ToddHDow Studios

Category: philosophy

  • What Are We Fighting For?

    In this four part series, I’ll be posting a recent sermon that I delivered entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”. This is an important topic to me. I believe that peace is an important part of our responsibility as Christians. I hope that this sermon rings true in your heart as well.

    In Him,

    Todd Dow

    Title: What Are We Fighting For?
    Key Verses: Romans 12:14-21
    Topic: The Peace Position

    Romans 12:14-21:

    Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice;
    mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be
    willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
    Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
    If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take
    revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to
    avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:
    “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
    In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    Part 1: Introduction

    We live in a strange world… We live in a world of contradictions.

    The phrase “War on Terror” confuses me, especially with all of the bad press coming out of the US about prisoner abuses and civilian casualties. I just finished reading a memoir of a World War I vet named Stephen Pike and in the memoir, he is quoted as saying: “War: You don’t have to do any lyin’. You can’t tell it as bad as it was.” We’ve all heard similar descriptions when talking about war. If anything, I’d say the “War on Terror” should be aimed at preventing war. War seems to be the real terror here.

    Speaking of contradictions… I read a Time magazine story that ran just before the Iraq war started. In the March 17 2003 issue of Time, there was a picture of a group of soldiers being baptized in the desert before marching off to war. This was an important image to many American families who believe wholeheartedly that their mission in the Middle East is sponsored by God and that they are doing God’s work in bringing democracy to the Middle East through violent intervention.

    I’m puzzled by the theology behind baptizing a person that is being prepared to break not only one of the ten commandments, but also the greatest law of all, as spoken by Jesus: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. […] And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself.” How anyone can take that quote and mangle it into support for war is beyond me.

    Today I’m going to talk to you about a topic that I am very passionate about: the peace position. Pacifist Christians have been quite unpopular ever since Augustine’s conversion in the early 4th Century. Even today, the peace position is considered a “radical” perspective. Regardless, I’d like to suggest that there’s nothing radical about pacifism. In fact, I find it more radical that someone could claim that they follow the teachings of Jesus, but that they miss the pacifist message. I don’t know about you, but that’s far more radical to me.

    Today I’m going to share with you the story of how Christianity evolved from Christ’s pacifist message into a message in support of “Just War”. And, we’ll ponder what Just War really means. That’s another one of those confusing phrases that I was referring to a minute ago.

    War and persecution is nothing new. It’s been going on for centuries. We see numerous examples of war in the Old Testament. I remember a sociology class I took in my undergrad days, and the term given to wars like those described in the Old Testament are “Holy Wars”, where entire groups of people are completely wiped off the map. My sociology professor argued that Holy War, no matter what the religion, is always the worst possible kind of war. Nobody is spared in a Holy War. Everyone on the opposing side is considered evil and must be destroyed, men, women and children included.

    But Holy War isn’t on Jesus’ agenda. He is completely adverse to violence in any way. Look at the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:4-12):

    • Blessed are the:
      • Meek;
      • The merciful;
      • The pure in heart;
      • The peacemakers;
      • And those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake;

    So I have to admit… I’m quite confused. I don’t know how a Christian can open the New Testament and justify war in any way. I’ve been studying this topic for quite some time, and I’m not convinced by any of the arguments I’ve heard thus far. If anything, Jesus is a pacifist, which is someone who believes in a non-violent approach to conflict resolution.

    And just to be thorough, I’m sure that some of you are wondering what Just War is. Just War refers to a war that is considered fair and respectful for all involved. In a nutshell, a war is considered just if it is:

    • Based on a just cause (self defense against a hostile attack from an enemy);
    • That it is based on a right intentions (to defend oneself, not to get revenge); and
    • That it is a last resort (all other efforts have failed).

    There are other criteria, but these three cover the main idea of Just War.

    To understand the current debate and the mad circle that we keep going in, it helps to look at the past. Understanding the past gives us tools to deal with the present. Let’s take a quick look back and see where the Christian message of peace has changed from the time of Christ to the present day.

