The rats are starting to bite

Work for Week 10

2005-12-10T17:37:00.000-08:00

Hi Wes, This is some work I've worked on for the wiki. The rest is in the group blog. This is what i've been working on.

2b. A Few Select Moments in the History of Modern Conflict (needs to be continued...)

- The first is the relationship between the growth of the modern nation-state and its connection with the rise of commercial activity, found within the emerging cities of early modern Europe . (Global Transformations, p. 149, 187). As the economic landscape of Europe was changing so too was the social landscape. As a result, old modes of life were changing and the ideologies that accompanied those old ways of life were no longer suitable to many of the people's life condition. This social anxiety often-time led to a serious sense of dread and an obsession with personal sin. There was personal dislocation and an accompanying ideological shift, hence the Protestant Reformation and a less hierarchical and more individualized conception of the faith. There was economic change and social dislocation, and many of the knights and lower aristocracy found themselves poor, bankrupt, and increasingly marginalized. The more powerful aristocracy, and the royalty, took advantage of this and sought to extend their own power at the expense of the lesser nobles. However, many nobles found themselves in stalemate with one another. However, cities were developing and creating an independent tax base, apart from a king or nobles own lands. The king, therefore made deals with the cities and used this extra revenue to overcome opposition, consolidate power, and increasingly saturate his territory with state power. The king’s resources far outstripped those of his opponents and he could afford military technology that his opponents couldn't. This would eventually lead to absolutism. This was also a long and violent process. So from the very beginning of the modern state, (or early-modern at this point), there was a connection between commerce and military violence. The modern state was born of warfare, as made possible by commercial revenues. It is also related to nationalist sentiments, though still in its early stages. So, we have trade, state power, ideology, and theology all interrelated to one another.

-So nations happen, time goes on, the Westphalian system is established, which results in balance of power politics, revolutions occur, enlightenment, industrialization (this gave states a resource base for military power much greater than before), society-wide nationalism, nation-states emerge, diplomacy is established, national markets emerge, etc. This entire process took many long and bloody years, out of which the west as we know it emerged. During all this, international trade is increasing, coming to represent a larger portion of the national economy.

-During this process, the west, and its "new" form of civilization, came into increasing contact with other parts of the globe, often with imperial ambitions and brought its new economic power with it. By the 19th century, however (Global Transformations, p. 154), "trade was not significant enough by itself to determine the patterns of international inequality." It was during and after the 19th century that Europe came to dominate much of the globe, relying on the power that they were able to accumulate as a result of their industrial base. Their military hardware was superior and they had the financial resources to sustain it, especially against primarily agricultural societies, who therefore had fixed revenue. Imperialism resulted from inner-European nationalist rivalries that were then projected across the globe. And, they had the resources to do so. So economics and warfare are very much related.

-During this time the west came into contact with other parts of the globe at a level never seen before, and brought their economic and social policies into these regions. The results varied, depending on the actors, but some responses included the complete disruption of traditional modes and patterns of life and the forcible introduction the western model as a result of particular government action, as was the case in colonial . (F. Collona,) Or, the spread of an increasingly international western oriented economic trade system and the introduction of industrial forms of production into a particular region often created immense social dislocation as old patterns of life were deeply shaken, without direct government action. Of this process in the Middle East H. Batatu writes,

"The causative factors underlying revolutionary outbreaks are, to be sure, multiple and complicated and some of them arise out of the unique internal or external conditions of Arab countries. At the same time they? all have a common context. They are all related to a crucial historical process: the gradual tying-up of the Arab people in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries to an international market resting on large scale industry and their involvement in the web of forces or consequences of forces unleashed by the industrial and technological revolutions. In these structural changes all the important radical parties and movements, including the Muslim Brethren, the Communists, the Ba'th, the Free Officers, the Arab nationalists, the Algerian Fellaghas, ans the Palestinian Fedayeen, had their roots." (H. Batatu, 1983)

So, as a result of the growing, western-oriented, international market there was massive social dislocation, social anxiety, and anomie that arose in many places around the globe. As a result, many people sought means of coping with these changes. Depending on the person and their particular station in their respective society, they developed a particular ideology in response to it, and sometimes reacted against it. This came in the form of nationalism, fascism, populism, socialism, communism, fundamentalism, (and perhaps evangelicalism in the context?) Each ideology was a response to the process (in the west of modernization, but in the non-West) of being tied into the international market system, the deep structural changes in one's society that resulted, and the social dislocation that resulted from this. This is seen in Global Transformation (pg. 163),

"During the period of 1870 to 1939 markets for key goods began to acquire a global dimension and, unlike earlier periods, this resulted in country specialization such that national patterns of production were increasingly influenced by global competition. One result of this, broadly in line with the standard trade theory, was that income levels within those economies more fully enmeshed in the trade system were increasingly subject to global market disciplines and this had a key impact on domestic politics."

Global events affected national patterns of trade. This affected, or altered, the social conditions of many in a particular society. There were winners and losers, the latter of which often reacted violently against whom they considered responsible.

Ideologies arose which responded to and sought to give answers to an individual's feelings of social anxiety, anomie and isolation. These ideologies often prescribed a social or political course of action as well. Often these ideologies were such that they placed the troubled individual in the very center of his cosmology, giving him not only purpose, but a course of action in response to their social condition. He became a warrior for God with divine purpose in fundamentalism, a warrior for the peasants in populism, a warrior for the workers in the labor movements, a warrior as the troubled pseudo-academic in Marxism/socialism. Industrialization and the global market economy led to social atomization and anomie which led to new social expressions such as nationalism, fascism, fundamentalism, socialism, Marxism, populism, among others. They were all reaction to the above dilemma.

2c. A brief overview of Islamic Fundamentalism

(for sources and citations see link in section below)

Although everything is tied to specific and localized historical circumstances, a standard model as to the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism in the Muslim world relates to a reaction to modern European colonialism (and/or integration into the modern market system). Rather than relying on traditional and local power structures and relationships to maintain order, as the Ottomans had traditionally done, the colonizers’ economic and social policies accompanied (in a pretty standard modernizationist model) the breakup of traditional property relationships and the collapse of tribal structures, leading to the destruction of the economic and social base of traditional society. As a result, a segmented society originally broken into tribal units with a tribal and collective conception of economics and property, transformed into a society organized by various classes based upon different economic interests and social position. For example, as it concerns the growth of fundamentalism in , Fanny Colonna, in “Cultural Resistance and Religious Legitimacy in Colonial Algeria,” writes,

“Just as the fragmented reaction of the Sufi? brotherhoods was adapted to a society fragmented into tribes, so the new conditions brought by colonization made both necessary and possible the establishment of an overall movement, at the level of the country as a whole, capable of organizing isolated individuals, without a tribal framework, through a puritan and individualistic religion...”

These radical changes forced individuals to create new forms of interaction and identity. A new relationship between the individual and society had to be created. For many, this identity took the form of an individualistic, universalistic, fundamentalist, puritan, and often nationalistic form of Islam that reflected the changing social make-up. (Another segment of society adopted European modes of self-identification and social organization. )

As a revolutionary movement, however, radical Islam provides an ideological role for the displaced individual in the post-colonial (or modern) Islamic society, much the same way Marxism did for the displaced worker in the 19th and early-20th centuries during industrialization. With economic and social modernization Islamism became an important 20th century social/political movement. Fundamentalism provides a neatly packaged list of enemies and explanations that give form to a displaced individual’s war torn world. The colonial (or the post-colonial government) government responsible, or perceived to be responsible, for an individual’s loss of loved ones and property becomes the agent of evil. The radical fundamentalist, as a result has a moral obligation, being a true believer, to rage against the powers that, acting on behalf of evil, represents a barrier to the spread of Islam and the creation of a just Islamic regime on earth. Acts of terrorism, therefore, also become moral obligation. It is here, in the mission to reconstruct society upon an abstract perception of right, where things tend to get dangerous and innocent people tend to die.

2005-11-28T01:54:00.000-08:00

So inventing Popular culture doesn't have much to do with our topic. Some sections, namely chapter six, are interesting as they relate specifically to what I wrote about in my last post, about post-modern culture. The idea that we want a history with which to connect. I think this is fundamental to our times and very true of myself. However, I think my analysis better explains it, that we have been cut off from our past, and are attempting to rediscover it, for in it we seek to instil our lifes with substance, with meaning and with purpose. That we are apart of something greater, that we in-fact connect with long historical narratives. This is really a reaction to Post-Modernity, so in many ways it could also be a fundamental part of post-modernity. This is what I think really relates and I already wrote more than enough about it. So read on Wes. This post may not be 500, but the post below is WAY more than 500, so I think it works out.
Peace.

2005-11-27T23:10:00.000-08:00

The topics presented in the discussion of Globalizatoin and Culture, (MNC's of Ch. 5 aren't really related directly to our topic, well actually they are, but they are outside the task I have set for myself, and Reed has a really good discussion and analysis of them) finally give me a chance to discuss a topic that I have been been thinking about for a long time. It is not neccessarily related to the narrative I want to create, but I feel the desire to write about it anyway. Ok:
To begin, I think cultural contact and exchange is absolutely beautiful. As a white anglo-saxon protestant and generally conservative middle-class male from a nuclear family married to a Palestinian Arab American woman from an extended traditional Palestian family I feel that I am not only a prime example of the globalization of culture, but I also feel I have a special apreciation of the situation, and of the beauty that can result. The similarities across culture, I beleive, far outway the contradictions, and various historical factors from a variety of reasons in a variety of cultural contexts has often, unfortunataley led to a mutual mistrust.
This being said, I am one to look for the beauty of other cultures, but at the same time I feel a need to represent my own culture, to build it up, and not tear it down, as I feel so many young academic-oriented Americans are so prone to do. Despite common rhetoric I beleive that there is beauty in my culture, in the same way that I am drawn to the beaty of other cultures. In the context of war, violence and terrorism I feel that mutual respect and understanding of one another's culture is fundamental to reconciliation, however reconciliation will only result if there is a mutual respect on both sides for both sides. To belittle one will naturally, I believe, lead to a reactionary or fundamentalist mentality on the part of some members, as people defend their culture.
Well this isn't exactly what I set out to talk about, but it's related. So to what I want to talk about. Concerning the idea the we are all "Moroccan girls doing Thai boxing in Amsterdam", (pg. 109), I think this can lead to beatifull results IF DONE WITH SUBSTANCE AND DEPTH. So, I have just talked about my own expereince and I can only offer my testimony that the result has been incredibly wonderfull in my life, giving my life a new perspective and depth that I believe it otherwise would not have had.
SO WITH THIS SAID: I SEE A POSSIBLE DANGER RESULTING IN THE GLOBALIZATION OF CULTURE. Every culture has thousands of years of history, which instil in that culture a beutifull substance and depth. The narratives that make up any given culture are long, complex, and interwoven. To even gain a minimal understanding of one's own culture takes years and years of both study and experience. Western culture is made up of beautiful, complex and often tragic narratives. The homeric epics, greek philosophy, Plato, etc, the Bible, Roman Law, Medieval Church tradition, The Renaisance/reformation, Shakespier/Milton, the Enlightenment, modernity, Idustrialization, etc. These are all have given birth to a complex, inter-woven series or narratives, that make up the mass of experiences known as western culture. Every world culture has a complex substantive history, with complex narrative forms of its own. A person never stands alone, but stands atop a long and complex history.
(At this moment, although it may sound like it, I want to mention that I do not want to promote at all the Huntington clash of civilizations model, it is far to simplistic in its generalization of cultural identities and their contact. I am discussing culture which can be very micro)
And here lies the the problem with Globalization. As cultures come into contact with eachother often only the surface is apparent. When one looks at another culture all they see is the surface of that culture. Their own narratives are complex enough, to try and unravell the narratives of another culture is a daunting task. And with globalization so many cultures are all coming into direct contact with each other. Just to grasp a superficial understanding of other cultures, now is a daunting task. It becomes impossible to deeply understand both one's own culture, let alone the culture of all the hundreds of cultures that one might come across, say in LA county. It gets to the rediculous point that culture becomes is a plate of fusion food. Shallow and devoid of any substantive content. So, people become detatched from their narratives.
(It also relates to the proliferation of information and technology, as there is no time to substantially understand any particular item. There is just TOO MUCH, and no time to truly digest it all, so that rather than understanding the depth of anything, to understand all the narratives something rests upon, one can only grasp little things off the surface. So all life becomes like an image, which has no substance beyond the slick appearance. We become empty shells (post-modernity) floating around is space (modernity). Where modernity saw the destruction of traditional forms of social organization leaving behind, some might say, an alienated mass of individualized automotons, post-modernity is witnessing the hollowing-out of life. There is a lack of substance.)
So often the "diversity" rhetoric people tout, often at educational istitution, comes across as vapid for this very reason. Diversity is absolutely BS, if without substance behind it. Like I said I love diversity, I always have, but I hate shallowness.

