Thursday, March 20, 2003

Ear TICKLERS # 3

Clearing the Air on the Iraq Crisis





href="El%20Momento%20de%20Verdad%20for%20the%20World2_files/filelist.xml">
href="El%20Momento%20de%20Verdad%20for%20the%20World2_files/editdata.mso">

Moment of truth on Iraq







style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>Moment
of truth on Iraq?


 


 


The below clippings are presented as an alternative
to the nearly monolithic perspective presented in the local and regional media
on the current Iraq crisis. While we may not wish to agree with all or even
much of what is clipped below, it seems to me that it is at least worth the
investment of time to broaden our perspectives.


 


Romans 13:1 - 7


 


In light of a disturbing conversation I recently had
with some sincere Christians who evinced ignorance on the biblical principles
of morality relating to civil government and the use of force, I include an
excerpt from Rom 13:1 – 7, and comment briefly on it:


 


Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
for there is no authority except that which God has established. 
The authorities that exist have been established by God. 
Consequently he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement
on themselves.  style='color:red'>For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those
who do wrong.
style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  Do you want to be free from fear of the one
in authority?  Then do what is right
and he will commend you.


 


For he is God’s servant
to do you good.
 
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the class=SpellE>the sword for nothing.  He
is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
  Therefore, it is necessary to submit
to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because
of conscience.


 


This is also why you pay taxes, for the
authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes,
then pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if class=SpellE>honour, then honour.


 


I have highlighted the critical portion of Paul’s
remarks.  We see where, though his primary
focus is on the duties of citizenship, in addressing this, as usual Paul highlights
the corresponding duties of civil authorities:


 




  • Being God’s servant to do the citizen goodstyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> – i.e.
    looking after the general and particular welfare of the citizens, especially
    through maintaining justice

  • Doing good to the citizens, commending the
    right and restraining the wrong
    through the deterrence of the
    sword, or if that fails, punishing wrongdoers

  • Governing:style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> that is,
    properly administering the affairs of the state in the interests of the public
    and even the individual citizen, with high competence backed up by undivided
    loyalty and attention – the basis for reasonable (as opposed to confiscatory
    – “Thou shalt not steal”) taxing power



 


Clearly, the principal qualification, objective –
and test -- of the civil authority is justice.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  However, the power of the sword, administrative
control and taxation are inevitably a great temptation, leading to two principal
problems, corruption and tyranny. Compounding this is simple incompetence,
due to a gap between power and wisdom.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> 


 


Thus, we come to the issues envisioned in the US Declaration
of Independence of 1776, namely the rights of reformation and if necessary
revolution.


 


The Right of Reformation – and if necessary, Revolution


 


This sounds peculiarly strange to Christian
ears, but let us first see
what the US DOI says:


style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial;color:black'> 


style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial;color:black'>We hold these truths to be self-evident:
style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:120%;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:
Arial;color:black'>


That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that
whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not
be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new
guards for their future security.


href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm
[cf. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html
  for a direct precursor]


 


Indeed, we can see the roots of this political philosophy
in the biblical history of Israel, where there were several revolutions in
the face of the tyranny of Kings warned of by Samuel in 1 Sam 8:1 – 20.


 


Moreover, we have the words of the apostles in Acts
5:27 – 39, esp. v. 29, when the authorities in Jerusalem wished to silence
the leaders of the early church:


 


“We gave you strict orders not to teach in his name
. . . Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined
to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”


 


We must obey God rather than
men!
  The God of our Fathers
raised Jesus from the dead – whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree
. . .”


 


This case is especially revealing, as it shows how
the authorities plainly intended to use the power of the sword to cover up
an earlier injustice on their part – the judicial murder of Jesus – by silencing
those who spoke the truth.  So, ever
since, the cross has loomed on the skyline of cities and their magistrates,
as they contemplate their duty of justice.


 


Plainly, there is a limit to the just power of governing
authorities.  One that, should they
persistently overstep, people have a right to protest and seek reformation,
flee or -- in the extreme case -- to appoint representatives who, using their
new status of legitimate power, seek to change the government, by peace if
possible, by force if necessary to protect life and prevent further injustice.
This has been long since discussed in the works such as class=SpellE>Duplesis Mornay’s class=SpellE>Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos [cf.
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black'>href="http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960810.html">http://capo.org/premise/96/aug/p960810.html
for its impact on the US Revolution]
, or Rutherford’s href="http://www.natreformassn.org/lexrex/index.html">Lex,
Rex
, or even Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto.


 


style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>But What of National Sovereignty?style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>


 


In the case in view, we are looking at the international
situation. For that context, the right of self-defense in the face of blatant
aggression is not in dispute – though propaganda can sometimes lead well-intentioned
people to imagine that aggression is not what it is, as has happened with
Israel in the face of half a century of declared intent and repeated attempts
to destroy it.


 


(Consider: why is it that lands repeatedly used as
stages for wars of declared intent to annihilate “the Jews” that were then
captured by that doughty nation in defending itself are demanded back without
reasonable resolution of the underlying issue?)


 


What is in dispute today, is the new situation, in
which the world confronts faceless terrorism to advance the islamist
cause, potentially using so-called weapons of mass destruction, as well as
failed states with tyrannical, rogue regimes that seek to acquire class=SpellE>WMDs to use and/or to share with their terrorist partners
through their intelligence services. 


 


But, what about sovereignty?style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>style='mso-spacerun:yes'> 


 


The best answer lies in considering the issue of aggressive
tyranny that threatens to spill over into wars of aggression.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  For, as the history of the 1930’s clearly shows,
when dictators rise to power and begin to acquire
the means of international aggression, prompt action by the great powers could
avert the horrors that such dictators are wont to unleash.


