A recent discussion over at Banned by HWA that focused on the potential for civil conflict/war erupting within the United States inspired what follows. As most Americans realize, there is a great divide now extant in our culture and body politic. It centers around two competing visions of exactly what it means to be an American. The rhetoric and vitriol evident on both sides is enough to cause concern among even those who are devoted to a civil and respectful discourse.
Humankind has resorted to force and bloodshed numerous times over the course of its history on this planet to resolve differences among individuals, families, tribes, groups and nations. It is also customary to view one side as being righteous/good (usually the winner) and the other side as being evil/bad (usually the loser).
However, when we actually take the time to examine and dissect these conflicts, it becomes much more difficult to justify them on religious or moral grounds. Moreover, when we consider the high costs associated with these incidents (human lives, materials, financial expenditures and emotional damage), it is much harder to make the case that God was favoring one side over another.
Faced with the bloodiest war in the history of the United States (the American Civil War), Abraham Lincoln mused in the fall of 1862: "In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds." Later, in his Second Inaugural Address he observed that, "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other." He continued, "The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." He suggested that the terrible costs which the nation had endured might be considered by God as payment for the horrible national sin of slavery. He concluded: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
When all of the deaths associated with that war were tallied together, they estimated that over a million people perished as a consequence of the American Civil War. It has further been estimated that the Union spent about 9.5 billion dollars on costs and pensions associated with the war, and that the Confederacy spent over 2 billion more (those estimates have not been converted to what those expenditures would be in today's dollars). So much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed that there is no estimate available that would begin to do justice to the cost. Maybe Lincoln was on to something in his assessment of the Divine Will?
In the nineteenth chapter of the book of Judges, there is an interesting account of a horrific crime that was committed against a Levite's concubine (she was gang-raped and murdered). Indicative of the barbarity of the day, the Levite then dismembered the corpse and sent a piece to each one of the tribes of Israel demanding justice. As a consequence, we read in the twentieth chapter of the book that the tribes got together and demanded that the tribe of Benjamin surrender the perpetrators of the deed. The Benjamites refused, and a civil war ensued. Clearly, right was on the side of the Israelites, but the casualties on their side were horrendous. Eventually, the Israelites triumphed against their brother Benjamites (virtually annihilating that tribe), but the victory had not come quickly or easily. One has to wonder, if God was in the verdict of this war, then why was the cost so high to the victors? Does God really view violence as the best way to resolve matters of this kind?
We could also point out the consequences of the Crusades, and a more recent war (WWII) that most Americans still regard as righteous (and if you think that I'm suggesting they're wrong, you still haven't gotten the point of this article). We have to ask ourselves: To what degree (if any) is God involved in our wars? Does God have any role in them? Does He allow or approve of them? And, if we say that "He" allows or permits them, are "His" purposes/objectives the same as our own? If someone is forced to do something at the end of a sword or bayonet, what does that say about Free Will? In short, is war our way or God's way? What do you think?
Humankind has resorted to force and bloodshed numerous times over the course of its history on this planet to resolve differences among individuals, families, tribes, groups and nations. It is also customary to view one side as being righteous/good (usually the winner) and the other side as being evil/bad (usually the loser).
However, when we actually take the time to examine and dissect these conflicts, it becomes much more difficult to justify them on religious or moral grounds. Moreover, when we consider the high costs associated with these incidents (human lives, materials, financial expenditures and emotional damage), it is much harder to make the case that God was favoring one side over another.
Faced with the bloodiest war in the history of the United States (the American Civil War), Abraham Lincoln mused in the fall of 1862: "In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds." Later, in his Second Inaugural Address he observed that, "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other." He continued, "The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." He suggested that the terrible costs which the nation had endured might be considered by God as payment for the horrible national sin of slavery. He concluded: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
When all of the deaths associated with that war were tallied together, they estimated that over a million people perished as a consequence of the American Civil War. It has further been estimated that the Union spent about 9.5 billion dollars on costs and pensions associated with the war, and that the Confederacy spent over 2 billion more (those estimates have not been converted to what those expenditures would be in today's dollars). So much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed that there is no estimate available that would begin to do justice to the cost. Maybe Lincoln was on to something in his assessment of the Divine Will?
In the nineteenth chapter of the book of Judges, there is an interesting account of a horrific crime that was committed against a Levite's concubine (she was gang-raped and murdered). Indicative of the barbarity of the day, the Levite then dismembered the corpse and sent a piece to each one of the tribes of Israel demanding justice. As a consequence, we read in the twentieth chapter of the book that the tribes got together and demanded that the tribe of Benjamin surrender the perpetrators of the deed. The Benjamites refused, and a civil war ensued. Clearly, right was on the side of the Israelites, but the casualties on their side were horrendous. Eventually, the Israelites triumphed against their brother Benjamites (virtually annihilating that tribe), but the victory had not come quickly or easily. One has to wonder, if God was in the verdict of this war, then why was the cost so high to the victors? Does God really view violence as the best way to resolve matters of this kind?