So, all this makes me recognize the potential for an insipient shallowness within the globalized post-modern world. I think if I can feel these emotions tied with post-modern culture, than I can see a potential for people in desperate situations, those who feel their culture being worn away, to react in various ways. Perhaps violently.

And, in addition to working within and reaching people in this post-modern context, I feel that the CHURCH HAS A MISSION TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE OF SUBSTANCE. And while I don't have the time to present my philosophy well at the moment, I do feel that this will be a major identifiable characteristic of our present and forthcomming historical epoch: the whole-hearted search for substance.

In the same way that people have sought to re-create community in modern times, they will seek substance in our current epoch. Whereas previous social movements, socialism, facism, etc, have sought to bring substance and unity to their world, assuage their annomie, and re-create a sense of social community, often at the national level, I think that post-modern movement will seek to solve the problem of substance.

This also relates to fundamentalism, as I feel, in addition to aleviating the annomie resulting from war-time situations, or drastic structural changes within a society, people are seeking substance and therefore cleave to their understanding of religion. I also feel that this will lead to an increasing appreciation for traditional forms of cultural understanding, such as the current re-appreciation of Catholic and Orthodox christianity.

Conservatives and the fundamentalists (maybe post-fundamentalists) (altough often unrelated social groupings), as i see it are in many ways are responding to this very situation (even though other conservatives are often the primary agents in the process of erosian, however this is a phenomena beyond such shollow divisions as left or right). They recognize the substance in thier own culture while other's do not. Or, two cultures come into contact, some embrace eachother, others feel as though their culture is being eroded away or attacked. As a result, they seek to uphold their cultural understanding often in reactionary or violent ways.
Or, as in the case of Post-fundamentalists, like Al-Quida, seek substance by instilling in their life a Divine purpose and meaning, in their actions. Unlike fundamentalists, who often have a concrete national poltical goal in mind, the post-fundamentalist terrorists will seek "self-actualization" through the terrorist action apart from any concrete agenda. They are re-instilling thier life with purpose in the act of terrorism itself, not creating a organized social unity under the reign of God, as the modern fundamentalist would have sought, like the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.
Both of the above (not the moderns) are examples of different stages of reaction to post-modern globalization, one a reaction to hold on to thier own culture, the other, after fully knowing the effect of post-modern culture, of seeking to instil thier lives with substance. The biggest group of post-fundis are the kids of thoughoughly modernized parents, who are now seeking substance after being influeced by post-modern culture.

The above, in many ways, explains my own tendancy to always try to assert the possite in other cultures as well as my own. The point is to build up. Tearing down will always, inevidably, provoke reaction. And in the long run, people will only seek substance.

So with war, militarism, and terrorism, globalization creates a variety of possibilites. It simultaneously leads to means of common cultural understanding, as people who live in an increasingly close space will be forces to live together. However, it will also provoke reaction. To understand the full substance of another's culture without diminishing the substance of one's own, is a huge challange. The consequences of such a challenge have often been disastrous.
AND, if the substance is lost, people will try to regain it in various, often violent ways.
So
1)The Church should provide an alternative of substance to a culture of shallowness. 2)It should find forms within the post-modern culture (perhaps like televangelism, as much as I dislike it,) yet beware of shallowness
3)The western church should seek to respect other cultures, and not diminish them in favor of their own. This will inevidably incite a fundamentalist reaction, especially as people are increasingly seeing western culture as shallow and devoid of substance, which they will apply to the western church, by association)
4)The western church should not split between a camp that seeks to uphold its traditional western heritage and one that will gladly deny it favor of more culturally "relevant" understandings. This will break communion. Only problems will arise. I see people in our class leaning towards to later.
These are my musings as of tonight.
Peace

2005-11-13T18:58:00.000-08:00

The reading for this week contains so much interesting stuff that could be related to our topic that there are just too many avenues to explore. I would read a section and it would instantly cause me to think about how it relates. The problem is to remember all those things and systematize them. Well, here I try. (I wish I had so much more time to delve into and explore this subject matter than I do.)

So, the discussion of the relationship between trade patterns and violence is long and complex, filled with many interesting, oftentimes polemic, studies. My purposes, however, are to take certain ideas from the book and analyze how they might relate to our topic. The first, and very interesting, idea, (of course I've heard it before, but I've always thought was interesting) was the relationship between the growth of the modern nation-state and its connection with the rise of commercial activity, found within the emerging cities of early modern Europe. (pg. 149, 187). As the economic landscape of Europe was changing so too was the social landscape. (As a result, old modes of life were changing and the ideologies that accompanied those old ways of life were no longer relevant, or if relevant, no longer made any sense, [they were no longer suitable] to many of the people's life condition. This social anxiety often times led to a serious sense of dread and a obsession with personal sin. Any way there was personal dislocation and an accompanying ideological shift. Hence the protestant reformation and a less hierarchical and more individualized conception of the faith, not as it would later become though) Anyway, that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, so on I go, there was economic change and social dislocation, and many of the knights and lower aristocracy found themselves poor, bankrupt, and increasingly marginalized. The more powerful aristocracy, and the royalty, took advantage of this and sought to extend their own power at the expense of the lesser nobles. However, many nobles found themselves in stalemate with one another. However, cities were developing and creating an independent tax base, apart from a king or nobles own lands. The king, therefore made deals with the cities and used this extra revenue to overcome opposition, consolidate power, and increasingly saturate his territory with state power. The kings resources far outstripped those of his opponents and he could afford military technology that his opponents couldn't. This would eventually lead to absolutism. This was also a long and violent process. So from the very beginning of the modern state, (or early-modern at this point), there was a connection between commerce and military violence. The modern state was born of warfare, as made possible by commercial revenues.(this is also related to nationalist sentiments, though still in its early stages. So, we have trade, state power, ideology, and theology all interrelated to one another).

So nations happen, time goes on, etc., the Westphalian system gets established, which results in balance of power politics, revolutions occur, enlightenment, industrialization (this gave states a resource base for military power much greater than before), society-wide nationalism, nation-states emerge, diplomacy is established, national markets emerge, etc. This entire process took many long and bloody years, out of which the west as we know it emerged. During all this, international trade is increasing, coming to represent a larger portion of the national economy.
During this process, the west, and its "new" form of civilization, came into increasing contact with other parts of the globe, often with imperial ambitions and brought its new economic power with it. By the 19th century, however (pg. 154) "trade was not significant enough by itself to determine the patterns of international inequality." It was during and after the 19th century that Europe came to dominate much of the globe, relying on the power that they were able to accumulate as a result of their industrial base. Their military hardware was superior and they had the financial resources to sustain it, especially against primarily agricultural societies, who therefore had a fixed revenue. (This is the imperialism model I typically subscribe to, I don't put much stock in the old socialist model of capitalism searching for markets etc. Imperialism resulted from inner-European nationalist rivalries that they projected across the globe (Westphalien), and they conquered because in those days that's just what states did. And they now had the resources to do so. The colonies were too expensive for the old model to make sense, among other, better, arguments). (So economics and warfare are very much related, but not in the ways many think. These are my views.) Well anyway,
during this time the west came into contact with other parts of the globe at a level never seen before, and brought their economic and social policies into these regions. The results varied depending on the actors, but some responses included the complete disruption of traditional modes and patterns of life and the forcible introduction the western model as a result of particular government action, as was the case in colonial Algeria. (F. Collona,) Or, the spread of an increasingly international western oriented economic trade system and the introduction of industrial forms of production into a particular region often created immense social dislocation as old patterns of life were deeply shaken, without direct government action. Of this process in the middle east H. Batatu writes,
"The causative factors underlying revolutionary outbreaks are, to be sure, multiple and complicated and some of them arise out of the unique internal or external conditions of Arab countries. At the same time [they] all have a common context. They are all related to a crucial historical process: the gradual tying-up of the Arab people in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries to an international market resting on large scale industry and their involvement in the web of forces or consequences of forces unleashed by the industrial and technological revolutions. In these structural changes all the important radical parties and movements, including the Muslim Brethren, the Communists, the Ba'th, the Free Officers, the Arab nationalists, the Algerian Fellaghas, ans the Palestinian Fedayeen, had their roots." (H. Batatu, 1983)
So, as a result of the growing, western-oriented, international market there was massive social dislocation, social anxiety, and anomie, that arose in many places around the globe. As a result many people sought means of coping with these changes. Depending on the person and their particular station in their respective society, they developed a particular ideology in response to it, and sometimes reacted against it. This came in the form of nationalism, fascism, populism, socialism, communism, fundamentalism, (and perhaps evangelicalism in the US context?) Each ideology was a response to the process (in the west of modernization, but in the non-West) of being tied into the international market system, the deep structural changes in one's society that resulted, and the social dislocation that resulted from this. This is seen in Global Transformation (pg. 163),
"During the period of 1870 to 1939 markets for key goods began to acquire a global dimension and, unlike earlier periods, this resulted in country specialization such that national patterns of production were increasingly influenced by global competition. One result of this, broadly in line with the standard trade theory, was that income levels within those economies more fully enmeshed in the trade system were increasingly subject to global market disciplines and this had a key impact on domestic politics."
Global events affected national patterns of trade. This affected, or altered, the social conditions of many in a particular society. There were winners and losers, the latter of which often reacted violently againts whom they considered responsible.
Ideologies arose which responded to and sought to give answers to an individual's feelings of social anxiety, anomie and isolation. These ideologies often prescribed a social or political course of action as well. Often these ideologies were such that they placed the troubled individual in the very center of his cosmology, giving him not only purpose, but a course of action in response to their social condition. He became a warrior for God with divine purpose in fundametalism, a warrior for the peasants in populism, a warrior for the workers in the labor movements, a warrior as the troubled pseudo-academic in Marxism/socialism. (motorcycle diaries). Industrialization and the global market economy led to social atomization and anomie which led to new social expressions such as nationalism, fascism, fundamentalism, socialism, Marxism, populism, among others. They were all reaction to the above dilemma.
(The problem with ideologies, however, is that they tend to give easy answers to complex questions and quick fix solutions to complex problems. They are answers in a box, like wrinkle cream, sold in the intellectual Walmart to the desperate consumer. They cover up and distort complex historical events and processes and promote courses of action, as shown in countless revolutionary movement, that seem to do more harm than good. They give cosmic significance to things that probably shouldn't have cosmic significance. Enemies are really symbols of a cosmic enemy (the language goes best with fundamentalism, usually satan, but the bourgeoisie, or the landlords, or the impure races, fill the same role in the main revolutionary ideologies) and the physical human beings involved, many are innocent, are seen as agents of a cosmic enemy and therefore are not seen as human beigns but rather forces of evil who therefore deserve to die as such. (much of this is probably taken from Juergensmyer and Armstrong) Therefore, a certain political leader, who's hands may be tied by global forces beyond his control, may be seen as an agent of this cosmic evil-doer, and therefore in the mind of the revolutionary is a target to be taken out. This is de-humaniation. And, this, in my analysis, is how many revolutions are started, how many wars are prolonged, and how a revoluionary party, once in power, justifies many of the brutal acts in undertakes in "defense of the revolution." But I have discussed this previously.)
That was a long side note.
Well it is getting late and I have gone on and on. I must get to bed. I wanted to discuss much more, but I go on tangents that waste my time. So I will leave some of my notes for you to see where I was trying to go eventually, including more passages from the book.