 


For instance, after the First World War, Germany,
as the principal aggressor, was subjected to a regime of arms control and
inspection.  However, the inspections
failed (due to non-compliance and evasion) and Hitler was able to tap the
resentment over defeat and the terms of the peace as well as economic instability
and rise to power.


 


His first act of aggression was to attempt to re-occupy
the Rhineland in 1936, which had long been the forge on which the German sword
was made.  Under the terms of the Versailles
Treaty, French troops occupied the zone, but there had been an uprising in
1923, leading to several deaths of civilian protesters under questionable
circumstances.


 


The French failed to stand their ground, even though
Hitler’s intent was evident to all who would but seriously read his class=SpellE>Meinstyle='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'> Kampf, which
had been written in 1923, after he had been jailed for an attempted coup –
the half-comical, but ever so portentous Munich Beer Hall Putsch.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  Had the French and other leaders of the League
of Nations simply resisted the German bluff (which was not backed by serious
military strength), Hitler would have had to turn tail, and his regime would
have collapsed.  No wonder Churchill
remarked in his The Gathering Storm,
that never had there been a war that could so easily have been averted as
the Second World War.


 


A few years later, after forcible incorporation of
Austria into the now growing Reich, and after a campaign of agitation based
on the bogus claim that the Czechs were oppressing the ethnic Germans in the
Sudetenland, Chamberlain and Daladier handed over
these lands to Hitler at the now infamous Munich summit.


 


The picture of Neville Chamberlain returning to Britain
and triumphantly waving the agreement, announcing that Appeasement had achieved
“peace in our time,” is now deservedly infamous.


 


In the aftermath of this fiasco, Roosevelt asked Hitler
to clarify his non-aggressive intent towards the nations of Europe and the
nearby regions.  As William class=SpellE>Shirer records in his The
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler
replied
in a clever speech at the port city of Hamburg. 
TRhe sum of that speech was this: (1) class=SpellE>Mr Roosevelt was a fine one to be raising such questions while
standing on the bones of the dead Indians, and (2) he would be best advised
to inquire of the British and French, who had carved up the world between
them.


 


Six years and nearly sixty million dead later, the
world learned a lesson that one had thought would never be forgotten.


 


The main lesson can be summarised:
failure to stand up to aggression, because one is repelled by the horrors
of a limited war, may set the nations don the road to a later war when aggressors
have built up their capacity, ending in an unimaginable scale of barbarity,
devastation and loss of life.


 


The second is like unto it: in a mass-media, public-opinion
driven democratic age, aggressive tyrants will use the so-called “Turnabout”
propaganda stratagem, to create the impression that they are the aggrieved,
oppressed party.  Echoing a current
slogan, one could ever so easily imagine the chant: “Hitler is no angel –
but Churchill is no saint!”


 


But, there is a third lesson: aggressors and tyrants
leave behind them a trail of evidence: re-armament in the teeth of treaty
obligations, oppression and scapegoating of minorities
in their own country, suppression of civil rights, mass murder of their own
civilian population (Hitler started on the infamous 1934 “Night of the Long
Knives,” in which he slaughtered hundreds of alleged plotters and personal
enemies all over Germany).


 


Thus, it should be possible to identify and restrain
such would-be aggressors well in advance, and to hold them accountable before
treaty and human rights obligations.  Indeed,
that is one of the major reasons for the cluster of Human Rights and armaments
control agreements that are embedded in the UN system! style='mso-spacerun:yes'> 


 


The problem is, that there
may not be the moral clarity will to stand up in good time.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  This was why the League of Nations failed, and
that is the peril that evidently faces the UN today.


 


But does Iraq really pose a threat?


 


Mrstyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'> Hussein’s
tyrannical and aggressive track record is not in doubt.style='mso-spacerun:yes'> 


 


Over the twenty plus years since he seized power,
he has twice launched wars of aggression against his neighbours:
Iran, 1979, and Kuwait, 1991.  He has
lobbed 39 ballistic missiles into Israel’s cities. style='mso-spacerun:yes'> He has slaughtered upwards of a hundred thousand
of his own countrymen, especially the Kurds in the North and the Shiite Muslims
of the South. In so doing, he has resorted to gas attacks – thereby violating
the longest-standing set of arms limitations obligations -- not only against
opposing armies and guerrilla forces, but also against civilian villagers. 
His torture chambers are notorious, as are the ruthless methods by
which he silences dissent, even to the level of personally shooting a Cabinet
Minister who dared to differ with him.


 


Unfortunately, the world has consistently lacked the
moral clarity to deal with these tyrannical and aggressive activities.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  Since Iran was perceived as the greater threat
in the 1980’s, Western nations supported Iraq in the war against Iran.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  The Kuwait invasion was triggered by an American
Ambassador’s remark that suggested that the US was indifferent to the underlying
dispute.  When in the aftermath of the
resulting war the North and South rose up, only token help was given (resulting
for instance in the “No-fly zones”).style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  Sanctions-busting is notorious, and no effective
counter has been made to the diversion of funds from the oil-for-food programme
to rearmament and the building of grandiose palaces. (The West of course,
is blamed for the resulting starvation and gaps in health class=GramE>services that has led to an estimated 500,000 deaths – never
mind the contrasting picture in the Kurd-controlled regions that are under
the same sanctions and relief programmes.) 


 


Finally, the inspections and disarmament process have
built up a twelve year track record of chicanery as rearmament plainly continues. 
Tied to this, there is a shadowy penumbra of worrying links to terrorist
incidents and organizations.


