Comments for Violence finds refuge in falsehood at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://pres-outlook.net Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:37:45 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/552.html#comment-2017 I think it is important to use strong rhetoric today, and Prof. Hunsinger is doing just this. To make the point, one must overemphasize it, even to the exclusion of a 'balanced' and 'unbiased' perspective. Mr. Wilson's account of Saddam's use of violence only further proves Hunsinger's point: Violence is NOT a neutral tool, to be used for good or evil purposes. By its very nature, it corrupts the user, and never delivers on the promise of peace (except perhaps a short-term amount to the powerful side). Hunsinger's message is clearly not just a swipe at American violence, but violence in general, including that used by all regimes! Therefore, one should see it as a rebuke against hypocrisy in our country, where our government tortures and kills human beings for the sake of OUR security and goals, just as Saddam did for his own power and in the interests of stability in Iraq. I suggest reading Mr. Simpson's latest editorial on the BBC for an interesting look at Saddam's mindset (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4371490.stm) Do we look at Saddam Hussein's regime and the Bush regime and see ourselves, our ghastly sinful nature concealed with good intentions, concealed with falsehood? May the Holy Spirit continue to help us do so, and lead us into peace. - Chris TerryNelson Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/552.html#comment-2011 We need this word from Professor Hunsinger, especially in these days when so many believe in what Walter Wink calls 'the myth of redemptive violence'. I commend the new book of essays edited by Donald Musser and Dixon Sutherland called WAR OR WORDS? INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PEACE, which discusses the relevant issues, obstacles and movement toward religious and political dialogue. The book concludes with these words from John Dom Crossan: 'After September 11, 2001, and the war with Iraq, it should be clear to us that two options are set before us: either victory for peace or justice for peace. The first model is provided by the Roman empire and second by the Jewish and Christian traditions found in the Torah, prophets, wisdom,and historical Jesus. Between these two options, it has become clear to me that the violence of victory which establishes peace comes at too high a price becasue it keeps feeding violence into the process. The second option holds our only promise of a meaningful future. It is a much more radical idea fraught with many pitfalls and dangers. Among them is the danger that we confuse justice with victory. When this happens it is usually because we have forgotten the mold within which God's justice is held--love. Justice without love easily turns into brutality, while love without justice often results in banality. In order for the religions of the world to benefit from any dialogue, or contribute to any efforts for global peace, we must opt for the second option. Lasting peace comes only through justice. Lack of justice shakes the very foundations of the earth.' - John Kleinheksel Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/guest-commentary/552.html#comment-2009 One might wish that Dr. Hunsinger would demonstrate a more balanced critique and more tempered language, but he has not changed his rhetoric or approach since before the invasion of Iraq, and he still seems oblivious to facts and realities. In doing so, he severely blunts the force of his argument and denies the justice of his cause. To quote: 'hundreds of thousands are killed or maimed, no one is safe in the streets; homes, hospitals and mosques are blown up; water, electricity and other services are cut off; civil society is destroyed, half the population is left without means of livelihood, prisons are filled with people picked up off the streets, detainees are tortured and humiliated, cities are targeted and destroyed, and the insurgency is blamed on outside elements'. Unbiased observers, including the UN observers present in Iraq prior to the invasion, said almost exactly the same things about the country of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. 'Civil society is destroyed'? Is this a reference to the holocaust carried out by Saddam's regime against the Kurds in northern Iraq? To the Kurdish children murdered by poisonous gas? One needs to consider the events of today--Saddam Hussein stood in a Baghdad courtroom, being tried by Iranian justices, accused of the murder of more than 150 Iraqi citizens in ONE incident in 1982. The UN itself states that many, many thousands of Iraqis were systematically executed by Saddam's regime. Both the Shias and the Kurds were recipients of Saddam's justice. To state that they lived in an Avalon which has now been destroyed is ludicrous and insulting to their sufferings. The above statements do not negate some of Dr. Hunsinger's statements. There have been excesses, and for that we need to be accountable and act more justly in the future. However, the vast majority of Iraqis being 'killed and maimed' are the victims of violence perpetrated by their countrymen, or by terrorists funded from abroad. One would hope that Dr. Hunsiger is a more thoughtful and unbiased instructor in Presbyterian theology and doctrine than he is an op-ed writer. His students need to be taught principled inquiry and careful thought, not the skills of diatribe. Otherwise, they will have little standing in the public square. - Howard wilson Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:00:00 +0100