Why Are American Christians So Bloodthirsty?

[Spongemom]

Why Are Some American Christians So Bloodthirsty?
Understanding Pro-war Christians' Indifference to Civilian Deaths
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

It's been going on for years now. Almost daily we read that another child, another parent, another sister or brother, another grandpa or aunt, is killed in Afghanistan or Iraq by U.S. weaponry in Mr. Bush's "war on terror." Sometimes it's a wedding party, or a bunch of kids, or a family of six. Sometimes it's a journalist, or a whole group of journalists, who may even be killed on camera in real time for all the world to see and hear.

But no matter how bad it gets, nothing seems to change Americans' support for war, which for some reason is stiffest among Christian supporters of the Bush administration. "Stuff happens in a war zone." "Don't worry because God is in control." With these and other slogans, I've been reassured by countless pro-war Christians that, as long as civilians aren't intentionally targeted, taking their lives is okay, maybe even predestined, God's will.

Recently a Christian from Australia wrote to ask, "Why are American Christians so bloodthirsty? Why do they support the war in Iraq, no matter how many innocent people are made to suffer? We just don't understand why they're willing to kill other people so that they can feel more safe – it's so selfish!"

She's right, and she's wrong. She's right about the fact that many Christians in America will blindly support whichever war their president promotes, with the assumption that his much-advertised praying guarantees us that God approves of all those bombs and missiles, and even the inevitable collateral damage.

This "don't worry, be happy" stance of pro-war Christians can make those of us who suffer at the news of civilian deaths almost green with envy: How do they go blithely to church, pray and give an offering, then go eat some nice mashed potatoes and gravy at Cracker Barrel with nary a worry about the families being bombed or shot or crushed by their own military at that very moment?

But she's wrong in her assumption that all Christians in the U.S. find civilian deaths an acceptable price to (let someone else) pay for Mr. Bush's ultimate goals. Many, including those in the evangelical community, were raised to obey Jesus' teachings above any other, and suffer mightily whenever they learn that more innocent people have lost their lives to this terrorizing "war on terror."

She's also wrong about the seemingly bloodthirsty attitude of pro-war Christians; most of them are nice people on a personal basis. They love their kids and their fellow Americans, and would never have supported the bombing of, say, Oklahoma City's malls and suburbs in an effort to target a Timothy McVeigh. And they certainly don't go around saying they hope a lot more civilians are killed by U.S. bombs and guns. They've been trained to deny it's happening or downplay its importance, thinking instead about Iraq's future democracy, the next life, or the "big picture."

Failure to Care: How it Happens

The reasons for blindness or indifference toward civilian casualties are several. Many if not most pro-war Christians, particularly those in the southern and midwestern states:

-rarely see news accounts of civilian casualties because our major TV news programs and newspapers either omit those stories altogether or mention them in passing (without photos, the crucial element in terms of public opinion) and, wanting to believe that Bush's war is working, do not seek out evidence of the maiming and killing of our troops or of Iraqi civilians,

-have been immunized against thinking for themselves or doubting the Bush administration with certain Bible verses (particularly those verses in Romans telling us to obey and submit to governmental authority figures) – a passive stance that's strikingly different from the questioning that Jesus both urged and modeled toward greedy, power-seeking, and hypocritical authority figures (e.g., "false prophets" and "wolves in sheep's clothing"),

-are told not to worry, when they do hear of civilian casualties, that life in the flesh is less important than life eternal (one European writer told me that a friend confided, "Yes it's sad, but if some Iraqi civilians are killed by U.S. bombs and it saves even one soul, it will have been worth it" – a sentiment that, sadly, is not unusual),

-feel they dare not oppose this or any war because talking about peace, objecting to war's human cost, or even referring to the United Nations has become associated in their minds with the Antichrist and eternal damnation, thanks to fictional works based on Thessalonians such as the Left Behind books and video (this video makes clear the fearful reasoning behind the knee-jerk reactions of many pro-war Christians against peace itself, peacemakers of any kind [poignant indeed in light of Jesus' teaching, "Blessed are the peacemakers"], the Middle East "road map," international dialogue and cooperation, and any form of human rights accountability), and

-have been convinced by right-wing preachers, authors and radio hosts (people like Rush Limbaugh are the most influential, because their voices are heard for hours daily rather than written in a book or heard once a week in church) to shift their allegiance away from Jesus' teachings about merciful behavior toward and compassion for family and stranger alike ("the least of these") to the more pro-violence, pro-war values espoused by various non-Gospel biblical writers.