 


Credible direct and indirect threats that could easily
be deployed in support of the Baathist regime’s
agendas therefore include:


 


style='mso-list:Ignore'>·         
The use of improvised weapons -- such as the utility
knives and associated hijacking techniques developed by Iraqi Intelligence
services (who may well have trained al Quaida operatives
using training camps that are complete with disused 707 jets) -- to convert
civil airliners full of fuel and hapless passengers into cruise missiles. 
Already, 3,000 are dead in one incident.


style='mso-list:Ignore'>·         
Short-range, IR-sensing shoulder-fired missiles capable
of bringing down airliners: possibly, TWA 800 is one case, and there was an
attempt in Mombassa Kenya


style='mso-list:Ignore'>·         
Ballistic missiles and drone aircraft capable of acting
as cruise missiles; delivering WMD warheads at ranges to 100’s or 1,000’s
of miles and ultimately intercontinentally.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  (In the case of the drones, we could wake up
any morning to learn that a ship hundreds of miles at sea has delivered such
a cruise missile tipped with anthrax to one or more coastal cities anywhere
in the world.)


style='mso-list:Ignore'>·         
Chemical WMD warheads with nerve gases such as class=SpellE>Sarin, Tabun, VX or the WWI vintage
gases such as Mustard Gas, capable of killing 100’s – 1,000s of people with
the equivalent of super-insecticides. (In fact, Sarin
and Tabun were discovered by German Chemists seeking
to create insecticides in the ‘30’s.)  class=SpellE>Mr Hussein has already used such weapons against the Kurds
and the Iranians, and apparently the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome and a surge
in deformities and cancers in Iraq are due to attempts to use these horrors
in 1991.


style='mso-list:Ignore'>·         
Radiological bombs. 
By wrapping explosive warheads with intensely radioactive materials,
such as Plutonium (which is also a deadly poison), it is possible to spread
huge, toxic clouds across cities and regions. 
While this would not kill a very large number of people (right away
– cancer!) it would spread panic far and wide similar to the Chernobyl accident.


style='mso-list:Ignore'>·         
Biological agents, such as Anthrax or Smallpox or
Bubonic Plague, or new germs created in biowar labs. 
These can be delivered using warheads, or even through the mail. 
They are capable of killing millions, through triggering epidemics.


style='mso-list:Ignore'>·         
Nuclear warheads. 
Capable of wiping out entire cities with one blast.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  Sadly, in the 1960’s, it was demonstrated through
an experiment with first degree graduates in Physics with access to only open
literature, that within a couple of years, a credible weapons design can be
made for a fission bomb similar to those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in 1945.  Thus, anti-proliferation has
to focus on control of access to Plutonium, Highly Enriched Uranium and just
possibly Thorium, and on the key electronics components to trigger the blast. 


style='mso-list:Ignore'>·         
Also, there are persistent rumours
of missing “suitcase nukes” from the arsenal of the former Soviet Union, which
were intended as battlefield demolition munitions.


 


style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>The Parallel
to Terrorism: Piracy


 


It seems to me that the closest parallel to this so-called
asymmetric warfare situation is the traditional international problem of piracy,
which often depended for its success on sponsor states.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  Such states, at one time or another, included
even Britain. 


 


Clearly, the hands of the major nations, then – as
now -- were not fully clean!


 


However, when the major nations finally came to a
consensus that this age-old horror was a threat to all, and made concerted
efforts to wipe it out, it was eventually largely suppressed.style='mso-spacerun:yes'>  (It thrives today in the Philippines and off
Malaysia.  There is even some still
in the Caribbean, linked to the drugs trade!) 


 


But, along the way, that included wars against sponsoring
states, most notably against the home states of the Barbary Pirates of North
Africa.


 


The difference is, that while 16th – 18th
Century pirates could sack a city or seize a ship, now the threat is on a
much larger scale, and it can come out of nowhere, with little or no warning,
to strike anywhere, leaving massive devastation and unconscionable loss of
life in its wake.


 


So, the challenge to the leaders of the nations is
how to use their power and charge to protect their citizens from evildoers,
to counter the new global threats. 


 


Sadly, so far it seems the international community
is not doing a very good job.


 


In Prayer for Justice and true peace,


 


Gordon


March 18, 2003


 


 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 


 


ARTICLES:


 


href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31577">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31577


 


Moment of truth for the worldstyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>

style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>


A Star Tribune cartoon,
as republished Saturday in the Washington Post, has six panels, which surely
capture the ethos of our time . . .


 


href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31620">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31620


 


Saddam's day of reckoning, America's year of discoverystyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>

style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>



. . . The
invasion of Iraq caps a year of high political comedy that, in the final analysis,
accomplished little for Saddam Hussein but changed the face of global politics
well into the foreseeable future . . .



 


href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31578">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31578


 


 


Has U.S. diplomacy failed in Iraq crisis?style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>



Has
United States diplomacy failed in the Iraq crisis?


According
to many commentators, including some of those who support President George
Bush's stance, the answer is yes.


The truth is that we need historical perspective to know the answer
. . .


 


href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31576">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31576


 


Blame the Jews?




Some Americans apparently believe that we are going to war with Iraq
"because of the Jews." Having written a book explaining
anti-Semitism ("Why the Jews?
The Reason for class=SpellE>Antisemitism," Simon & Schuster), all I can do is
marvel at the durability of anti-Semitism and the eternality of the charge
that the Jews are responsible for everything anti-Semites fearstyle='mso-spacerun:yes'>  . . .


 


href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/074/oped/_Old_Europe_and_Sudan_s_jihadP.shtml">http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/074/oped/_Old_Europe_and_Sudan_s_jihadP.shtml


 


'Old
Europe' and Sudan's jihad


THE LANGUAGE of human rights
flows smoothly from the lips of the leaders of France and Germany. But continuing
Franco-German hegemony in Europe is bad news for human rights, especially
for victims whose oppressors are European Union partners. Take, for example,
the victims of the Sudanese government's genocidal jihad. In the words of
US Secretary of State Colin Powell, there is ''no greater tragedy on the face
of the earth than the tragedy that is unfolding in the Sudan.'' . . .