We could also point out the consequences of the Crusades, and a more recent war (WWII) that most Americans still regard as righteous (and if you think that I'm suggesting they're wrong, you still haven't gotten the point of this article). We have to ask ourselves: To what degree (if any) is God involved in our wars? Does God have any role in them? Does He allow or approve of them? And, if we say that "He" allows or permits them, are "His" purposes/objectives the same as our own? If someone is forced to do something at the end of a sword or bayonet, what does that say about Free Will? In short, is war our way or God's way? What do you think?
In Freudian psychiatry, the psychiatrist doesn't magically and mystically drop in a solution for the client/patient. Through seemingly endless questions, he compels the patient to analyze, and to dig deeply within to find the answers. The most effective, and life-changing solutions in our lives come not from outside ourselves, but from deeply within.
ReplyDeletePerhaps God's primary role with respect to mankind is that of supernatural psychiatrist, guiding His children through deep analysis, allowing us to discover truth, which is then more deeply rooted in our convictions, and in our character. Unless there are unusual defects of the soul, we are all learning, constantly. The crack whore is being just as profoundly educated as is the research scientist or human behaviorist. As Pete Townshend wrote in the incredible song "Naked Eye",
"You hold the gun and I hold the wound
And we stand looking into each other's eyes.
Both think we know what's right
Both know we know what's wrong
We tell ourselves so many many lies.
We're not pawns in any game
Not tools of bigger men
There's only one who can really move us all.
It all looks fine to the naked eye
But it don't really happen that way at all."
It s unfortunate indeed, when it appears that we have a leader who is leading an attempt to unlearn. It indicates that pain is on the horizon, the deeper, more profound pain which accompanies the relearning of lessons which have been learned and then forgotten. Our programming has led many to believe that conservatives are the keepers of eternal truths which progressives seek to undermine and supplant. For that reason alone, it appears that we are suddenly living in mind-bogglingly confusing times.
BB
BB, I love your song choice. Great observations/musings. Thank you for stopping by and sharing! Our nation's ignorance of history may be its undoing (thank God that phenomenon is not universal).
ReplyDeleteMiller Jones. From my personal perspective you are adressing the speck on mans eye without seeing the beam at all.
ReplyDeleteYour entire posting highlights the problem in the USA. NO NATION on earth would describe their internal politics in biblical terms "evil vs good", light vs darkness, "what god intends for the usa".
Can you see how the rest of the world has seen the rise of the american religious right and could easily see political decisions that belong in the realm of the ayatollahs.
It seems a "civil war" in the usa will nit be along lines of ethnicity but be increasingly waged by those inspired by faulty reading of the history of the United States alonf the myth of its christian origins. As if the pilgrim fathers were the first benign settlers of the USA. While the reality is they were a bunch of fanatic heretics in opposition to the enlightenment that truly sparked americas glory.
And I have here all the legal documents to prove my point. (From the decleration of independence on AND more importantly the legal charters and ideas (from for instance the new york delegates) that inspired the FOUNDING fathers.
Nck
nck, there are a great many misconceptions about the history of the United States (both within and without). Folks tend to go from one extreme to the other (as in describing those origins as Christian and humanist - I think it's some of both and more).
ReplyDeleteYou have talked in the past about the importance of perception. In this regard, I think that you would agree with me that the beliefs and mythology adopted by various Americans is very important in exploring the subject of internal conflict (and the potential for civil war). After all, we (the U.S.) have already fought one bloody war over competing interpretations of what it means to be an American.
You may want to read my new book before you pass judgment on my views or comments. If you're interested, you can find the book on Amazon under the title An American Family Bible and the pen name I use here (Miller Jones).
As usual, thanks for stopping by and stirring the pot. I appreciate your contributions even when we disagree.
Hello Miller.
ReplyDeleteThe book would be interesting.
I just hope you did not suggest the book because you believe I hold you responsible for "the next civil war."
On the contrary. You could be one of the "intermediaries."
It just struck me that your posting and colloquialisms were laden with "code language" that are impossible to understand by any secular culture outside the USA. And would strike them as "frightening".
The highly controversial "the clash of civilisations" by huntington speaks about conflict along "religious fault lines".
I was kinda pointing out this internal dichotomy within the USA. Not so much a North and South conflict over economy or a conflict with secular nations. Or a divide over the rise of catholicism because of immigrants.
In Europe it is reported that the usual "topless sunbathing" is taking a nosedive. Official media is pointing toward the effects of social media and mobile photo technology or skin cancer. I would point to a change in secular culture through the influx and rise of millions of religionist and the shaming and insults that have accompanied their rise to prominence.
In the seventies I would not have contemplated the return of religion. Even if I was part of one of the most "fundamentalistic" of all. (one which was born over the earlier religious war in the usa when in the 1920's darwinism was introduced in the school curriculum prompting the rise of american fundamentalism as a term and as a movement)
Nck
So my posting was not an attack on your opinion. It was a cultural observation sparked by the language that saw the rise of the "speak easy".
