Individuals must “turn the other cheek” when dealing with other individuals.
States cannot turn the other cheek when they are attacked or they will be wiped out.
That’s an obvious attempt to avoid the force of Jesus’ teaching. The more tenable way to put this is, in the words of Martin Bucer, that we are called to turn our own cheek and not our neighbor’s. That’s a valid argument. But that’s not how you put it. Instead, you speak as if there are things called “states” which have rights and obligations and legitimate courses of behavior available to them, and which *at the same time *are free from the obligation to follow Christian teachings. This is as irrational as it is immoral. There are three possibilities:
- The “state” has no validity as a corporate entity–it is simply a convenient way of talking about how some people act on behalf of other people, so that the moral rules applying to individuals apply no less to those individuals acting for the common good.
- The state is a corporate entity, and insofar as Christians are involved in shaping its actions they should do so according to Jesus’ teachings. In other words, insofar as the state is a Christian state its actions should be similar to those of a Christian individual.
- The state is a corporate entity, but since it is not a Christian corporate entity Christians have no business being involved in it. They should respect it as part of God’s providential order, but at the same time recognize its essentially pagan nature.
I think there are good arguments for and against each of these positions, and my own view is that any one of them may be legitimate depending on the circumstances (in a liberal democracy such as the United States I think that the first definition applies best, in explicitly Christian countries the second, and in countries with a clearly non-Christian identity the third–but I don’t claim great weight for this opinion).
You seem to be saying something like
- The state is a corporate entity completely free from any obligation to follow Jesus’ teachings–but at the same time Christians can and should participate in it and support its actions.
I cannot see this as anything other than idolatry and unfaithfulness to Christ. To use traditional Catholic terminology, it is a clear denial of the Social Kingship of Christ.
War is very bad, but when a country is attacked you MUST go after the attackers. War is unpleasant.
Cleaning a sewer is unpleasant. Killing civilians or treating any human beings in a way incompatible with their God-given dignity and with Christian charity is not just unpleasant (in fact, it may be very pleasant to some people under some circumstances). It’s wicked. We are not talking about whether certain kinds of warlike actions are pleasant but about whether they are wicked, and you show the essential amorality of your position by using the frivolous and irrelevant word “unpleasant.”
[There are a few rules … but the rules only apply when combatants follow the rules. Our attackers don’t qualify because they hide among the civilian population, don’t carry identification, etc. Been discussed numerous times.]
The repetition of an immoral position does not make it moral. We are not just talking about “rules” in the sense of rules of a game. We are talking about basic principles of natural law and Christian morality. These do not cease to be binding on us just because our enemies choose to disregard them. If we imitate our enemies, we obviously lose our claim to relative justice and morality in comparison with them. I don’t understand why this is not obvious.
Ann Coulter is trying to make the point. But those attacking Ann Coulter seem to want us to fight with watercress and cucumber sandwiches with the crusts cut off.
No, we want to fight in a manner in keeping with natural law and the teachings of Christ. The only possible alternative for Christians is not to fight at all. But most of us are not brave or virtuous enough to embrace Christian pacifism.
That’s not the way nations fight wars.
It (i.e., what I am advocating and not your silly caricature thereof) is not the way wicked and idolatrous nations fight wars, true. It is the way righteous nations which respect God’s laws fight wars, if they fight them at all.
Edwin