 


href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31500">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31500


 


Why we're going to liberate Iraq


The following is adapted from a speech I gave Saturday at Southern Oregon
University to a group largely made up of anti-war students and professional
activists . . .


My speech didn't go over too well with that crowd, so I thought I'd
try it out on WorldNetDaily's readers.
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Palatino'>


Since our purpose today
is to try to shed some light on America's imminent invasion of Iraq, let's
look at the situation together – honestly – and try to separate reality from
fantasy and foolishness . . .




 href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31446">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31446


The misguided peaceniks


 



Remember the old poster from the 1960s – "War is not healthy for
children and other living things"?


I think it's time to revise that for the sake of the misguided peaceniks
of this era – "War is not healthy for tyrants and other living thugs."
. . .


 


 href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31502">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31502
 


Kofistyle='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Palatino;
color:black'> Annan's arrogance
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>


 




On television screens around the world, Kofi
Annan said: "The members of the Security Council
now face a great choice. If they fail to agree on a common position, and action
is taken without the authority of the Security Council, the legitimacy and
support of any such action will be seriously impaired."


Mr. Annan, you're dead wrong.


Military action by the United States is legitimized
by the U.S. Congress, not by the U.N. Security Council. style='mso-spacerun:yes'> On Oct. 16, 2002, Congressional Resolution 114
became Public Law 107-243 . . . .


Not another word is needed.


It is the U.N.'s 12-year failure to enforce 17 of its own resolutions
that has allowed Iraq to become a serious threat to the United States. Now
that Iraq is a threat which the U.S. must remove, Kofi
class=SpellE>Annan has the audacity to condemn the actions as "illegitimate."
This pronouncement by Kofi class=SpellE>Annan will make any action taken by the U.S. subject to the
war-crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court, in the eyes of
the United Nations . . .



href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31526">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31526


 


Why Saddam must go


. . . To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must either deter or remove the
countries in which terrorism is manufactured. Groups like al-class=SpellE>Qaida thrive on state sponsors – countries that provide shelter,
funds, and/or the fundamentalist environment that breeds terrorism in the
first place. We must somehow motivate these states to abandon the terrorist
infrastructure they currently maintain . . . . style='mso-spacerun:yes'> As long as terrorism serves its purpose, as long
as there is more to gain than to lose, Mideast rulers
will continue to exploit terrorist strategy . . .


 


AND, TO BALANCE OFF OUR THINKING
. . .


 


 style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial'>href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31512">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31512


 


The morality of war


In one last attempt to drum up support for war in Iraq, the White House
is wrapping itself in the divine . . .


http://www.msnbc.com/news/884624.asp?cp1=1


 


FBI probes
fake papers on Iraq

style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:black'>Investigation eyes possible role of foreign intelligence service
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>
style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Verdana'>



 


WASHINGTON,
March 13 — The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence
linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that
a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military
action against Iraq.


 


“IT’S SOMETHING we’re
just beginning to look at,” a senior law enforcement official said yesterday.
Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try
to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of
a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service.
style='mso-special-character:line-break'>






Thursday, March 06, 2003

EAR TICKLERS # 2


Exposing the dynamics and consequences of deception in our media
and public debates


email: kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk


kairos focus reference web: http://members.christhost.com/kairosfocus/index.htm


Caribbean Kairos egroup: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/caribbeankairos/


 


Changing the Tone of Public Debate in Jamaica


As we look at Jamaica's many development challenges, it has become increasingly
evident that it is only a national consensus -- one achieved through a broad-based
discussion in light of true facts, sound reasoning and enduring values -- that
can lead us to consistently make the just decisions and undertake the wise actions
that will help us to build a nation worth living in.


However, whether we are concerned over our long-standing economic and social
crises, or over political or religious concerns, or the recent attempt to censure
our Finance Minister, or the looming Iraq war, much of our public debate brims
over with shrill anger and ill-informed shallowness. As a result, it often seems
that it is power, bias and narrow hidden agendas (rather than a civil consensus
based on wisdom, balance and fairness) that drive our public discussion and
decision-making. It is tempting to conclude that this is why it often seems
that "we never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."


It is therefore refreshing to read the standard set by the Apostle Paul: "we
have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we
distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly,
we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." [2 Cor.
4:1 - 2.]


In a cynical, post-modern age, the retort is all-too-ready: whose truth,
balance, fairness, consensus and civility?


The rebuttal is twenty-four hundred years old. For, in his classic The Rhetoric,
Aristotle long ago pointed out how popular arguments usually appeal first of
all to our emotions, then to our trust in allegedly credible authorities, and
only in the last instance, to actual logical demonstration. But, it is easy
to see that while emotions may rest on accurate perceptions, they often blind
us to the truth. Second, no authority is better than his or her facts and reasoning.
Thus, it is only when claimed facts give a balanced view of the truth, and are
tied to correct reasoning, that conclusions are soundly arrived at.


Perhaps, then, we can apply to our own situation the hard lessons taught by
the early Greek philosophers. For, they had seen how the Athenian experiment
in democracy had collapsed under the leadership of rhetorically brilliant, charismatic
and clever (but ever so unsound and corrupt) leaders who manipulated the citizens
to make rash decisions that cost them dear.


Pilate's cynical question, recorded in John 18:38 -- "What is truth?" -- is
even more telling. For, that cowardly Governor was about to knowingly condemn
an innocent man to a cruel death, for political advantage. Thank God, as Tony
Campolo has famously observed, "that was Friday, but Sunday was coming."


In short, Democracy -- the ever-unfinished experiment in self-government by
a free people -- clearly comes with great responsibility.


Ambassador Sue Cobb, in responding to the local debate over Iraq, has spoken
well on this point: "The United States has long stood for the fundamental values
of democracy, freedom, liberty and tolerance. Our commitment to these ideals
has built a great nation, and does not end at our borders. Indeed, with great
power comes great responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to engage in
constructive dialogue . . . . we value the diversity of opinion, and the freedoms
of assembly and speech, which our two nations hold so dear." [S. Gleaner Feb.
23, 2003, p. G5.]