ReplyDeleteMost of your personal opinions I find "seeking understanding and common grounds." But the active discussion was about discord, which has many fathers.
Nck
Thank you, no I didn't suggest my book for that reason (it is available in E-book for a very modest price). I suggested the book because it demonstrates that I view American citizenship and patriotism as very complex and with many shades of good and bad. I am proud to be an American, but I firmly believe that we are a work in progress (I am acutely aware of our flaws).
DeleteWhat seems obvious from international events of the past several days is that President Trump is following an agenda that is unknown to and unsanctioned by the party with whom he claims to be afilliated, and also against the counsel of our learned intelligence community.
ReplyDeleteThe president repudiating our traditional allies, and cozying up to the world’s largest white superpower is perfectly understandable when seen through the lenses of a white nationalist agenda.
Forget about the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, and the globalist “New World Order”. Welcome to the new “New World Order”. Frightening, indeed!
BB
BB, I agree. I am, however, encouraged by the fact that there was fairly widespread pushback this time from many congressional republicans and former officeholders. One would have hoped that it had been more robust, but there appears to be hope that many of them haven't drunk the kool-aid yet.
ReplyDeleteMr Miller Jones.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you look at the Civil War as a moment of catharsis. A divide beteen the old and new.
In my analysis of our former association and musings on "banned" I often take the Wilson presidency and US involvement in international affairs as a pivot point.
The constitutional break by The dough boys initiation on Flanders Fields and the tension it causes to this day on the definition on how to fulfill americas destiny as navigator or shining beacon on the hill.
I wonder did you specialize or take a special interest in a certain topic in your curriculum?
Nck
My coursework focused on U.S. and English history. I agree with Ken Burns assessment that one cannot understand U.S. history without understanding the American Civil War. Nevertheless, I think that you have identified one of the seminal moments in our story (WWI), and I believe there are a few others (Revolutionary War, Jefferson's presidency, Mexican War, the presidencies of TR and FDR, the presidencies of LBJ and Richard Nixon, the Reagan-Bush presidencies, and 9/11.
DeleteYou're right.
ReplyDeleteMy gut response would be, that only a young nation can have so many seminal moments
:-) But I'm a funny guy.
At times I like to look only from the financial (not economic) perspective.
I often visit the guys who got you the backing for the Lousiana purchase, sent more dough when the english blocked the rebels, took the risk when "madmen" showed them future tracks for the railroads. Or snatched the malls before the japanese could. Or move the hq's and profits of your corporations like frog leaps over the earth to avoid taxation without representation.
Many stories of a great narrative.
Nck
nck, I am well aware of the important contributions that other nations have made to the "success" (financial and otherwise) of the United States, and we could talk at some length about the seminal moments in the much longer stories of our friends across the oceans and to our south. French money, recognition and military assistance were essential to the founding of this republic. The rationale behind our Declaration of Independence and Constitution was borrowed from European philosophers and a book (the Bible) that had its foundations in the Middle East. The British effectively sheltered the infant republic from many of the dangers that could have hampered its growth on the high seas. We must also never forget that the weaknesses inherent in the Spanish colonial system allowed us to exploit our neighbors to the south (and other Spanish possessions) after we were standing on our own feet. And, yes, the U.S. has shaped and been shaped by the other nations which participated in those two great catastrophes of the Twentieth Century that we call World Wars (and we could cite many other instances of this).
DeleteHaving acknowledged all of that, however, I would say that the most important contributions that other nations have made to the "Great Republic" were in the form of their own citizens emigrating to the U.S. This great truism seems to have been forgotten by many Americans (along with many of the nations which made those contributions). E pluribus unum - out of many, one - in my opinion, that is the most essential element in understanding the United States and that nation's place among the other nations of the earth. Unfortunately, arrogance and forgetfulness are fairly universal afflictions of the human race.
Interesting analysis. I once met a member (oofa...of our former association) in Virginia who was related to George Washington through the Ball's from mothers side.
ReplyDeleteOk. The subject is "civil war". Defining elements of the USA are "contribition" and "out of many ONE".
Perhaps todays discord relating to immigrants is about "the expected contribution" and if they will participate in the UNUM.
From my perspective I find that political correctness seems to have emphasized differences rather than uniting. African Americans, Native Americans, etc etc to me it is racist at the core. I am especially appalled with the entitlement and divisiness caused because some great grandfather was a slave. Hell my grandparents and members of my wcg congregation (nearly) died as slaves for the japanese.
But people (on the blogs) find me insensitive to their plight. But I'm not. I say people should take responsibility of their lives. That is the great power behind the United States in my opinion. Perhaps those who profited most from that principle should contribute more to the plight of those low on the evolutionist ladder.
Michael Moore produced an extremely funny documentary about that. The premiss was that he visited some European nations with some great working social programs. In the end it was revealed that all the implemented ideas were American.
Nck