pg. 161 relationship between economic and social movements, trade was secondary to national production, and national identity was probably at its height,
pg. 155 trade brings mutual cooperation,
national interests - major wars
now an almost united Europe, started all as trade negotions
this is the classical liberal view
the national identity becomes less strong,
this has positive and negative aspects, half century ago Europe was destroying itself, now its almost, not quite, on its way to being a single nation, it all came from trade cooperation, (and the will to make it happen.) This is good.
However, Al-quida is not territorially or nationally based. Old school fundamentalism sought to implement a nation (a modern nation-state) build on religious principles, now there is almost no national element, the violence of Al-Quiada is a means to self-actualization in itself, and possibly without a national or political goal atatched to it, it extends across boarders, and it creates some quite scary possibilities for our future. A result of globalization.

pg.161, periphery govs implament modernizing reforms in thier own countries, provoking signifigant reactions
winners and loosers in any political or economic decision, organize and voice thier objection

pg. 161-trade stratification, primary products focused vs. manufactured products focused, so those that
(find source) segments of both societies became incredibly rich
and on this base they could build up their national defenses, and as a result were able to project thier power more and more while others were increasingly unable to

172-developing countries are no longer just exporters, also in manufacturing services, reflects changing social structures
the modernization of Europe took centuries and was filled with incredible violence, the same events have been compounded into an incredibly short period time, with increased military hardware, causing immense violenve between social groups, with a government that seeks to nationalize, and becaues of globalization etc. and the shrinking world, ideologies formalized within a particular political/national context then spill out into the rest of the world. National events are then viewed in light of an ideology that was created as the result of a localized conflict, even if that localized conflict itself was influenced by global forces and events.
In all this creates, in many ways the "symbolization," of international events, they become symbols, in light of a localized conflict. This, in my analysis, is how the US gets to be viewed as the great satan type stuff (this is a cliche and a stereotype, but it gets the point across, or how...

pg. 188signifigant renegoation of the Westphalien model, (also can relate to peace and trade idea, as well as war and trade.)

pg. 149, 187 also, growth of the modern nation state as connected to commercial growth, king allies with cities, able to fight other nobles, knights and lesser nobles went bankrupt, modern state was born out of warfare,

random thoughts:
powerfull people are strongly influenced by economic and political events and policies and then mobilize their resources, create ideologies, and influence activists,...
im not a fan of "activism" if it is too tied to political circumstances for this very reason...

there is so much pain and terror, and horror in this world that needs to be adressed, but all is so complex, there is no easy course of action, political ideologies, or ideologies of any kind, give easy answers to complext situations, and the result is often wrong,...

Seek justice with all your heart mind spirit and soul, all your being, but there is so much...

to rage against the powers is stupid as well, to fight injustice wherever you think you seek it, will only create more injustice, this is the reaction of so many revolutionaries,...

there was a political element to Christs message but I have always interpreted the passage with Him and Barabas as a condemnation of the political solution,...
It is not a comfort for me to hear of a political element of Chirst's mission, or an over-emphasis on politics, because I have always seen politics as inherently shallow,...

Therefore Christ followers must be involved, but...

The readin'

2005-11-06T23:21:00.000-08:00

I would first like to say Hi to everybody in internetland. Hi.
Then I would like to thank my group for being cool. You're all a great group of people and helped my transition into the fuller community a little easier. Thank you.
Now to the reading, Global Transformations, Ch 1-2. I thought the first chapter was much more interesting than the second, however, the second chapter is obviously more relevant to our topic of war, militarism, and terrorism. I think that the main lesson to be learned, at least in my analysis, is that of the complexity of the situation. The fallen world is complex. There are no easy answers. There are no quick political solutions. War is as ingrained into the human condition as is religion. With the advent of the modern nation state and the resulting growth in military technology, built out of the need for arms in the seemingly never-ending warfare of late medieval and early modern Europe, and the resulting expansion of Europe power into the rest of the world (pg. 92) complicated the mess even further. This process, as the authors write, "globalized the war system" to the point it is today, whereby arms proliferation are at a rate they have never been before in history. Of course there are qualifications, as in the discussion of post-militarism, (p. 137) which seems to be valid in the organization of the advanced societies. I don't think the make of our social life is military focused at all. However, the state of our world is ever more complex and enmeshed with violence.

All this really gets me to reflect sometimes on the silence of the Kingdom of God. I am not implying that Church members are silent when they should speak out or something (many people do, and many don't). What I am trying to say now is more related to the Kindom spirituality. I guess I might also call it the silence of God. I definitely believe that we, the Church, as the body of Christ, have the mission to continue Christ's redemptive mission in the world as guided by the Spirit, becoming in many ways the voice of God. However, there is so much complexity in the world as it concerns evil. There are so many problems, and often when people try to solve those problems more harm and confusion and destruction can arise. It just becomes confusing and really sometimes makes me feel helpless. There are no easy answers to the complexity of the fallen world we find ourselves it. How do we limit arms, etc. without sacrificing security. And although some may say security is just a term used by people in power to justify their policies, the people saying this are often very secure. For those without security, security is a huge issue. The absence of security is often a state of war and all the evils that come of it. However, there are those who justify war in the name of security, and evil results from this. This is just a small example of the complexity. Sin is so enmeshed in every aspect of our world as well as in our lives. It so often seems hopeless. If we are currently living in the Kingdom of God, although there are believers actively working to redeem the powers, where is the Kingdom's voice, the Spirit's voice. For the last 2000 years the kingdom has been active, reaching people for Christ, advancing His justice, but what impact are we making.
It only appears, however, that sin is getting stronger, more enmeshed in our world. I guess this is what I mean by the silence of the Kingdom, or of God. I am remebering a book I read a few years back, about three, called Silence, by Shusaku Endo, about Catholic missionaries in Japan in the 17th century I believe, and the origins of Christianity in that country. It describes the horrid tortures many of the Christians suffered and it relfelcts on the very issue of the silence of God, during all this. Its very good, look it up.
Well, this is an incredibly difficult subject and reading our book disheartens me as I reflect on the complexity of the situation of war in our times. As I mentioned earlier, war is as ingrained as religion and so much suffering has resulted from it. The solutions are way beyond anything we can proscribe. There are no easy solutions, no political parties, no ideological movements, no activism. And of what I just wrote I am thinking about what I think has to lie at the heart of our wiki: we can't do anything, without God. The problems are too big. Yet, it is His silence in the midst of this that I am reflecting upon.
(My heart's not exactly in a positive place right now (more sadness than anger or anything like that)
So I ask you to pray for me as I pray that God's work might become more visible in His world, in his people, and in me. Thanks.
Love Jesse.

Well more on the topic actually. I guess a biblical passage that gives me comfort is in Romans 8, that our present sufferings are nothing compared to the joythat is to come and that while the Kingdom is hear, the earth is still in pains as of childbirth waiting for the full consummation of the kingdom to come. Well goodnite.

This week

2005-10-30T18:33:00.000-08:00

Hi all. Although the question we have been working on for the last 2 weeks has been why Christians should be involved in our topic, I think I made my views fairly clear in my previous posts, especially in my comments on Corinthians 12 and my cancer experience. I, however, found some books that I think would be a good addition to our book list. Although I still assert that I have 46 sources (plenty for now), I found some more sources that I think would be good for our book collection. Some are history texts, which I have found very interesting, others may be novels, or history novels, but they are interesting and on topic. Others are political analysis. So here we go:
1)Norman Rich, Great Power Diplomacy 1814-1914, (Boston: McGraw Hill, 1992)
2)Norman Rich, Great Power Diplomacy Since 1914 (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003)

These two textbooks, from a serious of classes I took at UCB, are some of the most interesting and enlightening books I have read on the subject of war, (Diplomacy and war going hand in hand.) In these you will find a systematic historical treatment of the relations of the great powers from 1814 to the present. The book on the 19th century, however, is the most interesting to me, especially concerning the justifications that the powers had for modern imperialist expansion. The effects of imperialism, being one of the major causes of social dislocation and war in the 20th century, especially in the process of de-colonization and the social movements that this bore witness to, is definitely a key element to the study of war, militarism and terrorism. The book goes to show how much imperialism, which was incredibly expensive, was primarily the result of internal European power politics and nationalism, (rather than the capitalist search for resources, markets and investment opportunities, as the marxists/neo-marxists would continually assert.)Anyway, while that particular discussion is not really relevant to the direction our wiki is headed, the books I believe are a wonderful resource for anyone who wishes to contextualize a conflict that they are studying in light of the history of war and diplomacy for the last 200 years. To study a conflict in isolation from its historical context is not merely folly, but, in my view, also impossible.