Now, we must immediately join with the Native Americans, Mexicans, Cubans,
Haitians and others in setting the record straight: the history of the United
States (contrary to the Ambassador's further remarks) has plainly sometimes
been "one of imperialist reach." Equally, however, the Czech national hero,
Vaclav Havel and others are right to point to how that great nation undertook
great sacrifices over the past sixty years as it helped to liberate Europe,
Japan and other nations around the world from oppressive, aggressive tyrants
and their destructive ideologies.


Such balancing remarks are in order, but they are not central. What is, is
Ms Cobb's call to responsible use of freedom, through "constructive dialogue"
that promotes the fair-minded, balanced consensus that leads to wise decisions
and effective nation-building action. (Hardly less important is the exemplary
gracious civility of her tone.)


Finally, as the Psalmist observes: "Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders
labour in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard
in vain." [Psalm 127:1 - 2.] I see in that a clarion call for Jamaica's Christian
community to take the lead in fearlessly prophetic, constructive national dialogue
-- not to mention, repentance and mutual reconciliation -- towards the sound,
sustainable development, blessing and transformation of our land.


______________________________________________


Gordon Mullings is a Christian thinker who is trained in the physical sciences
and business, works in education, the environment and sustainable development,
and seeks to promote constructive dialogue towards national and global transformation.

Sunday, February 16, 2003

Ear Ticklers #1:


email: kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk


kairos focus web: http://members.christhost.com/kairosfocus/index.htm


Caribbean Kairos eGroup: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/caribbeankairos/


Wishful Complacency: Crying "Peace, Peace" when there is no Peace


The Prophet Jeremiah, speaking to the leaders and people of Judah, pleaded:



"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually
the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? The wise will be put
to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the
word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?. . . From the least to
the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practise
deceit.They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious.
"Peace, peace," they say, when there is no peace.
Are they ashamed
of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even
know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought
down when they are punished, says the LORD. " [Jer. 8:8 - 12.]



Duly, Nebuchadnezzar's armies defeated Judah, and the nation went into exile,
following its elder sister that had been exiled by the Assyriians a hundred
years before, and in a similar context of complacent apostasy.


Jeremiah Today


The prophet highlights a tellingly familiar cluster of precursors to God's
judgement against an apostate culture that has rejected his Word:



  • Empty religiosity, backed up by mishandling of the Word of God, based on
    a false "wisdom."

  • Deceit, greed for gain and self-indulgent prosperity -- including many of
    the religious leaders

  • Loss of a sense of shame -- in Paul's apt words: "Having lost all sensitivity,
    they have given themselves over to sensuality to indulge in every kind of
    impurity, with a continual lust for more." [Eph. 4:19.]

  • A complacent desire for a false peace that would allow them to continue
    to indulge in their sins.

  • Ignoring God's conditions for the blessing of peace: "When a man's
    ways are pleasing to the Lord, he makes even his enemies live at peace with
    him." [Prov. 16:7.]


So, for instance, as we look at the sickening headlines that proudly announce
Jamaica's Third Annual Valentine's Day Mass Nude Wedding at the locally owned
(and all too well-named) Hedonism III Hotel -- duly officiated by a Minister
of Religion -- Jeremiah's warning takes on an ominous tone. Similarly, we see
an ever-accelerating trend in that nation: church attendance is up, and so are
murder, the illicit drugs trade, levels of personal stress, the rate of births
out of wedlock, and the rate of exchange against the US Dollar.


Where is the sensitivity that blushes at depravity? The repentance? The seeking
after God and godliness?


Wider afield, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United
States, it was sad but predictable to see the firestorm of protest that burst
out when one or two prominent conservative religious leaders raised questions
as to whether the sinful self-indulgence of that once-faithfully Christian nation
has led to a lowering of God's hedge of protection, and to the climate of anger
that feeds the islamist terrorism that exploited the resulting opportunity.
These men have had to apologise for offending their fellow countrymen, and are
dismissed as dangerous right-wing idiots. And yet, the three thousand who perished
on that sad day are less than the daily number of victims of abortion offered
up on the altar of "a woman's right to choose."


At the global level, an apostate, secularised and neo-pagan West seeks to cling
to power. Largely in reaction to this, the increasingly radicalised Islamic
bloc rises up in anger at real and perceived injustices and lashes out in terrorism
and jihads from the Philippines and Indonesia, to Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Ivory
Coast, Nigeria and the United States. And both perceive the rising tide of Christian
reformation in the South as a major threat.


Clearly, then, there is little prospect for lasting peace in our time -- regardless
of the wishful thinking of the peace-marchers and diplomatic appeasers of the
many aggressive tyrants that are working feverishly to arm themselves with the
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that could easily turn the horrible
visions of Revelations into apocalyptic reality.


Implications for the Caribbean


Here in the Caribbean, we live in one of the geopolitical hinges of the resulting
three-way contest for the world. For, the secularists, apostates and neopagans
want us for a playground (hence our tourist industry's ever-rising trend of
sensual indulgence), and as cannon-fodder to go south. The islamists want us
as a base to project into North America, piercing the belly of "the Great
Satan."


But, none of these grand schemes will ultimately prevail.


For, as our Lord has prophesied, as is recorded in Matt. 24, when the disciples
asked him: "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the
sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"



4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come
in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many. 6 You will
hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such
things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes
in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9 "Then you
will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated
by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the
faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will
appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness,
the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will
be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the
whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.



So, when we see the likes of a Bishop Spong usiing his Bishop's robes to provide
a false authority as he tells us that the historic Christian Faith of the Apostles,
Martyrs and Reformers is bankrupt; we should recognise apostasy when we see
it.