    Coming up next: Part 2: The Historical Context of Christian War

  • Just Ways to Repair an Unjust War by Marcus Borg

    Kudos to Marcus Borg for his brave piece of writing pertaining to the US political establishment and their responsibilities. This article, an many other like it, are just a sampling of the growing swell of uneasiness that are calling for change in the US’s foreign policy plan pertaining to war in the Middle East.

    If we really must call ourselves Christian and we look to Christ as our savior and our role model, then who better to look to for ways of living than the early Christians? Borg lays out the message well, reminding us how early Christians stood up for their beliefs, even if it meant martyrdom. If we are to call ourselves Christian, shouldn’t we at the very least try to model our behaviours, including our political and social behaviours towards others, after the Christian model of behaviour?

    And as for those that argue that Christians are responsible for all of this violence… well… I’ll agree that most conflicts are the result of religious intolerance, but I also argue that these conflicts are the result of people who have misinterpreted or misused religion for their own political gains. I see great value in faith. I see only criminal intentions in people that attempt to use religious claims, especially Christian claims, that violence is required to uphold a religious belief. Faith is a freedom that we should be afforded, but it should not trump the free thought that others have.

    And, for those Christians that think they have “God on their side” in committing violent acts, well, show me where Jesus allows violence in his name. I’m sure you’ll be hard pressed to show where Jesus supports killing in his name.

    My two cents…

    Todd Dow

    Links mentioned in this entry:
    Just Ways to Repair an Unjust War

  • A Tragic Picture of Death

    AP Photo / Karim KadimI stumbled across a heartrending picture of an 18 month old Iraqi boy who had been killed after being fired upon by US forces during a street battle in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood in June 2004. This picture, attached to an article in TruthDig, really hit home for me, as I have a young boy myself. It really put into perspective for me how I would feel if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in such a manner. I debated on including the picture with this article, but finally decided to include it as it is a powerful testament to what happens in war. The picture is not nice, but it provides a jolt to those that feel disconnected from a conflict occurring far from home.

    While I would like to think that I would have the moral strength to turn the other cheek and to try for a peaceful resolution with those that I felt were responsible, I know that my initial response would be one of anger and seeking revenge. It’s tough not to feel that way with something as permanent as death, especially of the young and innocent among us.

    That being said, anger and revenge just continue to feed the violence and hatred that have spiraled out of control during the US-led “war on terror”. What needs to change in order to turn things around? It’s difficult to say, but the current climate of violence must end sooner rather than later.

    I’m sure I’ll be hearing from the hawks out there that say, “Well, what about our dead?” and you’re right. All sides have suffered in recent years through numerous tragic events that have been inflicted from all sides. Nobody is innocent in the current world makeup. Freedom fighters, terrorists, secret agencies, spies, guerillas, armed insurgents and legitimately identified armies all have been vying for top spot in political games of domination ever since the dawn of recorded history. What differentiates the good from the bad, the right from the wrong or the morally acceptable from unacceptable?

    All sides could easily justify their actions for their contributions to the current climate of violence in the world. Just War is just that… it’s justified. The question becomes: Justified by whom? The picture that I referred to above brought it to me in stark clarity: I could understand why any parent would feel the need for revenge against the US forces for what they saw was the reckless death of their young child. It doesn’t matter if the gunfight was only a small event in a much larger war on terror. The fact remained that it was a US bullet that killed their child. Numerous other examples of this abound.

    And to be fair, the US has plenty to be angry about. 9/11 is only one example of terrorism at its worst. There are numerous examples of the US being targets in other countries from embassy bombings to targeting killings of US citizens overseas. None of this should justify the killing of innocents though. Unfortunately, war is a blunt instrument that doesn’t always hit with precision clarity. And that is a shame indeed.

    For war is supposed to be the last resort in a politically charged game of cat and mouse. But in this case, in the Middle East, there are too many unanswered questions pertaining to the justification and causes of this conflict with no positive end in sight. In fact, there are few tangible facts to substantiate all of this loss of life. Looking back, the history books have been clouded with bad judgment, poor intelligence and hidden agendas. Conspiracy theorists are able to thrive in this market as there is no final answer or explanation for the cause of this war.