The next book is:
3) Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab Israeli Conflict: A history with documents, (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001)
Again this is a history of one of those huge conflicts that resonates in everybody’s mind, especially us Christians, wherever we stand. Again I repeat, to study, or discuss, a conflict without understanding its historical context is folly. There are just so many viewpoints in any war, so many voices, so many people yelling their views to anyone who will listen, trying to prove to you the righteousness of their own claims and discount those of their opponents, or of their fellow combatants who are of a different faction. Therefore one needs to step back, study the context, the history, of a conflict, with as little bias or "sense of mission" as possible, so as to try and come up with somewhat of an adequate view of truth, as much as this is possible. One, however, still needs to be very much cautioned that people also shape history to justify and support their claims. It's slippery territory. But, I still assert that it is fundamentally important to historically contextualize any conflict to the best that you are able, BEFORE, making any conclusion or plans of action, regarding that conflict. (Since we say that we must be involved, as members of the body of Christ, in the topic of war, militarism, and terrorism, we must be cautious to not jump into and "corrective action" without adequately understanding the situation, as best we can. From time immemorial, concerned citizens, charity groups, young people full of mission and cravings for justice, have been manipulated for political ends, often of the nefarious nature.

Other books:
4)Ivo Andric, The Bridge on the Drina, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1977)
An interesting novel, about the complex, longsuffering history of the Balkans. This was/is a land filled with many ethnic tensions which has erupted into warfare on numerous occasions.
5)Vinoth Ramachandra, The Scandal of Jesus," (Downers Grove: Intervarity Press, 2001)
This is a short pamphlet summarizing some of the author's other works. Especially interesting are his discussions of the "subversion of modern utopias" and the "subversion of post-modern tribalism." The author himself is very much involved in ministry in India and the Indian church. It relates to our topic indirectly, as it relates to the topics of our class.
6)Edward W. Said, Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. (New York: Vintage Books, 1997)
More on propaganda and how our view of the world shapes our response, but how that view is manipulated.

More on modern social philosophies and war (as begun earlier):
7)Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1776)
A lengthy discussion of war
8)ed. Robert C Tucker, The Marx-Engels Reader, (New York: WW Norton and Company, 1978)
Marx is vocal about war, and his descendants speak out against it quiet a bit. However, Marx advocated revolution, and his descendants, in fighting their ideological revolution in the name of equality, have perpetuated some of the worst wars and atrocities in history. When one compares this with the Vinoth Ramachandra book, especially the section "subversion of modern utopias," one sees just how much these modern ideologies fail to reach the social perfection they seek. They don't take into account human sin (fallen humanity.)Look to my blog for my justice without Christ discussion below. This all plays into it. Justice is nothing without Christ. So often, good intentions have really led to Hell. Also, I reassert my assertion that idealistic "young-ins" have so often, in their pursuit of justice, really been manipulated for the political purposes of powerful people. (Again, while I dislike much of the right, I think the left can be very dangerous in its of-times manipulation of the zeal many young people have for justice.) For Christians, I therefore urge people to take caution and really try to discern what Christ's justice is, which comes from above, and not from our own devices. When discussing justice we really need to remember that it all comes from above.
Ok, a side story. In Berkeley, there were so many people with a passion for justice. If there was a political issue to be found in this world, there was a group on the Berkeley campus which sought to address it. However, from all of this NO Justice was served. There were basically a bunch of angry teenagers and twenty-somethings, yelling about justice. Also, it was all at the macro-level. The Big stuff, the stuff they could really do nothing about. In their rage all they did was cause conflict, often with each other. Yes, the word to describe it was rage. There was no love. Anger and hatred, Yes. But no love. There was no unity, no personal human connection, no relationship. Just anger. This was justice without Christ. In my own personal experiences, I have come to believe that the true transformative nature of Christ operates in an individual, human to human way. The Micro-level. People are transformed internally, then their relationships are transformed. I guess you could say that it is out of this process that the Powers are then transformed. The Kingdom of God, then, is not just "out their" but it is also in the way we live our lives, holy and set apart for God, the way we invite people into community, filled with Christ's love, and in this way communities are transformed and Christ's justice is advanced. A political protest, filled with screaming and yelling, and passionate anger, creates hatred, misunderstanding, and in my opinion only reinforces the disunity and mistrust between people. In a war zone, rather than protesting each other, people are blowing each other up and the mistrust and hatred is incredible. But, it takes human beings, filled with the love of Christ, to establish relationships, draw people into community, inspire transformation internally at the community level, and of the powers. Hopefully, then, warring parties might one day break down the walls of separation, figuratively and literally, that divide them, that they may begin a process of healing, and enter into a relationship with each other, with Christ, and with his people. This reminds me of the biblical examples of the Israelites choosing Barabbas over Christ, or of Christ coming as a sacrifice rather than as a conquering hero. Christ defies expectation and runs counter to natural human intuition. And, justice without Christ, so often, just creates war.
9)Ernesto (Che) Guevara, The Motorcycle Diaries: A Journey Around South America.
How an Argentinean doctor became a Marxist revolutionary. Well this is really more his back story. It's an insightful look into the person of Che.
10) Stephen Ambrose, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938. (New York: Penguin Books, 1997)
The history of American foreign policy. Again, very relevant to our topic. The same comments about history above apply here as well.

2005-10-24T03:30:00.000-07:00

I was very glad that the we went to the luncheon as a class. Even though the topic is very interesting, knowing myself, I probably would not have gone if it had been otherwise, becuase I tend to go to class and go home. It was good that I went, too because another one of my profs really wanted us to go as well, but it wasn't required. So, about the Lunch:
It was too short. I really wanted more information on each of the topics, especially the nuances and differences between to two speackers and the groups they represent. I know they had things all day long, but I was unable to attend. So really this is my fault.
The topic of both Jewish Christianity, and of the post-Christ relationship between God and the Jewish people are very intersting. There were major questions surrounding these issus that I had, but never really had answers to. I never believed that God had abandoned his people. He made a promise to them and I believe God keeps his promises, so I think, I guess that they are still His people. Being a Christian, however, I have a deep seated belief the Christ is the way the truth and the life etc..., so there is a disconnect here that needs to be resolved. I wish I could have gone to some of the other talks later in the day to find out more about the answers to some of my questions.
Also, there are some major questions concerning the Isreali state, seeing as I am essentially an arab. While I'm not arabic, my wife is, and if you marry into the family, you're part of the FAMILY. Also, they are Palestinian Christians from Bethlehem. So the Isreal question is really a big one, as to how to go about it while trying to reach out to Jews, as well as Muslim, and in sharing community with our christian arab bothers and sisters. These are some thoughts. Peace all.

On Thursday's Lunch

2005-10-24T03:13:00.000-07:00

2005-10-21T19:39:00.000-07:00

Hi, since I have about 38 sources, and about 8 more bible passages, which I think are good sources for our topic as well, (a total of 46) I think I have a pretty good reservoir of sources for the time being. I need to substantially go through them now. (I purposely built up my number of sources so I could do this, if it is a problem let me know.) So this week I wanted to focus on analysis. In writing, my weekly analysis and my group blog comments kind of blended together, so here it is. (It is definitely at least 500 + 250 words.)

Hi Dave,
Good luck this week, sucker!!!
I'm just kidding. I want to write my opinions as to what should go up on our blog. So I definitely think that we should put up the various structures that give rise to war up that we discussed in class. Lea listed them previously, I think there are more, but that's a good start. I think in time this should be a whole separate page with a few sources for each structure, if we want to get that detailed. I thought our discussion in class on Tuesday was very productive, by the way. In addition I think we should have a section of relevant bible passages. I listed a few myself, and I have a discussion of my own personal experiences with Corinthians 12 (body of Christ) as it relates to both my cancer and my views of war. I may be prejudiced, but as it really shaped my views of war, I think it might be a useful story. If others wish to state not just their own views of war, but how they came to those views personally it will give a personalized, human touch to the wiki, who we are, the creators of the wiki and where we are coming from, etc. Reed actually has an interesting blog on Patriotism/nationalism vs. being a part of the Kingdom of God, how the patriotism can become nationalism. I think, its up to him though, that this would be an excellent post as well. My own opinion on this, however, is to really try and emphasize the difference between normal patriotism from militant patriotism/nationalism. Since I think being patriotic is a very natural emotion. With the advent of industrialization and modernity, traditional family and social structures broke down. This caused massive social dislocation and anomie. Much of troubling reports of early 19th century industrializing Europe are explempative of this process. Many of the major social movements of the last 250 years are also directly related to this process. However, with the destruction of family and local identities people began to imagine themselves as part of a larger social community and they rebuilt their identity on a broad level. As a result "nations" began to form, and ideologies that accompanied the territorial nation began to rise, namely patriotism and nationalism. (evangelicalism, if I can trust Karen Armstrong, is very much tied to this whole process as well.) Often, the assertion of this new national identity expressed itself in very violent forms (fascism anyone?). When these "nations" came into contact with eachother, especially where no territorial nation-state existed, there was often a violent clash of "national interests." This gave rise to much of the world's worst wars, holocaust, and terrorist movements, (Serbs in WWI anyone?). (In much of the third world, even up to the present day, where modernization, industrialization, colonization/imperialism, and the rise the national identities, or rather a national consciousness, etc. all came rapidly and often very violently, this process has been brutal. [This has definately been a cause of war.]) (American patriotism, in fact, when compared to many nationalism across the globe in the last 200 years, has in fact been VERY mild.)
But in many ways feelings of nationalism was and in many ways still is, a sign of the times. Human beings, feeling the need to be part of a community, formed a new community on the national level. Modern processes led to an accompanying atomization of individuals as traditional social structures broke down. These atomized human beings, once localized social relationships were fundamentally altered, found community at the national level. Individuals found unity at the national level with their nation. Humans need community. That community is fundamental to our identity. And this process happened in response to a fundamental human need. It should not just be dismissed easily as idolatry, or as narrow-minded ignorance which does nothing but create "others" and cause war, as we are so prone to do in our post-modern mindsets.
It is not necessarily something that needs to be fixed, but rather a natural emotion that needs to be moderated. It is not so much an ideology that can just be tossed out, but something internal, subconscious. It is an emotion that I see strongly in my parents. Attack their nation, and you are in essence attacking them. This is how it is with many modern people, across the globe. I would definitely consider myself patriotic, although not nationalist. But I would consider myself patriotic in the fact that I do feel a sense of pride in who I am and where I come from. As much as a I am a Christian and therefore part of the Kingdom of God, I still find myself apart of "two cities." When people verbally attack America, as much as my mind may be able to consider the reasonableness of their claim, I feel hurt, emotionally. This is my country and it is an intrinsic part of my identity. (As "post-modern" as one may call our times, "modernity" is still strong, and people across the globe are still coming to term with it.) I don't know how many times I have proclaimed that I belong to the kingdom of God, the body of Christ, etc, and have no such national loyalty to America, proclaiming it idolatry, especially in heated discussions with the parents. BUT, despite all of this, the essential truth exists that this emotion is real. I feel patriotism. I have an identity that is tied to this nation-state of ours. Despite this pride in nation-community, however, I wish and many many people wish no harm to any other person. And as I have stated earlier I think war is the worst calamity to befall human kind, the prime example of fallen humanity.
Well to continue the story, this thing called globalization and post-modernity, a direct result of modernity, came about and to many people (but in my view certainly not most people [I do come from a small town where the effects of post-modernity haven't really been felt as much as perhaps a major metropolitan city, though]) the nationalist identities and ideologies, etc. of the modern period came to not make much sense anymore. They lost their meaning to many people. In their place, to many, came global and trans-national identities. (This of course is over-simplification)
We Christians, therefore, in our recent re-emphasize on a "kingdom of God" focused identity (of which I have very much found myself apart of), as opposed to a "nationalist" identity must beware that we are truly trying to be a part of Christ's Kingdom and learning exactly what that entails, and not just part of a post-modern, post-nationalist, global ideology that has resulted from a restructuring of economic and social conditions, that many would call globalization, including the hollowing out of nations, national identities and ideologies, and the advent of transnational ideologies, be they political, social, or in our case religious. One might be able to see the renewed emphasis on a transnational kingdom of God, as a part of this process. Myself, I don't want to be part of an historical process. I wish to be set apart for Christ. Our history is eternal and particular. We must not forget the eternal nature and get caught up soley in "our times." (in many ways that could be applied to the emergent church, I think, I'm still trying to figure out what that means.) (But I also don't want to enter fundamentalist (or post-fundamentalist)territory by completely denying, or raging against change.) So that's it. I hope this makes any sense. Peace all.

