Carne Levare

Know Other People

To End All Wars

Posted by Remy on May 22, 2009

“During the twentieth century, the United States was at war 15 percent of the time. In the second half of the twentieth century, it was at war 22 percent of the time. And since the beginning of the twenty-first century, in 2000, the United States has been constantly at war.”

-George Friedman, The Next 100 Years

To Christians, as pacifists, the above quote is disturbing.

Perhaps even that sentence above is disturbing.

But only Christians worship the Prince of Peace, peace is our goal, and therefore we are pacifists. The only question for us is how we labor for peace.

I haven’t done the leg work to verify this, but the numbers I’ve seen indicate that though wars have increased, the deathtoll has not. Both foreign and domestic deaths have decreased. If we view America’s involvement in other areas as preemptive strikes to avoid more destructive wars does this change our view of our foreign policy?  Are we truly for peace or just for the avoidance of war?

7 Responses to “To End All Wars”

  1. kyriosity said

    “That sentence above” isn’t disturbing so much as it is silly. Desiring and loving peace — the real, deep shalom of Christ — is not the same thing as being a pacifist. Of course believing that there are times when war is just and necessary even in pursuit of shalom is not the same thing as believing America’s foreign policy is anything short of nuts.

  2. kyriosity said

    P.S. I suspect you’re not really being silly…just sort of hyperbolic.

  3. Remy said

    Ehh, not so much hyperbolic as unafraid of words. Pacifist, but not in the same sense that a UC Berkeley Home Ec. instructor means.

  4. kyriosity said

    They have home ec. at Berkeley? How politically uncorrect of them.

  5. Remy said

    Berkeley’s home ec. is largely for white male business majors swaddled about the shoulders with pink cardigans and a few oppressed women who are there to watch their oppressors bake banana bread.

  6. Patrick said

    Pre-emtive strikes are not just slippery slopes, they are cliffs. Sure its fewer casualties overall, but think of how few casualties there would be if we just did not strike at all (I’m thinking of the two wars we are currently involved in which were both dubiously warranted preemtive strikes).

    Also, I’m not one to question a wordsmith such as yourself, but how do you define ‘pacifist’ if not the UC Berkley way?

  7. Remy said

    I would define Pacifist as someone for peace.

    I am also dubious about the current policy. But I also don’t know much.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: