More Iraq Veterans Kill Themselves than Die in Battle
Posted on September 3, 2010 at 9.57 am
Shocked to discover the statistic that 2 times more American soldiers that served in Iraq had died in 2009 by committing suicide than those killed in combat during that same year hadn’t been properly addressed in the press and is unknown by a majority of the general population, New York-based installation artist Sebastian Errazuriz took to the wall outside of his studio in Brooklyn.
Learn more here. Hat tip to CJ Scrofani.
0 comments•
Print This Post
• Peace at Church?
Posted on September 2, 2010 at 2.16 pm
I like the church I attend. It seems to be doctrinally sound, committed to in-depth exegetical teaching, and populated with friendly people truly interested in serving the Lord and making me feel welcome.
But, as with many American churches, there’s always the occasional hint of — well, “idolatry” seems too strong a word in this case, though I’ve certainly seen my fair share of exactly that — thoughtlessness toward the military. I don’t mean thoughtlessness as the opposite of thoughtfulness/kindness, but rather thoughtlessness in the sense of a simple lack of thought.
As in many churches, support for the military is taken as a given. Many services include prayer for the troops and their safety. Though I have some issues with this practice*, I understand the honest concern church-goers may have for their loved ones fighting abroad. But, as Laurence Vance writes,
I still see on church signs and church websites the “support our troops,” “pray for our troops,” and “God bless our troops” mantras. It doesn’t matter where U.S. troops go, how many go, how long they stay, or what they do when they are there – support for the military is a fundamental of the faith, right up there with the Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ.
And that concerns me. After all, is not Christ the “Prince of Peace”? Furthermore, as Norman Horn of Libertarian Christians writes in the excellent piece which sparked this post,
[I]f you consider [the Iraqi and Afghan civilians] as we do, that they are innocent victims and have been wronged by their own leaders, by extremists, and by our own military, then may we pray to God as Jesus taught his disciples: to be “delivered from evil.” If we can pray this for ourselves, surely we can do so for others.
But second, if you still consider these people our enemies, then may we do as Jesus said in Matthew 5: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” May this be the beginning of understanding what Jesus said moments before, “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
2 comments•
Print This Post
• A libertarian technicality? Maybe. But regardless, here’s minarchism over anarchism.
Posted on August 26, 2010 at 5.09 pm
Q. You said you believe in minarchism. How do you reply to the claim that taxation is theft? And furthermore, since you believe in a free market, why would the market not be a good way to run things like the legal system and police forces? It works for everything else, what makes law or police any different? — logicallypositive, from tumblr.
A. Well, I’m not fond of taxation. The income tax is certainly abusive and unnecessary. Indeed, I’d prefer to have the government funded in as noncoercive a manner as possible. I kind of like Ron Paul’s idea of a low, uniform import tariff — or, even better, lottery (with private lotteries legalized, of course). That’s basically voluntary taxation, which I find completely acceptable.
That said, I’m not an anarchist and do want a nightwatchman state for the protection of person and property. I’m inclined to think persons smarter than I could figure out a way to fund it without taxation, but, assuming they were fairly applied (not progressive or regressive, for instance) I’m not against the very low taxes which would be required to support such a minimal regime.
Note: Taxation for unjust purposes (aggressive war, corporate or social welfare, etc.) is indeed theft. But I assume we agree on that point.
In answer to the second half of your inquiry, what makes it different is that my right to the nonviolation of my person and property has nothing to do with how much of that property I have.
This isn’t the case with the sorts of things the market handles; I have no right to health care regardless of my wealth, but I do have a right to not be assaulted no matter how poor I am. For instance, just because I can’t afford to hire a judge and lawyer, you still shouldn’t be able beat me up or burn my house down. But the fact that I can’t afford to hire a doctor very much means he’s not obligated to treat me.
Now, given the choice between our current government and the anarcho-capitalism you describe, I’d certainly pick the latter. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s the best option.
1 comment•
Print This Post
• « Older Entries