Hi again

2005-10-17T00:21:00.000-07:00

This week for my analysis, rather than specifically go into the sources I listed earlier, I have decided to go through a number of bible passages that I think are relevant to our discussion, at least in my point of view. It may not be in-line with the task we set out for ourselves this week, but, you know being Christian and all, I think the bible is a great place to turn to. So to begin I want to mention:
Galatians 5:13-26 :The Fruits of the Spirit
Romans 8:18-25: Present suffering and future glory & Creation groans as in Childbirth
1Corinthians 12:12-31: The Body of Christ
Joshua 1: The Hebrews entering the Promised land
some selected passages on anger:
Proverbs 16:32: "Better a patient man than a warrior, who controls his temper than one who takes a city
Ephesians 4:31-32: "Get rid of all bitterness rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Romans 12:19-21: "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 by good."
Colossians 3:8: "But now you must rid yourself of all such things as these: anger, malice, rage, slander, and filthy language from your lips."

All of the above are excellent passages which may help us shed some biblical light on our topic. The bible verse that has effected me, or struck me most profoundly in the last year or so has been 1corinthians 12:12-31, where Paul discusses the body of Christ. I first discovered this verse following my incident with cancer, which is most probably the worst period of my life. Growing up in the tradition I did, I got talk of community, but never really a strong emphasis on the body of Christ, or the Kingdom of God, that we are more than a collection of Christ-followers, who do love and care for one another, but are actually, as I would come to understand, the agents of Christ's love and mission in this world. We are way more than the sum of our parts. We are the Kingdom of God. And it is this body of Christ that I felt during my physical, emotional, and psychological worst. Though I didn't really experience the vertical me/God relationship, it was through the love of Christ's people, and especially of my wife and family, that I truly felt the presence of Christ with me. He was there with me, by means of his people. After this I truly began to understand what that passage in Corinthians meant. Well, after a good chunk of a year in recovery I returned to school to write my thesis, which I have mentioned before, as being about Trad vs fund islam in the rus/Chech war. My life during that time was pretty much devoted to this project. These two major events in my life, cancer and thesis, so close to one another made an large impact on me, and the message of 1 Corinth 12 struck me even more. Having recently, truly experienced the Body of Christ, and coming to read about, in my research, some of the most awful things I have ever read in my life, and knowing that they were all real human events (perpetrated by both sides), that happened essentially in the last decade, what I would definitely consider MY decade, registered within my a disconnect. I truly felt the body of Christ at work in my life, and yet I saw such violent images of what I would consider what has to be the complete and utter absence of the Christ's body, his holy spirit, in this event. An image of human brutality, which I'm sure is repeated across the globe in the countless wars and conflicts large and small, on the radar of public consciousness or not, which would shake anyone out of the belief that humanity contains any shred of goodness, or that even God cares at all for this world and the humans living in it. I reiterate, there was a disconnect. I had the presence of God in the world, and the absence of God from the world. On reflection, however, this got me to really think about the body of Christ. We, the Church are Christ's body in this world, and as Christ came to alleviate, or do away with, the world's sin, and logically from this, the suffering caused by that sin, we too, as His body, are to carry on this same mission. We, by guidance of the Spirit, and as the body of Christ, are (don't take me the wrong way by the way I am wording this) God present in the world. Maybe I should say we are to be reflections of God in the world. Whatever. We have a mission to help alleviate the sin of the world, and the suffering caused by sin, be it Spiritual, material/physical, psychological, and/or emotional. War, as we have pointed to in our research, is a major cause of all types of the afore-mentioned suffering, which I see as a specific result of sin. (I haven't made a causal link between sin and suffering in this rambling exposition, but I don't think it is a big logical jump.) War is pure hell... on earth. Also, I don't want to cheapen this with such platitudes as "we must work for social justice," or whatever, since we are the body of Christ with a mission from Christ, which to me is incredibly profound, and so much beyond a cheap desire for "world peace," which sometimes can throw us into the lot of peacenicks, cheaply reflecting the popular politics of our current time (left or right, or whatever) as opposed to being true disciples of Christ who have been truly set apart. (Our history is 2000 years old, not 229, nor 40. But that's a whole different issue) Well, this is why I think believers should be involved in the discussion of war.
In addition, when faced with what seems like an overwhelming hopelessness set before me, I turn to Romans 8. In spite of hardship, nothing is compared to the future glory. The kingdom is here, but it also hasn't come yet in its completion. It is as in childbirth. I hope this makes sense.

2005-10-13T01:04:00.000-07:00

That's about 38 sources so far. I need to start digging in to them now. Did I mention the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church, there's so much good stuff in thier that there must be something on war)

2005-10-13T00:59:00.000-07:00

I did a journal search of the year 2004, from "Religious and Theological Abstracts," from fullers on-line data, with the word "WAR." These are some interesting sounding articles dealing with our subject. Peace.

1)Author: Strehle, Stephen.
Title: Saddam Hussein, Islam, and Just War Theory: The Case for a
Pre-emptive Strike.
Journal: Psychology and Theology
Year: 2004,
Volume: 5(1):
Page: 76-101.
Description: The USA and its allies face a world that has become more and more
dangerous with its weapons of mass destruction and a shadowy world
of terrorists more than willing to use them. The wisdom of the
past does not have the prescience or universal insight to deal
with this new threat. America and its allies must change direction
if they wish to respond to the challenge in an effective manner,
even it it means employing policies that seemed dubious in the
past. The state is called to protect its citizens in a
Machiavellian world, filled with depravity and compromise. The
church is called to submit to the superior wisdom of those who
have the special intelligence, experience and expertise to handle
the current crisis.

< ?(??>

2)Author: Cook, James L.
Title: "With whom he was in a state of just war...": A Review of the Just
War Tradition.
Journal: Word & World
Year: 2004,
Volume: 24(1):
Page: 49-57.
Description: The just war tradition functions as a guideline, not as a set of
formulaic answers. Using the fictional interaction of Martin
Luther and Michael Kohlhaas (namesake of von Kleist's 1910
novella) as a lens, two sets of principles can be applied to
present military situations: those long thought most relevant when
contemplating commencement of war (jus ad bellum) and those
considered critical to the ethical conduct of hostilities (jus in
bello).

< ?(??>

3)Author: Joireman, Sandra Fullerton.
Title: War and State Formation: A Mennonite Critique.
Journal: Christian Scholar's Review
Year: 2004,
Volume: 33(2):
Page: 181-196.
Description: The theory that war is an effective tool of state formation is
both morally objectionable and faulty. Challenges the current
revival of the theory from both theological and empirical
perspectives. Beginning with an explanation of why strong states
are considered to be desirable, examines the argument regarding
state formation and the benefits of war. Theologically, the theory
elevates the state above the church and is therefore
objectionable. Empirically, in this new era of postmodern warfare
the theory is also incorrect.

< ?(??>

4) Author: Himes, Kenneth R.
Title: Intervention, Just War, and U.S. National Security.
Journal: Theological Studies
Year: 2004,
Volume: 65(1):
Page: 141-157.
Description: Both the George W. Bush administration's national security
strategy and the war with Iraq have provoked wide-ranging reaction
and comment. Questions of how to assess the Bush doctrine and/or
the Iraqi conflict provoke a reconsideration of the just war
tradition. New grounds for just cause are being proposed as well
as developments in other areas of just war thinking, including
proposals for an entirely new set of criteria, a jus post bellum.

5) Author: Fiala, Andrew.
Title: Citizenship, Epistemology, and the Just War Theory.
Journal: Logos: A J of Catholic Thought and Culture
Year: 2004,
Volume: 7(2):
Page: 100-117.
Description: Considers the complexity of modern political life and the moral
requirements posed by just war theory and argues for a position of
"practical pacifism" based on the difficulty faced by citizens in
finding sufficient reliable evidence to meet the criteria for the
justification of war established by the just war tradition. Even
if we accept the idea that violence sometimes can be justified in
theory, a practical version of pacifism will result if we admit
that we simply do not have enough information to judge whether any
given war is justified. Examines the philosophical aspects of the
question and reviews the issues debated by philosophers and social
thinkers in this area while providing skeptical analysis of the
conditions of contemporary political life and of the relationship
between citizens and political leaders in a complex modern democracy.

< ?(??>

6) Author: Hinson, E. Glenn.
Title: Baptist Attitudes toward War and Peace Since 1914.
Journal: Baptist History and Heritage
Year: 2004,
Volume: 39(1):
Page: 98-116.
Description: Baptist attitudes toward war and peace have fluctuated widely at
different periods of history, some opting for pacifism, but most
for "pacificism" (war as a horrible but sometimes necessary
option). Pragmatism has characterized Baptist responses to war and
peace. World War I boosted pacifism among Baptists for the years
1914-1934, but "pacificism" more so. Joseph Judson Taylor (a
fundamentalist) and Harry Emerson Fosdick (a liberal) were
examples of this stance. Political realism characterized the years
1934-1945 reflected in ambivalence right up to the entry of the
USA into World War II, until Pearl Harbor demolished this.
Pacificism was rediscovered in the years 1945-1965, with Baptists
urging strong opposition to universal military conscription and
militarism. The "police action" in Korea and the McCarthy era
caused severe testing to Baptists. Vietnam divided Baptists and
reaction to war blended into concern for racism, peace and justice
issues, in the period "Peace and Justice Kiss" (1965-1986). The
years 1986-2003 reveal a "House Divided." American Baptist
Churches adopted a strong statement and stance opposing war on
Iraq, while Southern Baptist leaders gave strong support to the
Bush administration's policies for a "just war." There is a
desperate need for those who can reach out to the Islamic world
and make peace.

