Kenneth Martens archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Author Archive for Kenneth Martens

Donald Miller’s Prayer at the DNC

Published by Kenneth Martens August 26, 2008 in Religion, Politics and Current Events. 15 Comments

Yesterday (August 25, 2008) Christian writer Donald Miller (author of Blue Like Jazz) said a prayer at the Democratic National Convention. His website has the transcript:

Father God,

This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.

We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.

We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.

Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.

Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.

Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.

Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.

Hep us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.

Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.

We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.

Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world.

A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.

Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world.

Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.

Lastly, father, unify us.

Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.

And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.

God we know that you are good.

Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.

I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.

Let Him be our example.

Amen.

“Heart of the average American”
Now, I disagree with a lot of what Miller said in that prayer (e.g., the presumption that teachers are underpaid, and the idea that government is responsible for providing healthcare to all) but those are political disagreements. Setting aside my political principles, the first statement in Miller’s prayer that bothers me is this: “Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world. A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.”

The heart of the average American is wicked and sinful, just like the heart of the average Indian or the average German or the average human being. I don’t know much about Miller’s theological convictions, but if America’s moral standing in this world is based upon the “heart of the average American” then the whole world is in trouble.

“Against the forces of injustice”
The second statement that bothers me almost escaped my attention. It is this: “I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice. Let Him be our example.” Actually, Jesus gave his life not to combat injustice, but to satisfy justice. It is Jesus Christ who sacrificed his life to pay the penalty for my sins and yours, in order that God’s wrath might be satisfied and a pardon extended.

Ask ZFT: Sermon-stealing

Published by Kenneth Martens August 13, 2008 in Religion. 7 Comments

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds recently pointed me to Andy Naselli’s blog entry about Using and Abusing Sermons. I’m going to quote the relevant post, and then open it up to the Zeal for Truth readers to respond to the question: is it appropriate for a preacher to reuse another person’s sermon?

At the annual pastor’s colloquium for The Gospel Coalition last May, the pastors discussed future enhancements on TGC website. When discussing the new database of resources, John Piper strongly suggested that a note be added against sermon-stealing, something he “abominates.” Everyone seemed to agree. Here’s the note that is currently on the bottom of the resources page:

A NOTE ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF SERMONS

The instant availability of thousands of expository sermons and addresses prompts us to reflect a little on how they should not be used, and how they should be used.

To take the latter first: many of our Council members avidly read the sermons of others, or, increasingly commonly, listen to them while they are driving or walking or jogging. Good preaching not only opens up texts, but helps us learn how others tackle the challenge of structure, apply Scripture to their particular congregations, relate their texts to the central themes of God and the gospel, and much more. We soon sense their urgency and God-given unction. We are sent back to the study and to our knees to become better workers who do not need to be ashamed of the way we handle the word of truth.

The bad way to listen to the sermons of others is to select one such sermon on the topic or passage you have chosen and then simply steal it, passing it off as if it is your own work. This is, quite frankly, theft, and thieves, Paul tells us, will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:10). Yet in some ways that is not the most serious aspect of this form of plagiarism. Rather, it is the deep damage you are doing to yourself and others by not studying the Bible for yourself. Ministers of the gospel are supported by their congregations so they will give themselves to the ministry of the Word and prayer. That demands rigorous study. A faithful minister of the gospel is never merely a biological tape recorder or CD, thoughtlessly parroting what someone else learned, thought through, prayed over, and recorded. Indulge in this exercise and before long you will starve your own soul—and, no matter how good the sermons you steal, your ministry will sooner or later, and deservedly, become sterile, for the stamp of inauthenticity will be all over you.

One helpful suggestion: Listen to many sermons, not just one or two. You will be far less likely to steal, and far more likely to be stimulated and helped, if you listen to five or ten sermons than if you listen to one.

So what do you think? Is “sermon-stealing” an abomination that preachers should avoid?

Iraq’s Yellowcake Uranium

Published by Kenneth Martens July 31, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” - President George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

Have you heard the news reports about the 550 tons of yellowcake uranium ore found in Iraq? No? Well, that’s because the mainstream media has decided not to report the story. With the big to-do about the Niger document forgeries a few years back, you’d think any story about yellowcake uranium ore would be big news, but that’s because you’re not a reporter or a network executive.

In case you missed it, Iraq did buy uranium ore from Niger–in 1981. [Source] That uranium has been sitting around in storage for over a decade. It was inspected by the UN weapons inspectors. Everybody knew about it. (This makes me wonder: if Iraq had 550 tons of this stuff, why would Saddam want to buy more from Niger? Maybe he forgot he already had some.)

The current story is that the 550 tons of uranium ore have been shipped to Canada. The US military had been guarding it since the invasion, and had been keeping its existence a secret lest terrorists try to steal it. (Wait, why terrorists would want to steal yellowcake uranium ore? Does Osama bin Laden have a gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facility hidden in a cave in Afghanistan?)

Don’t be Fooled
So now you know about Iraq’s yellowcake. You know that Iraq bought the yellowcake from Niger in 1981. You know that this yellowcake is not the yellowcake alluded to in Bush’s speeches in the runup to the 2003 invasion. This ore was already in storage and being watched by UN inspectors. You won’t be fooled by articles like this one at Coloradoan.com that claim this yellowcake uranium justifies the invasion.

The News Reports
The news outlets almost completely ignored this story, but you can find a few articles online.