    The greater problem is the implications. For the parents that have lost loved ones, there is no easy way to put aside that hatred. There is no easy way to overlook the recent past and to move towards reconciliation. There is no easy way to recover what has been lost. That’s the problem with war: the finality of its actions. Not only does it leave terrible scars in its wake, but it also leaves no easy method of recovery.

    For war to be effective, there must be a way of measuring its results. In this, the US has failed miserably. There is no method of measuring success at this point. The US has provided few timelines and poor indicators of accomplishment. It would appear that the US is playing a game of whack-a-mole with no end-target with which to measure their progress.

    If only the responsible world governments would approach this in a more systematic way. There are numerous causes at play here, many of which are just as vicious and harmful as the “war on terror”, only they are more subtle. Economic sanctions in particular cripple nations and lead to massive suffering among the general population. While this and other methods are important tools in controlling despotic regimes, they do little to help public opinion in these regions in the long term.

    What are the solutions then? The October 2006 issue of Harpers contained an excellent article entitled “The Way Out of War” by George S. (George Stanley) McGovern and William Roe Polk that provided a detailed plan for leaving Iraq, along with some associated financial costs and benefits. It was an interesting read, as it provided some of the much needed answers to “what else can we do but fight?” The article defends strong investment in internal infrastructure as the US-led forces are phased out. The money currently spent on military intervention in Iraq would easily build a substantial infrastructure for further stability as the US pulls out. There are numerous other strategies suggested in the article, many of which mirror suggestions offered by Human Rights Watch and others.

    The bottom line here is that there are numerous peaceful approaches that will help build bridges between differing cultures. The current method of blunt force trauma inflicted through war is doing little to build relationships. The current US-led actions in the Middle East is further fracturing relationships, and this is likely to impact an entire generation of people, thus delaying peace for the foreseeable future. I know that I, for one, would have a very difficult time extending an olive branch if I were in the shoes of a parent who has lost a loved one in the current fighting. It is the right thing to do, but when the impersonal nature of war becomes personal, it makes it much more difficult to be emotionally fit to resist revenge.

    The way ahead must be one of peace and reconciliation. War has no place in settling disputes, regardless of the perceived benefits. Machismo and stubbornness will only continue to lead us down the path that the current US administration has been leading us down. Make a difference: Research the contributing factors into this conflict, identify workarounds or fixes to those problems that don’t rely on force, and help put them into action.

    Todd Dow

    Supporting links:
    Truthdig article: A Culture of Atrocity
    Wall Street Journal: Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000, Study Estimates
    The Lancet: Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq
    Human Rights Watch

  • The God Debate: does he or doesn’t he?

    Dear atheists,

    I’m elated that God is getting so much press lately. And even more surprising is who’s talking about God. Atheists! On the one hand, I’ve gotta say that I don’t agree with the current batch of atheists selling their wares: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. On the other hand, I’ve gotta say “Way to go, guys!” You’ve definitely raised God’s awareness to levels not seen since the beginning of the War on Terror.

    Now, I know your goal is to convince people that God doesn’t exist. But I’ve gotta tell you, your arguments are weak. You’re relying on old arguments (Hey Dawkins, does Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot mean anything to you?) And Harris, yes, your education does bring you some authority, but unfortunately, I don’t see how you’re tying your research interests in with your arguments? It would be great if you could use your neuroscience background to help prove that God doesn’t exist. But, I doubt that’s in your curriculum, isn’t it. In fact, I’m willing to bet that there’s plenty still unknown in your field. I’m thankful for the advances in medical science, but I also know that it’s not an exact science, nor is it a replacement for God.