Likewise, when we see a Dr Afroz asserting that on the eve of Emancipation
there were hundreds of thousands of muslims ands crypto-muslims among the 320,000
slaves on Jamaica's plantations, we should spot the obvious fallacies and agenda.
(For instance, why then is it that the predominant religious traditions of folk
culture are: African-derived animism, and Protestant Christianity, and of course,
the many attempted blends of the two?)


For, as we grow into a truly mature Christian faith 'we will no longer be infants,
tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of
teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.
Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him
who is the Head, that is, Christ." [Eph. 4:14 - 15.]


Therefore, most of all, let us heed the words of Paul:



"Now brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you,
for you know very well that the day of the Lord [cf. Amos 5:18 - 6:8!] will
come like a thief in the night. While people are saying "peace and safety,"
destruction will come upon them suddenly . . . and they will not escape. But
you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like
a thief. You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong
to the night or to the darkness. So then, let us not be like the others, who
are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. For those who sleep,
sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. But since we
belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as
a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. For God did not appoint
us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."
[1 Thess 5:1 - 9.]



 

Thursday, January 30, 2003

[1/9/2003 4:49:17 AM | Gordon Mullings]
HARD CHOICES # 5

Reformation: The Underpinning of Blessings -- Liberty, Justice and General Prosperity

email: kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk

kairos focus web: http://members.christhost.com/kairosfocus/index.htm

egroup: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/caribbeankairos/

If vigilance is the price of freedom, reformation is its underlying foundation. For, once liberty has been achieved in a culture, on one excuse or another there are powerful individuals, cabals and groups that will seek to undermine it.

Nowadays, the usual excuses are that we need to protect the poor or provide social welfare, or save the earth, or latterly, to impose Allah's will on the world.

However, as a rule, on whatever rationale that may be cooked up, liberty and justice in a community decay across time. So, prophetic institutions are required top provide that intellectual and cultural and ethical leadership that can begin the process of reformation.

So, we face the hard choice: "today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts."

But, maybe, the incentives to go along with the current rapid global erosion of liberty and justice are perhaps too tempting?

That is the choice we shall have to make in the Caribbean. And, if we are to make a sound choice, we will have to ignore those who are only too glad to tickle our ears with what they think we want to hear.

I guess that leads to a series on exposing ears ticklers in the region, in the interests of reformation.

However, first, some challenges: we will have to stand up and seize the intitiative to provide prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership if the region is to preserve the blessings of liberty, justice and prosperity in the new millennium.

So: why not now, why not here, and why not us?

Saturday, December 21, 2002

HARD CHOICES # 3

Frameworks for liberty and progress



email: kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk

kairos focus web: http://members.christhost.com/kairosfocus/index.htm


Sadly, it is fair comment to note that, across the world, and over the long reach of history, the typical person in most societies has usually been oppressed, subject to the tyranny of princes, nobles, dictators or conquerors; and one or two bad harvests away from famine. The plight of minorities has, as a rule, been even worse. Also, until quite recently, slavery was a near-universal institution. (We must note here, that the modern anti-slavery movement argues that there may be more people in slave-like conditions – or even outright slavery – than at any earlier time in history!)

In short, it is liberty, justice and progress that need to be explained, not the opposite.

Breakthrough to Liberty & Prosperity

The key factors in the ongoing global breakthrough to progress are rooted in the renaissance, the Iberian breakout by sea at the turn of the sixteenth Century, the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, the protestant (especially calvinist) reformation, and the American Revolution:

1) The Renaissance began a ferment of change, through the spirit of critical inquiry that it fostered – though it was also marked by a peak of tyranny, such as has been notoriously summarised in Machiavelli’s infamous textbook for tyrants, The Prince.

2) The Portuguese and Spanish mariners stitched the world together by pioneering the sea trade routes that have created the modern world. So, though the emergence of a global world five hundred years ago also led to a half-millennium of colonial oppression (not least through the conquest of the native American peoples and the Atlantic slave trade), it set a basis for mutually beneficial trade that has helped uplift the standard of living for us all.

3) The scientific and industrial revolutions – environmental challenges and capital-labour conflicts notwithstanding -- led to an ever-growing cascade of knowledge and industrial innovations that have helped us to control infectious diseases, produce a cornucopia of products that are the basis for modern living, and have generally created the high-tech world in which we now live.

4) The protestant reformation and its daughter, the American revolution, are perhaps the most controversial items on the list. However, it is the plain record of history that, for instance, Duplesis-Mornay’s 1579 work, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos drew out of the Bible the concept that rulers hold office under a dual covenant, with God and the people, and are therefore responsible to uphold justice in the community. In 1581, these ideas were incorporated in the Dutch Declaration of Independence , which championed freedom of conscience and the concept that princes are duty-bound to protect the rights, liberties and privileges of their subjects; who have a right of orderly revolution if the prince reneges on his pledge. This line of thinking was further developed in works such as Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex and Locke’s works on government, and is deeply embedded in the 1776 American Declaration of Independence . For all its flaws, it is the success of the American Revolution that has led to the worldwide wave of self-government by a free people under principles of liberty, justice and equality. This revolution has also been strongly associated with market-oriented economics, which has decisively demonstrated that it is the basis for sustained economic growth.

The Bible-based Political Foundation of Liberty

The key political basis for such liberty and progress was aptly summed up by Thomas Jefferson in the second paragraph of the US DOI:

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.” [http://memory.loc.gov/const/declar.html]

The preamble to the US Contitution [1787] amplifies: “We the people . . . in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Consitution . . .” [NB: Note the theological significance of the capitalised phrase: “Blessings of Liberty.” Cf. Deut. 8:1 – 20, 28:1 – 68. It has been noted that the specific document most often cited by the Founding Fathers of the USA is the Book of Deuteronomy.]