Each of these is a powerful influence, but when combined, they dramatically alter Christian values in fundamental ways. Whereas evangelical churches used to teach compassion (in liberal doses, not conservative soundbites) and warn against responding to threats or attacks with violence, today's conservative churches urge parishioners to support capital punishment, zero-tolerance policies of all kinds, and corporal punishment to "shape the will" of babies, toddlers, and children. Someone raised in this kind of environment grows up to become an adult who's afraid to step out of line, and who naturally resents or even hates those who feel free to do so.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card summed it up best: President Bush sees Americans as so many children who need a father to guide and protect them. Indeed, conservative Christians are raised for a dictatorship where the "leaders" make the calls and are not to be questioned, rather than a democracy, where dissent is a cherished right. As linguistics professor George Lakoff has concluded from his study of the conservative-liberal divide that's polarizing American society, conservatives (the popular but by no means accurate label) are accustomed to, hence gravitate toward, a strict father – and nothing can be more strict than "our father" Bush demanding that we accept without question all the "stuff" that happens in his war.

Moral Relativism: In War, Anything Goes

But most importantly, conservative Christianity in the U.S. has succumbed to that which it has, in decades past, most rigorously warned against: moral relativism. By restricting any discussion of morality to sexual behavior, right-wing politicians have obliterated the once-central Christian teaching that the way we teach others is of paramount importance to God. Cleverly "working the room," pro-war politicians have infiltrated churches to such a degree that killings and torture are no longer within the province of morality. When morality is only about sex, no aspect of war – even the killing of entire families – can arouse criticism, much less condemnation.

In short, everything that happens in the execution of war, even that which is flagrantly in violation of the moral values that Jesus taught regarding violence and revenge, prayer for enemies and peacemaking, becomes acceptable when Jesus' teachings are compartmentalized as relevant only in our personal lives. When Jesus is sidelined, those parts of the Bible that support authority, no matter what it does to innocent people, will take precedence. This is what has happened (often with the prodding, political influence and financial support of right-wing political organizations) in many of our churches today. Unless Christians begin to speak up publicly for the teachings of Christ – the cornerstone of our faith – we will continue to slide into the kind of moral relativism that causes others to wonder why we are so bloodthirsty.

Comments on this please...

[RightWing]

Before I start, I am against Bush during the election for various reasons... but the Iraqi Conflict is one place that I DO agree with him.

1. The writer obviously isn't a Christian.

2. I'm for the war in Iraq and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the guy was talking about... that's just crazy. He has committed the logical fallacy of 'Hasty Generalization'.

3. The reason I believe the 'War in Iraq' (as the media calls it so they can forget what it was really called... Operation Iraqi Freedom makes Bush look too good...) was justified was this: there is an estimated 15,000 civilians who have died. That breaks my heart. But there are millions who are now living in freedom, and will soon have a country where human dignity is still respected. The war boils down to this: what is greater? Life, or Liberty?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"

Patrick Henry summed it up perfectly.

Now, as an American, we obviously are used to have freedom. We are used to being able to criticize our president, our government, and lie about them on National TV. If we lived in Iraq, we would have been killed for that.

God Bless,

Rightwing

[perfessor]

Before I start, I am against Bush during the election for various reasons... but the Iraqi Conflict is one place that I DO agree with him.
<snip...>
3. The reason I believe the 'War in Iraq' (as the media calls it so they can forget what it was really called... Operation Iraqi Freedom makes Bush look too good...) was justified was this: there is an estimated 15,000 civilians who have died. That breaks my heart. But there are millions who are now living in freedom, and will soon have a country where human dignity is still respected. The war boils down to this: what is greater? Life, or Liberty?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"

Patrick Henry summed it up perfectly.

Did those 15,000 (BTW, civilian casualties, which includes the maimed, have topped 100,000) have a choice? Did they get to make a Patrick Henry speech?

Look, maybe they will indeed be better off someday. But the war was sold on false pretenses, fought on the cheap with poor planning, with no endpoint definable. What we did was comparable to swatting a hornet's nest with a tennis racket. Are we better off without that hornet's nest? Well yes. But it has to be done right, which it wasn't.

I'm curious to know how old you are, and what your enlistment plans are.

[RightWing]

Did those 15,000 (BTW, civilian casualties, which includes the maimed, have topped 100,000) have a choice? Did they get to make a Patrick Henry speech?

1 It's actually impossible to know how many have truly been hurt... communications of our media are still not perfect.

2 Only Patrick Henry could make a Patrick Henry Speech. But no, they didn't make the speech.

Look, maybe they will indeed be better off someday. But the war was sold on false pretenses, fought on the cheap with poor planning, with no endpoint definable.