< ?(??>

7)Author: Watt, Alan.
Title: Which Approach? Late Twentieth Century Interpretations of Augustine's
Views on War.
Journal: J of Church and State
Year: 2004,
Volume: 46(1):
Page: 99-114.
Description: Surveys different scholarly approaches to Augustine and just-war.
Roland Bainton provides a useful historical overview in Christian
Attitudes toward War and Peace. Louis J. Swift offers an account
based on Patristic sources in The Early Fathers on War and
Military Service. John Langan's The Elements of St. Augustine's
Just War Doctrine situates Augustine in the broader context of
religious ethics. In The Political and Social Ideas of St.
Augustine, Herbert Deane attempts a reading of Augustine's mature
ideas from a political science perspective. R. A. Markus
supplements Deane's account by focusing on the development of
Augustine's just-war thinking in his early and middle periods.
William Stevenson's Christian Love and Just-War examines modern
thinkers who have embraced Augustine's view and re-interpreted
them, especially Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Ramsey. Richard
Hartigan is more critical of Augustine in St. Augustine on Love
and War: The Problem of the Innocent.

< ?(??>

8)Author: Davila, Maria Teresa.
Title: The Contribution of Reinhold Niebuhr's "Moral Ambiguity" to
Contemporary Discussions on the Morality of Intervention and the Use
of Force in a Post-Cold War World.
Journal: Psychology and Theology
Year: 2004,
Volume: 5(2):
Page: 177-199.
Description: The post-Cold War world poses challenges to traditional
principles guiding the ethics of the use of force. Military
intervention and the current war on terror are two phenomena that
challenge just war criteria such as just cause, right authority,
and reasonable hope for success. This tradition is helpful but
needs to be expanded and rethought to address the pressing issues
of our time. Suggests Niebuhr's category of "moral ambiguity" as a
contribution to the discussion. His application of moral ambiguity
to his situation during World War II and the Cold War witnesses to
the depth of such a category can add to current international
circumstances fraught with moral complexity. Though it too
requires critique, contemporary discussions on military
intervention reflect many of Niebuhr's evaluations of the
ambiguity in the use of force as different global actors seek
humane alternatives to provide relief to intense human suffering.

< ?(??>

9)Author: DeCosse, David.
Title: Authority, Democracy, and the Iraq War.
Journal: Heythrop Journal
Year: 2004,
Volume: 45(2):
Page: 227-332.
Description: Recent challenges to just-war theory have turned on the question
of "proper authority," especially as the USA prepared to invade
Iraq. (1) The United Nations, perhaps the first choice for "proper
authority," has failed to keep the peace in many of the
situations, most notably in Rwanda and Yugoslavia in the mid
1990s. (2) NATO, another possible "proper authority" seems unable
to act in a unified and effective way against terrorism. (3) For
James Childress and the USA Catholic Bishops the just-war
tradition has a presumption against violent response in almost all
situations. (4) James Turner Johnson disputes their claim, saying
that the Bishops have forsaken the value of justice and they are
tying the hands of legitimate authorities who seek to re-establish
just order, and America, Great Britain and "coalitions of the
willing" have a responsibility to over-ride those objections and
act in a unilateral way. In Johnson's view, one person (the
President) has the authority. Jean Bethke Elshtain modifies
Johnson's proposal by arguing that in a democracy, there must be
grass-roots support for such a war, otherwise any nation can be
misled by a puppet-master who claims to have "secret intelligence"
at his disposal.

< ?(??>

10) Author: Gangloff, Frederic.
Title: Joshua 6: Holy War or Extermination by Divine Command (Herem)?
Journal: Theological Review
Year: 2004,
Volume: 25(1):
Page: 3-23.
Description: Genesis records God's promises to give the land of Canaan to the
descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. After delivering Israel
from Egypt and purifying Israel via the wilderness wandering, the
conquest of Canaan is set in motion. Joshua records the conquering
of the land and its redistribution to the settling tribes of
Israel. The key issue is the act of extermination, and a study of
harem is not to redeem or justify it, but to understand it better.

< ?(??>

11) Author: Inbody, Tyron.
Title: The War on Terror and the "Wrongful Use of the Name of the Lord Your
God."
Journal: Quarterly Review
Year: 2004,
Volume: 24(1):
Page: 7-20.
Description: The problem with the war on terror is not George W. Bush's
Christian faith and his sincerity but his unambiguous and
unnuanced conviction that what he is doing is biblical and God's
will. Christians cannot use their language about God, God's
providence, divine election, vocation, righteousness and hope to
motivate and to justify a crusade against terrorists.

< ?(??>

12) Author: Olewine, Sandra K.
Title: Reflections from a War Zone: Jesus' Radical Call to Forgiveness.
Journal: Quarterly Review
Year: 2004,
Volume: 24(1):
Page: 35-46.
Description: The United Methodist Liaison to Jerusalem for seven years tells
that we cannot escape the responsibility to wrestle with
forgiveness in the face of the reality of terrorism by either
side. We are to live in a state of forgiveness which has three
aspects: prayerful silence, prayerful speaking, and prayerful
action.

< ?(??>

13) Author: Ririmanna, Vimal.
Title: Can the War against Terrorism be Won?.
Journal: Vidyajyoti J of Theological Reflection
Year: 2004,
Volume: 68(7):
Page: 521-539.
Description: Deals with the moral questions of the current "war on terrorism"
and pleads for a realistic definition of the term terrorism that
includes also the cases of state terrorism on its own citizens or
on other nations, and for an approach to the legitimate effort to
eliminate terrorism by studying and eliminating the causes that
are the fertile ground from which terrorism arises.

< ?(??>

14) Author: Williams, Rowan,
Weigel, George.
Title: War and Statecraft: An Exchange.
Journal: First Things
Year: 2004,
Volume: 141:
Page: 14-21.
Description: Williams believes that Weigel's defense of preemptive action
cannot be accommodated as easily as he thinks within the terms of
classical just war theory. Williams disagrees with Weigel's denial
of any presumption against violence in the just war tradition.
Williams says that there is a presumption against violence which
can be overcome only by a very clear account of the needs of the
common good and of what constitutes a "natural" life for human
beings. The just war tradition demands internationalism. Weigel
responds that the ruler is under prior moral obligation, a
responsibility to defend the peace of right order. That prior
obligation is the beginning of all morally serious thinking about
the use of armed force for morally serious ends. Time and again in
recent years religious leaders have been proven wrong in the
predictions about the likely consequences of various uses of armed
force. Weigel feels that Williams is quite right in arguing that
the just war tradition demands a form of internationalism. The
question is whether the current United Nations system is in fact a
form of internationalism that commands moral respect.

15) Author: Marshall, Ellen Ott.
Title: United Methodist Witness in Time of War: Five Characteristics.
Journal: Quarterly Review
Year: 2004,
Volume: 24(1):
Page: 21-34.
Description: United Methodists must discern between allegiance to nation and to
God, practice repentance, never gloss over the sinfulness of war,
work for peace, and remain committed to a process that restores
the image of God in all creation.

< ?(??>

16) Author: Masroori, Cyrus.
Title: Russian Imperialism and Jihad: Early 19th Century Persian Texts on
Just War.
Journal: J of Church and State
Year: 2004,
Volume: 46(2):
Page: 263-280.
Description: Most Western interpretations of jihad assume that Islamic people
are fanatics who are afraid of liberalism, or that Islamic
militants are being misled by self-interested persons who are
"using" religion. What is missing from both interpretations is an
appreciation for jihad as the long struggle for independence from
outside powers. Part of the story is as follows. Agha Mohammad had
re-established Iranian control of territories between Iran and
Russia, then he was assassinated in 1797. His nephew, Fath 'Ali
Shad (reigned 1797-1834), attempted to maintain Iran's sovereignty
over its new territories, but he was defeated by Russia in two
wars (1804-1813 and 1826-1828). That is how Iran lost control of
Georgia, Armenia, and northern Azerbaijan. The Muslim clerics who
began to write about just war and jihad during this period were
especially interested in the question: "Who has the proper
authority to declare war?

< ?(??>

17) Author: Hueth, Alan C.
Title: E-Learning and Christian Higher Education: A War of the Worlds, or
Lessons in Reductionism?.
Journal: Christian Scholar's Review
Year: 2004,
Volume: 33(4):
Page: 527-546.
Description: Explores the debate over e-learning in Christian higher education
from the standpoint of communication theory. Many of our
assumptions concerning the virtues of traditional classroom-based
educational delivery wither under close scrutiny. The misplaced
emphasis on proximate distance, to the exclusion of other sources
of distance within the face-to-face classroom, has led to a
general tendency to overrate the value of traditional classroom
delivery when compared to other approaches. Drawing upon classroom
experiences with e-learning technologies, suggests there can be
value in harnessing educational technologies if this is done in a
focused and intentional manner. Reflects on Jesus' own use of the
communication technologies of his day and the significance of this
for Christian educators today.

19) Author: Phillips, Robert.
Title: The Military Chaplain in Time of War: Contours and Content of
Ministry.
Journal: Quarterly Review
Year: 2004,
Volume: 24(1):
Page: 47-58.
Description: The context and practice of chaplaincy to the US military against
the background of combat and the war on terrorism covers
expectations, preparation, combat situations, and a ministry of
presence.

2005-10-13T00:13:00.000-07:00

Hi, well this next blog may seem obvious, but the fuller on-line data base has a whole bunch of stuff. Journals etc. It's a whole data base we haven't even touched yet. Some of it may be alot more credible than stuff found on-line. Some of it, might actually not be. But there is too much to go through right now. Maybe we should start to tackle it systematically. Just a thought. Peace

Not that serious of a source, don't look at it if you don't want to

2005-10-12T23:57:00.000-07:00

Hi all,
I couldn't link to the following source so I will just post it. It is a fairly simplistic bible study on authority and the bible. It's main focus is high school or junior high youth groups. Its main uses might be as a primary source, How the Catholic Church portrays the relationship between authority and the Church as preaching to youth group. Also there are references to Augustine's Catechism of the Catholic Church, so that's another source. There is also a bibliography at the end that I haven't really looked at. In fact, I think there is a denial of use without permission by author thing at the bottom, so its main use will probably be the references to the CCC.