Here, the central theme is based on the concept that rights are granted by our Creator – so no government can take them away – and that government is the servant of the people, to promote liberty and justice under God for all. So much is this the case, that when governments become oppressive or incompetent, the people have a collective right of reformation (or if necessary revolution) to restore sound government. Thus, we see the covenantal, servantly concept of government championed by the reformation and based on the Bible: the people, in solemn assembly under God and acting through representative leaders, institute governments, and hold them to account for their performance. [Cf. 1 Sam 8:1 – 10:26; 2 Sam. 2:1 – 4, 5:1 – 5 & 1 Chron 12:23 – 40, in the context of the Books.]

Jefferson’s use of “self-evident” needs some unpacking: the idea is not so much that the claims made in the US DOI are obvious to all, as that to deny them in theory or to subvert them in practice ends in absurdity.

Consequently, over the generations since the founding of the American Republic (and the further evolution of the Westminster-style Parliamentary system in response to its success), further waves of reformation have used the above principles to highlight and respond to various wrongs; especially relating to slavery, racism, oppression of women, and exploitation of the poor. (And, today, we see the patently absurd spectacle that, in the name of “choice” or “reproductive rights” forty million unborn children have been put to death through the US Abortion Industry since 1973. The rhetorical and judicial trick, of course, has been to deny the obvious fact that unborn babies are – just that: human beings with the God-given right to life. [Cf. Luke 2:26 – 45, esp. vv. 36, 39 – 45.] )

Moving on from Absolute Monarchy or Despotism

Despite its many flaws and compromises of principle, over the past two hundred and thirty years the American Revolution and Republic have blazed a trail that has led to the triumph in our time of the concept of democratic, representative self-government of free peoples, towards liberty and justice for all. So much is this the case, that the nature of political debate has shifted.

For, formerly, the standard form of government was the monarchy, often with unaccountable executive power. In contrast, the American experiment applied the principle of separation of powers found in the Bible and championed by leading political thinkers of the time: executive, legislative, representational, and judicial powers are divided across several bodies; which are regulated by a written constitution and accountable to the people through regular elections with broad-based franchise.

So successful has this been that it has now become the standard: “conservatives,” today, are not in the main monarchists, but rather those who favour sharply limited government within the above framework. Beyond them to the Right, we find the Libertarians and Anarchists, who view the state with increasing distrust, and wish to further curtail its powers; to the points where Anarchists would do away with it entirely.

As a result, especially since the fall of the Communist bloc in 1989 - 91,“left-wing” and “right wing” have increasingly come to denote a debate over the extent to which state and international intervention or regulation are justifiable, on what grounds: welfare of the poor, sustainability of development in light of environmental challenges, and the monopolistic threat of the dominant mega-corporation. Conservatives and Libertarians respond that, poverty (at least in the developed world) is increasingly a socio-cultural and behavioural problem rather than an economic one; that the classical, Keynesian welfare state is extremely expensive and ineffective in lifting people out of poverty; that free markets have proved that they are the only known, effective means to promote economic progress; that environmentally-motivated interventions are often based on flawed science, worse economics, and in some cases, outright fraud; and, that the state and international bodies have a very poor track record of performance relative to their rhetoric, so that the real agenda is often unaccountable bureaucratic power, thus tyranny.

To this, we now must add the religious dimension, as the dominant secularist outlook views with deepest suspicion those who view and value the biblical, reformation framework embedded in the principles of democracy. For, they fear the imposition of religiously motivated tyranny in the name of promoting godliness, decency and morality in the community. (The islamist agenda to impose the supremacy of Allah and his warriors over all peoples across the world, such as Mr bin Laden has set out to do, in such minds, underscores the danger. For instance, cf. Barbara Ehrenreich on “Christian Wahhabbaists” and contrast a balancing commentary on the tyrannical tendencies of secularism and the way "pure" democracy tends to deteriorate into mob rule under the influence of manipulative demagogues such as Alcibiades of Athens.)

Choices to Build the Caribbean's Future

Thus, we see several hard choices for the Caribbean:

1) “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” However, “who will guard the guards?” Clearly, it is hard to motivate people as a whole to sustain the effort required to understand issues soundly and keep watch over our public servants’ stewardship. This is the classic principal-agent challenge in economics, and there are no easy ways to so align the interests of the people and the state that public servants will consistently pursue the public interest. [Cf. Luke 16:1 – 15.] We must therefore reserve and jealously guard the right to demand public accountability, and to institute reformation as appropriate. The freedom of the press, the right to free and fair election, and the rights of peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievance are vital to this process. However, all across the region, we have often allowed would-be political messiahs and their parties to so dominate the process and deceive us, that we face a crisis of governance. So, if we are to preserve (or even enhance) our liberties, we will have to devote time and effort to straighten out our thinking and set about the essentially spiritual task of renewal, leading to reformation rather than riot, rebellion or revolution ending in tyranny.

2) Unchecked secularist materialism is clearly inimical to the preservation of “the Blessings of Liberty”: what rights – other than “entitlements” granted by the state (and thus subject to withdrawal by the same state) – can a random bit of rubbish cast up by the evolutionary chaos of the universe have? Similarly, in the name of progress through relieving oppression and poverty, the twentieth century saw the imposition of the worst tyrannies of all time; as judged buy the over 100 millions who paid with their lives for Communist and Fascist/National Socialist [i.e. Nazi] political pipe-dreams. The sad case of Afghanistan under the Taliban shows that religious tyranny is no better. For that matter, classical times, the middle ages, the renaissance, reformation and enlightenment periods were so marked by strife, injustice and tyranny that it is clear that liberty was hard won, and is easily lost. Therefore, if we are to preserve and enhance the liberty we enjoy, we need to study the history of liberty, and resolve to maintain and sustain it across time. In this task, the church must play a vital role, and so it will need to move on beyond escapism to engagement of the task of discipling and reforming the nations under the Lordship of Him whose Spirit brings liberty.