True... to some extent. "False pretenses" implies that we were lied to. We weren't... Bush was mistaken about the WMDs. Actually, that wasn't the only reason we were there... Iraq took part in planning blowing up President George H. W. Bush with a car bomb according to the White House (whitehouse.gov)... not good. They (meaning Iraq) also slaughtered their own people... they also were under a dictatorship.

I personally don't think that if we had the info we do now that we should have went in, but I certainly do not think that the war was a bad decision based on the info that we had.

What we did was comparable to swatting a hornet's nest with a tennis racket. Are we better off without that hornet's nest? Well yes. But it has to be done right, which it wasn't.

I won't argue that it was done perfectly, because, well, it wasn't. But I will argue that as a Christian who supports us staying there, that I am not blood thirsty. "Blood thirsty" implies that I want the war so people will die... nothing could be further from the truth. I support the war because the war is on liberty's side.

I'm curious to know how old you are, and what your enlistment plans are.

If the info will be used to attack me, and not the message, I can't oblige. If you are truly curious, PM me and I'll be happy to reply.

God Bless,

Rightwing

[perfessor]

I'm curious to know how old you are, and what your enlistment plans are.

If the info will be used to attack me, and not the message, I can't oblige. If you are truly curious, PM me and I'll be happy to reply.

God Bless,

Rightwing

Thank you for your courteous reply. I think that although we have different perspectives on the war, our overall views may not be that far off. After a long and gruelling election season, in which minor differences are made to appear enormous, it would be unproductive to try to "win" a debate here - so I'll just say again, thank you.

Also, I'd like to apologize for an inappropriate question, made in the heat of the moment. It does irk me that Bush never served active duty, and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft etc. never served at all (Powell excepted). But that is their fault, not yours.

[Quarkhead]

3. The reason I believe the 'War in Iraq' (as the media calls it so they can forget what it was really called... Operation Iraqi Freedom makes Bush look too good...) was justified was this: there is an estimated 15,000 civilians who have died. That breaks my heart. But there are millions who are now living in freedom, and will soon have a country where human dignity is still respected. The war boils down to this: what is greater? Life, or Liberty?

I want to focus on this - because I think that, while American Christians are not bloodthirsty, I think that they (the ones who support wars like this - or any wars) are doing an awful lot of rationalizing. From a personal standpoint, is 'freedom' worth more than, say, a family member? If I was living under a regime like Saddam's, would I trade the life of my wife, or my children, for 'freedom,' an esoteric idea? Would such a trade be worth it for you? Having mourned the loss of, perhaps, your entire family, would you be able to say, 'well, at least I am free now?' I don't think I would. The civilian losses, whether 15,000 or 100,000, are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers. Are Christians willing to sacrifice the cherishing of life for an idea? Sadly, it seems that many are.

I don't think you are wrong on a personal level - in other words, I can understand people making such a choice for themselves. You are certainly free to say, freedom is more important than my life, and I will gladly give it in that cause. But do Christians, especially, have the right to make that same choice for others? To force that choice on others?

I have a wonderful cartoon by Shel Silverstein, called "They forgot the nails." In it, Jesus and the soldiers get to Calvary, and the soldiers realize they forgot to bring the nails. As they argue about it, Jesus slips away unseen. In the next frame he returns - carrying a handful of nails. To me this captures beautifully the heart of Christianity. Subsuming our basic compassion and agape in order to rationalize the deaths of innocent people, in the pursuit of an abstract goal, tarnishes that beautiful message. In fact, I'd say it pretty much ignores it.

[RightWing]

From a personal standpoint, is 'freedom' worth more than, say, a family member?

Thank God I live in America, and don't have to make this decision... I would say that America could fall before I would give up my family. I would say that I would give absolutely anything before I would give up my family. A problem with this though: using the idea that women and children will die and thus making any military action no longer an option would bring down freedom, and life. You see, when people do not die fighting tyrants, then the tyrants take over, and kill them anyways. We have seen this with Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam.

Also, in Saddams regime, the government also killed the people.

So, either way, we get death. We will (over time) bring about more death if we stay with Saddam.

So basically:

We can choose between liberty and some death, or totalitarianism and a lot more death.

What would you choose?

Are Christians willing to sacrifice the cherishing of life for an idea?

Absolutely not. Liberty in this sense, is not just an idea, it is simply the absence of a totalitarian regime that isn't afraid to toss people feet first into a plastic shredder.

If someone was dying for an idea, that would mean that the cause did not bring about any pragmatical affect upon anyone, or anything.

