separation of church and state, so why do you imply that our nation's leaders should apply Christian principles meant for individual disciples to the offices of state and foreign affairs? Indeed, the only Bible verses that I saw that you used to support your position are those intended for the individual Christian. You completely forgot about the more pertinent texts, such as Romans 13:3,4: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." And 1 Peter 2:13, 14: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."
I am all in favor of one's right to be a conscientious objector, but let us not forget that that right was bought and paid for with the blood of those who were not such objectors. Every right and freedom that we enjoy we have because someone fought a war for us and won. And as for the early Christians being conscientious objectors, let's not forget that they lived in the Roman Empire. I would not have fought for Caesar's selfish interests, either, but I would fight for America's.
PAUL FILINOVICH
Downers Grove, Ill.
We can thank God that there is still freedom for each of us to express our views on topics as decisive as political activity and war. Paul Filinovich may have conflated Liberty articles upholding the right and history of pacifism and noncombatancy with some of the public statements and actions of current anti-war activities. Certainly we can only be troubled by much that is said in opposing the war and challenging duly appointed authority.
In outlining the murky self-interest of various states that contributed to the need for the war in Iraq, Mr. Filinovich himself reveals why a person of deep religious faith should hesitate long before declaring any human violence as innately moral.
It is too easy to take the few comments of the apostle Paul to confirm state action. In context, Paul and his Lord Jesus Christ advocated disengagement from the state, not complicity in its actions, however correct they might seem. Christians are called to be exemplary citizens—of whatever state they live in, but always of the kingdom of grace they are joined to.
I dare not shout down anyone's deeply held opinions, but I must point out the irony in the letter's last sentence. Clearly the apostle Paul was not endorsing all the actions of Caesar. And so the analogy breaks down. Western society long ago forsook the concept of the divine right of kings, which gained some of its traction from loose application of such verses. When we say "God bless America," it can be operative only as our nation exemplifies the highest moral principles, and is not a blanket approval of all human/state actions. Editor.