3) Poverty and oppression are parallel, interacting challenges. They are compounded by the facts that economic equality (through re-distributionist policies and politics) and the growth and innovation that are required to create and sustain growth are significantly incompatible. For, as the collapse of Communism and the crisis of the Welfare State have clearly shown, attempts to impose centrally controlled allocation of production, distribution, incomes and consumption choke on the volumes of information and rate of processing required; resulting in wasteful, expensive, oppressive bureaucracies that are always crying out for even more power and control because what has not worked so far did not go far enough. That leaves one player on the field: market-based allocation; balanced by well-judged government regulations and a charity/volunteer/civil society sector that targets upliftment of the deprived within the context of sustainable development. Some form of what has been called “communitarianism,” in short.

4) “Sustainable development” indicates that the region’s environmental challenges cannot be ignored. Notwithstanding the hype and heat that have surrounded the environmentalists, the issues of biophysical environmental damage, coupled to socio-cultural and economic breakdowns that they have raised have a solid core. If we fail to soundly address these core issues, soon, we will suffer devastating consequences. In particular, we must find a more sensible approach to providing the energy that drives our economies and lifestyles, to forests and watersheds, to coastal and marine zone development and management, to urban and rural communities, to tourism and to industry and agriculture. Again, these require study, development and testing of effective solutions through a programme of demonstration projects, and the onward implementation of well-tested, proven approaches that will help us lift our region out of economic stagnation without sacrificing our liberties or our environment in the process.

A tall order. But one which we must pursue. Therefore, we will next begin to look at some specific ways forward.

Saturday, December 14, 2002

Hard Choices, #2:

Balancing Governance, Liberty, Progress and Sustainability


email: kairosfocus@yahoo.co.uk

kairos focus web: http://members.christhost.com/kairosfocus/index.htm



The Acts 27 case we have been exploring highlights the basic fact that we often must make decisions constrained by our uncertainty about the future as well as the finiteness of resources.

Thus, individuals, groups, organisations and societies are forced to set up ways to decide the alternatives to pursue in the face of uncertainty, scarcity and conflicting opinions. (This last point highlights the need to have enough liberty that alternatives – especially those that are unpopular or unpalatable (but may often be sounder/more sustainable) -- are heard and considered.)

This brings us to the issue of governance: the business of governing – incorporating but going beyond the state and its organs and officers. (Here, it is helpful to note that the root of “government” is the Greek word kubernete, used in Acts 27 as the technical term for the “steersman” of the ship, the officer who was responsible for its technical navigation through the trackless and potentially stormy seas to safe harbour.)

As Acts 27 also illustrates, sustainable governance is tied to issues of liberty and justice, to the strong desire for progress that animates us all, and to the resulting processes of recognising challenges; identifying opportunities and alternatives; hearing diverse perspectives; making decisions and implementing them. For, it was vital that Paul was heard, even though his warning was not heeded; for this then gave him credibility in the crisis, which saved the passengers when the sailors would have abandoned them on a ruse.

Immediately, this highlights the importance of “liberty and justice for all.” For, quite often the soundest path is not in accord with the wishes of the powerful or of the majority. So, if the minority, down to one individual, is not heard and protected in a family, or an organisation or community, then the quality of information on which decisions are made is liable to suffer.

But sometimes, community decisions reject sound counsels because they are unpalatable – the reason why Scriptures warn of false leaders who “tickle our itching ears with what we want to hear.” In cases such as in Acts 27, where a wiser alternative had been heard, it allows the stakeholders and decision-makers to recognise their error and change their estimation of whose counsel they should heed. Of course, if a fatal error has been made, remorse may come too late; there is an incentive to get the decision right the first time!

In short, if a community wishes to consistently make sound decisions, the principles of liberty and justice should constrain the power of decision-makers and the feelings/passions of the majority. So, if an organisation or community wishes to consistently make sustainable progress, it will have to accept the hard choice of hearing out and protecting those whose counsels it may not wish to hear. Further, it will have to undertake the arduous task of assessing the quality of both popular and unpalatable proposals, and consistently decide to take the prudent path in the face of uncertainties, risks and scarce resources.

That societies, organisations, families and individuals who take the habitual diligent care to do these things, on average, make better progress than those that do not should not be surprising.

However, there is also an inner tension between government and liberty that must be addressed. This brings us to two landmark passages in the history of the balance of liberty and government.

First, Rom. 13:4 – 7:

“For [the civil authority] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

And, the Second Paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organising its powers in such form, as shall to them seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness . . .”

Sometimes, it has been held that these two great passages are irreconcilable, as the first seems to advocate servility, and the latter, revolution.

In fact, they are flip sides of the same coin. The key insight to show this is Paul’s remark that the governor is “God’s servant to do you good . . . an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” That is, Paul sets out the proper role of government: promoting justice, liberty and progress, through administering justice – especially through restraining or defeating wrongdoers who would reduce a society to chaos. The US DOI concurs when it states that governments are instituted to protect our God-given rights, and forfeit their lawful authority when they become destructive to such justice. It proposes the remedy that we see so often in the OT’s Historical and prophetic books: reformation in the first instance, revolution if there is no alternative. (The US DOI, contrary to much popular opinion, is in fact strongly rooted in the Bible, as filtered through the Reformation, especially its Calvinist forms.)

In our day, thank God, neither of these has to be violent: a free press, freedom of assembly, and free and fair elections create a basis for peaceful change towards a better path.

So then, lawful, democratic, sound governance under principles of justice and liberty is a condition for sustainable progress in the community.

This brings us to hard choice # 3: how to so structure the institutions of society that progress is possible.