But do Christians, especially, have the right to make that same choice for others? To force that choice on others?

It's because of this I would have to say that invading a country for the sake of freeing it's people isn't justified... helping someone, yes, but for that reason only, no.

But again, it is my belief that we should not have gone to Iraq, but we did, and an abundance of good came from it, along with the heartbreak that always accompanies war.

Subsuming our basic compassion and agape in order to rationalize the deaths of innocent people, in the pursuit of an abstract goal, tarnishes that beautiful message. In fact, I'd say it pretty much ignores it.

Again, liberty in the real world is not only an abstract, it is also functional absence of unnecessary/harmful restraints.

God Bless,

Rightwing

[dangerdan]

Hi Rightwing, I look forward to debating with you.

You see, when people do not die fighting tyrants, then the tyrants take over, and kill them anyways. We have seen this with Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam.

Ummm&#8230;.when did people (particularly the west!) die trying to stop any of the above leaders gaining political power? We thought Hitler and fascism was a reasonable option in the early days, perfect for controlling the populace&#8230;(with the Nazi&#8217;s having large rallies in the US, etc) until the war and growing concern arose about genocide (which, indecently, didn&#8217;t prompt incredible moral response in the early days). Stalin was an out and out strategic ally! When did we die trying to stop him rising to power? And Saddam? He was considered quite Ok in the 80&#8217;s&#8230;(indecently, when he was making those infamous mass graves)&#8230;Donald R had some great meetings with him&#8230;he got some considerable support, etc, etc. Though this rather embarrassing history doesn&#8217;t get reported much. Instead we like to think they are just baddies, which we never liked, and we are the goodies, moral and stupendous.

Some more interesting examples are the Suharto regime in Indonesia (who competed with Saddam in barbarism) and also Nicaragua in the 80&#8217;s.

[dangerdan]

So, either way, we get death. We will (over time) bring about more death if we stay with Saddam.

I&#8217;m wondering what prompted you to say that?

Many international observers, including human rights groups, put forward that if you wanted to weaken Saddam&#8217;s government, and strengthen the people, America could have simply removed the sanctions. Quite a peaceful solution. Many say the sanctions ensured the populace was dependent on Saddam. Perhaps also you have some interesting stats about how many people died (Iraqi and American) as a result of waging war on Iraq and show that they are &#8220;not as much&#8221;?

I suppose we may be getting off topic here, and I can understand if a moderator would suggest this debate is best taken to another thread / site.

[RightWing]

Ummm….when did people (particularly the west!) die trying to stop any of the above leaders gaining political power?

That's my point. We didn't and millions upon millions paid for it.

Stalin was an out and out strategic ally! When did we die trying to stop him rising to power?

I agree, this is one thing that actually drives me crazy about the popular belief that we were going to Europe to save lives... and were fighting among people who murdered twice as many...

I personally disagree with us going in to WWII (read the book "Day of Deceit", quite a good read if you have the time). I also disagree with us dropping the a-bombs on Japan. That was, in my opinion, genocide.

Instead we like to think they are just baddies, which we never liked, and we are the goodies, moral and stupendous.

I certainly can't contest that. I don't believe WWI was justified either... I don't think, well, I know that none of but a handful of the wars we have been involved in were justified. Based on the info we had, Operation Iraqi Freedom was. The info was wrong, but something good still came from it.

Some more interesting examples are the Suharto regime in Indonesia (who competed with Saddam in barbarism) and also Nicaragua in the 80’s.

Once again, I'll have to agree this. I personally think that most of the US's foreign policy has been overall pathetic. Particularly starting with WWI.

I’m wondering what prompted you to say that?

More or less this: it's true.

Many international observers, including human rights groups, put forward that if you wanted to weaken Saddam’s government, and strengthen the people, America could have simply removed the sanctions. Quite a peaceful solution. Many say the sanctions ensured the populace was dependent on Saddam. Perhaps also you have some interesting stats about how many people died (Iraqi and American) as a result of waging war on Iraq and show that they are “not as much”?

The problem is this: if Saddam didn't have WMDs, then the sanctions worked (couldn't afford to purchase the weapons)... if he did have WMDs, then we had to take them away from him.

Again, I personally think, after seeing the war and us having investigating the entire nation, the war shouldn't have happened. I do support us staying there, because of this: freedom will prevail there. It is not possible for us to have even the ability to grasp how paramount liberty is, unless we have experienced life without it. I'm saying this even though I'm not quite sure where in the world you live (which is a reason I love boards... it's interesting to say the least to meet people from all over the world).

God Bless,

Rightwing