    Now, I know that many of your arguments are against the inhumanities that are committed in the name of God. I’m right there with you. I don’t think that religion, and Christianity in particular, should motive the troops to go out and kill the enemy. In fact, I believe just the opposite: Jesus was a pacifist. Plain and simple. But, that doesn’t mean that we should discount the religion due to some misguided leaders of the religion. Should we abandon university campuses because of a few bad professors? I don’t think so…

    The beauty of faith is the positive life force that it gives to an individual within a community of believers (and even sometimes in solitary – just ask the monastic members of a faith). God truly does scale to meet the needs and challenges of each one of us in every situation on earth. No, God doesn’t always answer our prayers. But, perhaps those are blessings in disguise as well. Who am I to know? I don’t have all of the answers. And I know that science can’t provide any better explanations either.

    And speaking of explanations… where do we get our moral compass from? If we rely simply on rational thinking, what would a moral high ground look like? Would we align our good and bad impulses towards ourselves or towards the community of which we are a member? If there is no God, then what’s the point in being anything other than self-centred? In that case, do you become a threat to those around you? Or, do you think that there is some merit to community-driven moralism? And if there is some compassion towards fellow man, why would that be in an atheistic world? There are no rewards to be had. Aren’t you just wasting precious resources that you should be spending on yourself before your time runs out?

    Do you get where I’m coming from? You question my motives for believing, while living a paradox yourself. You really do confuse me… you come across as so smug and so confident in your knowledge that God doesn’t exist, yet you sit on the edge of a moral cliff, trying to convince yourself that your actions don’t really matter, all the while continuing to further your chosen field of study. Why bother if we’re just ashes to ashes and dust to dust?

    In any event, like I was saying earlier, thanks a ton for the great press you’ve been drumming up lately. Nothing like some star-studded name dropping to keep God in the news and to keep him on the tips of our tongues. It really is true… there’s no such thing as bad press, and guys, you’re doing one heck of a job.

    Thanks!

    Todd Dow

  • Religious tolerance?

    Note: disturbing content ahead.

    I stumbled across an article today entitled “Church under fire for video parody“. According to the article, Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church has been vigorously campaigning against homosexuality and that a recently released video, “God Hates the World“, which is a parody of the 80’s tune “We Are the World”, is the latest salvo in that ongoing campaign.

    According to the article, “The church [Westboro Baptist Church] contends that soldiers’ deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are God’s punishment for a tolerance of homosexuality in the United States.”

    The video shows what appears to be a group of church members singing the song “God Hates the World”, along with various video snippets taken from protests and other, assorted activities pertinent to the words of the song. The video furthers the church’s argument that God hates the world due to homosexual behaviour.

    The church group is currently being accused by Warner/Chappel Music Inc. of Los Angeles, who feel that the video infringes on its copyright to “We Are the World.” In their defense, the church claims that the song and video are protected under their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religious expression. I do believe that freedom of speech and religious expression are important and therefore, I can’t argue that these people be forcefully silenced. However, I am disappointed at the controversial and confrontational method that this church has taken. And, I am disappointed that this group is associated with me through the masthead of Christianity. But, we’re all together through the masthead of “humanity” so I guess we have to take the good with the bad.

    The Bible does speak out against certain activities. The Old Testament is full of rules and guidelines that must be adhered to or else. I’m concerned that this church group has missed the message of Jesus though in their zeal to reform society into their ideal of cultural identity. Jesus brought a message of peace, love and non-judgment. To Christ, God loves everyone no matter what. And it was through Jesus’ atonement on the cross that we are allowed to walk in peace, knowing that our destiny is fulfilled. This message is quite different from the fire and brimstone message being presented by the folks in Topeka. I wonder if Westboro Baptist Church subscribes to the Old Testament law of stoning people for transgressions? That would make for an interesting Sunday morning service!

    Fear-mongering is nothing new in religion. History is full of religious fundamentalists that attempted reform through fear. Unfortunately, fear only works for so long… reason must weigh in in order to protect the rights of everyone involved. Otherwise, we’d be left with a bunch of fundamentalist groups, all claiming righteous fury. Ultimately, we’d be left with one righteous fundamentalist group, the winner of one heck of a fundamentalist war. hmmm… sounds kinda like current global tensions, doesn’t it?

    Who wins in a fundamentalist war game? Does might equal right? If so, why have an opinion at all? If truth is what we’re after, will war and intolerance solve anything? I think not.

    Todd Dow