>----Original Message Follows----
>From: "Dennis Kurtz"
>To: "Peer Leaders and Adult Mentors"
>Subject: YES! E-Newsletter for October 16, 2005
>Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:16:37 -0500
>
>Give to God the Things That Are God's
>Twenty-ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time, October 16, 2005
>Matthew 22:15-21 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/101605.htm)
>
>Dear Peer Leader,
>In this Sunday's Gospel Jesus emphasizes the importance of keeping one's
>primary focus on God, which is priority number one for the believer. He uses an
>everyday Roman coin to thwart the religious elite, who once again attempt to trap
>him. One should not be surprised by their obsession to undo him. Jesus both embodied and unleashed profoundly sweeping change, which had a direct effect on those in power.Today's entrenched establishments are just as threatened by those of us who actually live out the Gospel message. Keep in prayer those participating in the "YES! Congress on the Bible" in the Diocese of Saint Petersburg, Florida, on October 15. Please welcome to the "YES!"project participants from the "YES! Congress on the Bible" held in the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, on October 8.
>
>Dennis Kurtz
>"YES!" Coordinator
>
>Opening Prayer
>You may use the following short prayer or the prayer on page 6 of the peer
>leader's guide, or any member of the group may want to pray in his or her own words.
>>Jesus, remind us to put God first in our lives. Keep our focus on loving God
>above all else. Other things will follow and have true value if we just put our
>attention on what matters most. Amen.

>Context Connection
>For the last three Sundays we have observed Jesus using parables to
>challenge the religious elite. In this Sunday's Gospel those same leaders try to set a trap for him by asking a question. Jesus finds himself in a difficult situation; the answer he gives can't please everybody. Jesus sees through their thinly veiled plan and turns it into a powerful reminder for believers of any age: pleasing God is the most important thing in life.
>
>The Pharisees enlist the assistance of the Herodians in developing and
>executing their plot against Jesus. The Herodians were a group of notables who
>supported the puppet king Herod Antipas, whom Rome kept in power as long as he collected taxes for the emperor; their survival depended on his. The group that approaches Jesus consists of disciples of the Pharisees as well as Herodians, who surely made no secret of their sympathy toward Roman laws and taxes. They flatter Jesus with idle words, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard
>people with partiality" (22:16). They praise Jesus for his fair and nonjudgmental
>treatment of all people. They further compliment Jesus by asking him to take a
>position on an issue relating to Jewish Law, which is rooted in the Torah. (In the
>narrowest sense Torah refers to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, and in the broadest sense it refers to the whole body of Jewish teachings.)
Remember in chapter 21 of Matthew that the religious leaders were questioning
>Jesus's authority to teach and heal. Now they are asking him whether, in the
>eyes of God, it is lawful to pay taxes to the Romans. The insincerity of this group
>is quite evident by the following statement: "Tell us, then, what you think. Is it
>lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?" (22:17). Jesus cleverly avoids their trap by refusing to say whether paying taxes is lawful or unlawful. If Jesus had
>said it was lawful, he would have made enemies of those opposed to Rome, whom they saw as a foreign occupier. And if he said it was unlawful, he would have made enemies of the Romans. Keep in mind that the Romans, who alone had the power to put people to death, crucified Jesus. Jesus lets them know that he's on to them, "Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites" (22:18)? Jesus was able to turn the
>tables by asking for a Roman coin. He didn't ask for common currency, which people
>had been using before the Roman invasion, but for Roman currency. Taxes could only be paid with Roman coins. "'Show me the coin used for the tax.' And they brought him
>a denarius" (22:19). The fact that the Pharisees' disciples and the Herodians
>present a Roman coin is somewhat shocking. No devout Jew would have carried a Roman
>coin because it depicted the deified Roman emperor, which made it idolatrous.
>Jesus asks, "'Whose head is this, and whose title?' They answered, 'The emperor's'"
>(22:20-21). That Roman denarius would have had on it an image of Emperor Tiberius, who ruled from AD 14 through AD 37. Its inscription would have read, "Tiberius Caesar, Augustus, son of the divine Augustus, high priest."
>Jesus's final statement, though short, accomplishes much, "Give therefore to
>the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are
>God's" (22:21). It's simple: a coin bearing the emperor's portrait as well as his
>name must be his. Suddenly the confrontation ceases to be political and instead
>becomes spiritual. Jesus puts the focus on one's obligation to God and enjoins us to keep it there.
>
>Tradition Connection
>Government authority can be considered both necessary and good, providing it
>protects people's rights--all people's rights. Government is legitimate when
>it respects the fundamental rights of all human beings. "Every human community
>needs an authority to govern it.1 The foundation of such authority lies in human
>nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as
>possible the common good of the society" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1898).
>
>The common good that safeguards everyone's basic human dignity has to be the
>primary intention of law and order. The reason for obeying authority is because it
>has proved itself to be the vanguard of the most vulnerable in society.
>Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of
>the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such
>arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."2 (Catechism, paragraph 1903)
>When a government acts justly and guarantees basic human rights to all of
>its citizens, only then can it be considered a legitimate authority that is in
>harmony with God's divine plan for a society in which everyone respects and cares
>for one another. Those who exercise authority should do so as a means of service to
>the common good of all. A hallmark of legitimate authority is that those who
>hold positions of influence practice distributive justice for the sake of harmony
>and peace. Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of
>everyone,especially of families and the disadvantaged.
The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be
>granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended
>by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community. (Catechism, paragraph 2237)
>Wisdom Connection
>Matthew's community must have had questions about taxes. Members no doubt
>wondered whether it was lawful in the eyes of God to pay taxes to the government, the government of Rome in their case. It is a legitimate question to ask even
>today. Some people in the United States refuse to pay taxes because they disagree
>with the spending priorities of the federal government. Some of these individuals do so out of religious conviction. Most of us, even if we vehemently oppose the
>policies of our government, take the easy way out and pay our taxes. The majority in Jesus's day did the same. They held the opinion that paying the poll tax, which was one denarius for every man, woman, and slave between the ages of twelve and sixty-five, was less trouble than not paying the tax. Refusing to pay one's tax usually meant imprisonment or death. Life was preferable to imprisonment or death for most of Jesus's coreligionists; so they paid their taxes and attempted to coexist with the Roman occupiers.
>Jesus doesn't fault their commitment to the state, which was motivated
>simply by the desire to stay alive, but reminds them of a deeper commitment. Loving and serving God has to be the primary commitment in the life of any Christian. The value of other commitments, including the commitment to defend one's country, flows
>from this one. Throughout history, nationalism has challenged Christians, indeed, all people of faith. When love of country becomes the primary and most important
>commitment in the life of a society, that society is in deep trouble. Such a commitment is in direct conflict with loving and serving God. Christianity asks us to constantly refocus, to love and serve God above all else. Loving and serving the state or the leader of the state first and foremost is simply unacceptable; an unthinking or noncritical patriotism is a form of idolatry. As Christians living in
>today's highly political and polarized world, we are advised to take these words to heart.
>Closing Prayer
>Invite the members to share a short, spontaneous prayer out loud or in the
>silence of their hearts. Close with the Lord's Prayer (also called the Our Father):
>Our Father who art in heaven,hallowed be thy name;thy kingdom come;thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.Give us this day our daily bread;and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us;and lead us not into temptation,but deliver us from evil.Amen.
>Next week's Scripture passage will be Matthew 22:34-40.
>
>Acknowledgments
>The scriptural quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard
>Version of the Bible, Catholic Edition. Copyright 1993 and 1989 by the Division of
>Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United
>States of America. All rights reserved.
>
>The quotations labeled Catechism are from the English translation of the
>Catechism of the Catholic Church for use in the United States of America. Copyright
>1994 by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc.--Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
>Used with permission.
>
>The Lord's Prayer is from Catholic Household Blessings and Prayers.
>Copyright 1988
>United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Inc., Washington, DC. All
>rights reserved.
>
>Endnotes Cited in Quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
>1. Cf. Leo XIII, Immortale Dei; Diuturnum illud.
>2. John XXIII, Pacem in terris 51.
>
>Copyright 2005 by Saint Mary's Press, 702 Terrace Heights, Winona, MN
>55987-1318, www.smp.org. All rights reserved. No part of this newsletter may be
>reproduced by any means without the written permission of the publisher. Thank
>you.

Links and some bibliographic info

2005-10-07T18:43:00.000-07:00

1)My thesis: http://jswheelermp520thesis.blogspot.com/
The footnotes got messed up, but they're posted separately. The bibliography only exists in hard copy right now, due to the fact that my old computer is now dead.

so some books and websites related to the above project (just a selected sampling):
2)Anna Politkovskaya, Dispatches from Hell, (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.),
3)(http://www.kavkazcenter.net/eng/article.php?id=2883).
4)Fanny Colonna, “Cultural Resistance and Religious Legitimacy in Colonial Algeria,” Islam in Tribal Societies, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984),
5)Valery Tishkov, Chechnya: Life in a War Torn Society, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004)
6)Christian Science Monitor
7)(http://www.chechnya-mfa.info/print_news.php?func=detail&par=123).
8)Nivat Anne, Chienne de Guerre, (New York: Public Affairs, 2001)
9)Anna Politkovskaya, A Dirty War, (London: The Harvill Press, 2001)

Other books I mentioned earlier, plus some more:
Fundamentalism, religion and war, etc.:
1)Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God, (Berkley: University of California Press, 2000)
2)Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism, (New York: Ballatine Books, 2000)
3)Gershom Gorenberg, The End of Days, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)

War narratives, personal accounts:
1)Micheal Herr, Dispatches, (New York: Vintage International, 1968)
2)Primo Levi, Survival in Auschwitz, (New York: Touchstone, 1958)
3)Studs Terkel, "The Good War," (New York: The News Press, 1984)
4)Thomas Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem, (New York: Anchor Books, 1989)
5)Anthony Swafford, Jarhead, (New York: Scribner, 2003)
6)Salam Pax, The Clandestine Diary of an Ordinary Iraqi, (New York: Gove Press, 2003)
7)Maybe outside of our scope but still war narrative: Peter Nabokov, Native American Testimony, (New York: Penguin Books, 1978)

Religious theories of War (Just war):
1)St. Augustine, The Political Writings, (Whashington D.C.: Regenery Publishing, Inc, 1962) edited by Henry Paolucci
2) And a bunch of other church writings, probably more than our group should get into
Non-religious theories of war:
1)Niccollo Machiavelli, The Prince, (London: Penguin Books, 1961)
2)and other big famous guys, from hobbes to locke, Rousseau, on down the line, but really more that our group should get into.

War analysis, modern theories:
1)Gwyn Prins, The heart of War: On Power COnflict and obligation in the twenty first century, (London: Routledge, 2002)
2)Christopher Coker, Humane Warfare, (London, Routledge, 2001)

well that's alot of sources for now, and alot of reading for one person to do, but maybe from this we can create some sort of helpful book list on our wiki. Many of the comments I have about these books were said in a previous blog, in which I didn't have much time to go though and source all the books or material. Go read that one, go, go. why aren't you going. Agghh, your're hopeless.
Well that's 25 sources of varying helpfulness.

This is taken from a comment I made to Dave

2005-10-07T18:15:00.000-07:00

Hi David,
I first want to say that I really like your perspective on our group topic. It is very fresh, considering I came across so many automatons in my years at Berkeley who seemed to be reading a script fed to them by whatever source, about the evils of war and justice, etc and anyone who disagreed with the party line was immediately labeled, closed-minded, racist, ignorant, or whatever, without even having been listened to. (A complete lack of rational discourse.) Now I have already stated that I am an ardent pacifist with a tremendous heart for social justice, but this comes out of my understanding of my faith and not as a blind following of a political doctrine which has been fed to me while being intimidated into disregarding any other opinion. (I neither like the left or right, because they both use this anti-intellectual and undemocratic tactic.) If I joined a group that was of single mind on these issues, I really would feel like jumping off a building. My attitude right now may not be the most Christ centered, but this is how I feel sometimes, and you're balanced thoughtful approach to the topic is very nice. Thank you.
Ok, to the topic. I think the wikipedia definition of terrorism is very helpful. While there is a danger in defining topics that are so nuanced and varied as terrorism, in fear that our focus might become too narrow and distort the true nature of the topic, in order to effectively function in our analysis we need proper definitions. The wikipedia definition is a well written, thought out definition and in my opinion probably should be our group’s functioning definition for terrorism.
Concerning your question about the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist, I will state my blanket opinion: there is no difference. Many people can take this in different ways. Some will use it as an apology for a terrorist’s actions. (A common thought in Berkeley after 911 was that we had it coming.) Others will use it as way to point out the United States’ hypocritical support of various military movements across the globe, most prominently and perhaps most obviously the fact the members of the Taliban were Regan’s freedom fighters while they were fighting Russian occupation, but are now they are the model for terrorism. Still others will use it as a blanket denial of the claims of any revolutionary movement and may even support their violent repression. But I don’t want to touch on any of these ideas.
I have seen, in my studies, that too often the revolutionary becomes the persecutor. In Rwanda, one ethnicity was established by the Dutch to have authority over another. This was a means of social control. Having enjoyed many years as a superior class the other ethnicity rose up to gain their freedom. Justice, right? Well, that is until they set out on a mission to slaughter every single person of the other ethnicity. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia: the masses finally rose up against imperial capitalist tyranny, right? Well, the new ruling class also proceeded to massacre anyone they perceived to be a symbol of the old order, of their former persecution, (including peasants who had recently gained more land since the land reforms of the late 19th century.) Then anyone who didn’t fit in with the party’s agenda or any holder of an idea that didn’t fit in with soviet philosophy of the way in which society was supposed to functione were deemed an enemy of the revolution and persecuted. This is the nature of such revolutionary philosophies. In killing and persecuting people who symbolize the old order, the revolutionary party, which now is in power, is still, in its mind, fighting for justice and eliminating injustice. This is the way in which so many of the world’s worst holocausts happened: killing in the name of justice. The Nazis were even a revolutionary movement which sought to combat the oppression they saw themselves facing at the hands of the Jews. They were dead wrong, and the world’s most hideous evil came of it, but they were fighting, in their minds, for right. A revolution’s attempt to cleanse the world of any vestiges of the old order often includes ridding the world of people who symbolize that old order, the majority of whom are in-fact innocent. Terrorists, revolutionaries ect. are fighting, in their minds, for justice, be it social justice, divine justice, ethnic or national justice. And this, one might say is Justice without Christ.
This is the world without Christ. This is the “powers’” conception of justice. They way many good people’s noble intentions for right can be immediately used for incredible evil astonishes me. But again I reiterate, this is Justice without Christ.
I desire our wiki to somehow try and reach beyond this dilemma. How we can, in the face of war violence and terrorism, seek Christ’s Justice.
Peace,
Jesse

Sources week 2

2005-10-06T01:00:00.000-07:00

Hi all. Do to the fact that we got this assng. on tues and now need ten sources by thurs. I thought about which resources, concerning war, militarism, and terrorism, I immediately had at hand. Things I found included undergraduate reading, my thesis and its bibliography etc, and in general many books from my closet. Many I have read, many I have not, but quite a few seem to be good sources on the topic of war, etc. They tend to fall into a variety of categories, as our wiki topic is still very general. These include, personal accounts of war and war narratives, academic analysis of war, religion and war, specifically fundamentalism, Christian Theology and war, just war etc..., philosophy and war, and the contexts of war. I only need ten sources, I have quite a few, not all have been sufficiently reviewed yet, or even skimmed, but this I plan to do as we delve further into the research project. So essentially I am saying that as a starting place for this project I looked at what I had close by.
So to list some of the sources,
1. My undergraduate thesis and its bibliography. (I'll find a way to link to it later, maybe) My thesis was on traditional vs. Fundamentalism conceptions of Islam and their role in the Russo-Chechen conflict. As I spent a number of months working on it, it immediately came to mind a possible resource for the topic of war, militarism and terrorism, using the tragedy of the Chechen situation as a specific example of war (Among others, but I have some resources at hand for this conflict) and to show that the body of Christ, us, can't sit silent in the face of such cruel suffering. We are the body of Christ, and as Christ came to eliminate sin, we the Church have a duty to work against sin, and the suffering caused by sin. War being the arena of what might be the worst human suffering, it causes, in my opinion the worst physical/material, psychological, emotional, and even spiritual suffering. The causes of war and the actions taken by the various actors during and after war are deeply connected in my view to sin, our frail human condition, and the suffering we cause eachother because of our sin. The Church, as the body of Christ, is to continue Christ's mission in this world, to not only work against sin, but also the affects of sin, which includes the immense human suffering caused during war. You can see now, perhaps why I chose the topic of war as a major crisis facing the church and humanity today, as being in my opinion a little more important than some of the other topics. All are important though.
So just a couple of the sources from my bibliography are, Anna Politkovskaya's first hand accounts, and Annd Nivat. These books do have a bias, but are interesting first hand accounts, albeit an outsiders perspective. (I need to move on, its late and my wife needs the comp to work on a paper.)
So some other sources (I will give the bibliographic details when I have more time.)
2. (actually 4) Jarhead and Dispatches. Interesting accounts of soldiers. You can see the psychology of the combatants.
3. Terror in the Mind of God, by Juergensmeyer, and Battle for God, by Karen Armstrong. Accounts of fundamentalism, very important in contemporary warfare.
4. St. Augustines political writings, (Just war etc.) And there are also many other church documents and doctrines that we could look into.
5. Thinking about the theology of war led me to the philosophy of war and so the Prince is as obvious source for this. At a time when Christendom was crumbling and secular modernity was in its infancy (a result of many of the same forces as the reformation), the Prince comes as one of the foundational documents of early modernity. Comparing it to Christian ideas is very interesting.
I have other sources, but my wife is pressuring my to use the computer, so I really must go. I will get back to this I promise. Bye all.
Peace,
Jesse. Sorry for rambling incoherently

Warming up to the "blog" thing

2005-09-29T00:03:00.000-07:00

Hi all, my name is Jesse Wheeler and, if you haven't figured it out yet, I am one of your classmates in MP520, or TCC as I call it. To tell you about myself, I am 23, rather young for seminary, I know, but although I still have much to discern as to what my vocational and spiritual calling might be, I feel as though seminary is where I belong. I, most fundamentally, see the next few years of my life as a time of serious discernment.
I was raised in the Central Coast of California, in a very small town called Nipomo. Most of you, if not all of you, have never heard of this place. This is normal. It is very close to Pismo Beach (a favorite vacation spot for the central valley), San Luis Obispo (the site of Cal Poly), and Santa Maria (where the infamous Michael Jackson trial took place.) Coming from this rather conservative, yet coastal Californian region, I believe has given me an interesting perspective on certain things, being in an area with both rural and metropolitan ties, neither northern or southern California. However, where everybody comes from, be it Argentina, the rural Midwest of America, Japan, or Palestine, gives each of us an unique perspective, contributing to the wonderful mosaic of people who make up the body of Christ. But, I'm sure not many places in the world can boast of the cowboy surfer.
My educational background (beyond high school) consists of undergraduate studies at UC Berkeley majoring in history, while minoring in Political Economics of Industrial societies (even though I'm only like 4 classes short of a double major, there are many reasons why I didn't pursue it further.) While an excellent school there were many, MANY things I did NOT like about the place, and while it was a necessary experience in my life, filled with many wonderful times and much spiritual growth, I, so long as I can help it, will never go back to the Bay Area. (Many people love it up there and that's cool, but its not my place). A good 8 months of that time, however, was taken up with testicular cancer, or rather recovering from two major surgeries as a result of testicular cancer. I'm fine now though, so don't worry. (Q: So jesse what's it like living with cancer. A: ehh, its growing on me.) Sorry, that was horribly insensitive, but if you ever get to know me well you will know that I use humor as a defense mechanism, as a way of coping, and as a major way of social interaction. (Its BAD humor I warn you.) Well, my undergraduate thesis was on contemporary versus fundamentalist conceptions of Islam and their role in the Russo-Chechen conflict. That's the general title. Don't ask me about it though, I try to block that part of my life out of memory. J/K (hey internet lingo). Now I'm in seminary workin' on the MDIV, and at night I am studying Arabic.
My wife, I met and started dating in High School, we both went to CAL and one year ago we were married. (If you ever get to know me ask about the proposal story, its funny.) Well being married is awesome, especially to such a wonderful awesome person, who has been and is such a fundamental part of my life. (Sorry about the gushy sentimental stuff, I'm in love, it happens.)
My religious background is interesting. (Not as interesting as some but its interesting to me.) I grew up in the Nazarene Church, very Wesleyan-Holiness, emotional. Fantastic pastor (Ron Salisbury), he still gives the best sermons I have ever heard. When I started dating me wife, however, I started going to her Catholic Church and became very involved their. (My wife is Palestinian, her family is Orthodox, and there really aren't many Orthodox people in the central coast so Catholic it is.) (Though this may surprise many "evangies," I love Catholicism, the liturgy and the history, feeling apart of something 2 centuries old.) So for a while we went to both Churches. In Berkeley I got really involved at the First Presbyterian church their. I really loved the pastor's (Mark Labberton, a fuller grad) intelligent, even intellectual approach to our faith. It was very new to me, and as a Christian and somewhat a scholar, I had to struggle with what I saw as an anti-intellectualism in Christianity. At 1st pres., though, many of these inner struggles were resolved. With my connection to the Nazarene, Presbyterian, Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I have seen God at work in all of them and in the people of all of them and I have grown to love them all. This has led to a fascination with the way in which people experience Christ in different cultures, religious traditions, and historical periods. My learning of each tradition has only enriched my faith. For the last year I have been involved in a young adult ministry that my wife founded and coordinated called the Catholic fellowship of young adults or CFYA. It was a very good expereince. (I am still very much Prot., though, in case you were wondering.)
And my credit card number is......
Well now that you know everything about me, I hope that this coming semester will be awesome, where we can grow together as a class, a community, and as Christ's disciples.
Peace,
Jesse

Hi all

2005-09-28T23:47:00.000-07:00

This is my first blog, making sure everything is in proper working order.