CNN - 500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says
AP at Yahoo News - US removes uranium from Iraq

Why I am not a Democrat

Published by Kenneth Martens July 16, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 14 Comments

This is part of my Christian libertarianism series, which is a description of my beliefs. I do not claim to speak for all Christians, all libertarians, or all Christian libertarians. In previous articles I explained how:

My libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview
Why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government)
Why I appreciate Ayn Rand but cannot be an Objectivist
Why I am not a Libertarian Party member

Today I will discuss why I cannot in good conscience join the Democratic Party.

In my last article, I explained why I believe the Libertarian Party (LP) is not a serious political party. If the LP isn’t the answer, maybe I can have an impact in one of the major political parties. Let’s look at the Democratic party. At a surface the Democratic party appears more congruent with libertarian values than the Republican party is. The Constitutional Conservative explains:

There are three areas to conservatism (or liberalism, if you prefer):

Foreign Policy

Social Policy

Fiscal Policy

Libertarians will generally be liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, many are anti-Israel, etc), and liberal on social policy (legalize drugs and so on), while conservative fiscally (return to gold standard, etc).

Foreign policy
Our own Colin Elliott has written an article explaining that libertarian policy is not isolationist, but is rather based on the non-aggression principle. The Democratic party may sometimes support policies that coincide with libertarian values, but this does not indicate any real agreement in principle. You might think that a libertarian would be eager to vote for Barack Obama, a candidate who has steadfastly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq. You would be wrong: Obama objects to the war in Iraq, but he’s no friend to libertarians. Just this past Monday (July 14) he vowed to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan while reducing the troop levels in Iraq. Democratic foreign policy is unacceptable to a libertarian.

Social policy
This is the tricky one. As a libertarian, I support liberal social policy. That is, I can agree with legalizing drugs, permitting gay marriage, and so forth. However, as a Christian I cannot condone those same activities. I’m not advocating sin, I just want the government to get out of people’s lives. So although I sometimes agree with the policies the Democratic party advocates, I can’t agree with their reasons for advocating them. I can’t associate with an organization that asks me to accept sin as a legitimate lifestyle.

Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society and reaffirm our Party’s commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive. Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

[Democrats.org]

Sure, I agree that everyone should have “full equality under the law,” but I cannot agree with the implicit assumption that Americans must accept the homosexual lifestyle as morally acceptable in order to have an “inclusive” society. I can advocate full equality under the law while also speaking out against sin.

Oh, and the Democratic party’s support for abortion rights doesn’t help much.

Fiscal policy
This is an easy one. Democrats typically favor increasing the scope of government programs, a more progressive income tax, and all manner of wealth redistribution programs. No principled libertarian can support Democratic fiscal policy.

To sum up
So, while libertarianism might appear to match with Democratic values, on closer inspection it is a poor fit. Libertarian principles are at odds with Democratic values in foreign policy and fiscal policy. On social policy, the Democratic party’s policies are often congruent with libertarian principles, but the underlying Democratic agenda is antithetical to biblical values. As a Christian libertarian, I disagree with the Democrats about foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy. Three strikes, you’re out.

Why I Am Not A Libertarian Party Member

Published by Kenneth Martens July 9, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 18 Comments

This is part of my Christian libertarianism series. In previous articles I explained how:

My libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview
Why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government)
Why I appreciate Ayn Rand but cannot be an Objectivist

Today I will discuss why I have not joined the Libertarian Party of America.

If I’m a libertarian, it wouldn’t make sense for me to be a Democrat or a Republican. Fortunately there’s a third party tailored just for me: the Libertarian Party (LP). The LP claims the status of America’s biggest third party. As a libertarian, it would make sense for me to join the LP, but I haven’t.

The reasons aren’t related to the party’s statement of belief. To join the LP, all you have to do is pay a membership fee and agree to this statement:

I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

That seems simple enough, and I can agree to the statement. It purposely leaves a lot of room for interpretation, because many libertarians disagree on a great many issues. That’s OK, though. A political party can have room for different ideas.

No, the reason I’m not a libertarian is because I believe the party undermines and sabotages any practical goals in favor of retaining some insane level of ideological purity. For one example, let’s look back to the 2004 Presidential election. The LP nominated Michael Badnarik and got him on the ballot in 48 states plus DC. Unfortunately, Michael Badnarik is a lunatic.

Let’s look at some examples of what Michael Badnarik believes and preaches:

He claims he doesn’t pay income tax, and that American citizens are not required to pay.

Really, that’s all we need to know. He’s not credible. He’s a farce. OK, here’s another one:

He drives without a license

Now I’m sure these are all great ideologically pure libertarian principles to live by, but by nominating a fringe guy like Badnarik, the LP is sending a message. The message is this: we don’t care about winning elections or making a real impact. We’re too caught up in maintaining the purity of our ideology, and we’re not willing to engage the world as it is, to make pragmatic, practical changes.

That was 2004. This year, the LP has nominated Bob Barr, an ex-Republican who seems much more pragmatic. Whether or not this indicates a real shift in the LP remains to be seen. I’m skeptical. The folks who rail about the purity of libertarian principles don’t like Barr and don’t trust him, and I can’t imagine they will let his candidacy have any lasting impact on the party.

I’m keeping my eye on the LP, but for now it’s not a credible organization.

Why I am not an Objectivist

Published by Kenneth Martens July 3, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 21 Comments

In my previous articles I explained how my libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview, and why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government.) Today I will explore Objectivism, the ethical philosophy developed by Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand is best known for her novel Atlas Shrugged. In it, Rand lays out a consistent ethical framework based on the inviolable rights of life and property. She calls her ethical system Objectivism because the rights are objectively determined by reality, not by the subjective whim of the masses or by the varying interpretation of religious scriptures. Objectivist ethics are inherent in the universe. They are objectively true.

I started reading Ayn Rand because she gives a vigorous defense of small-government libertarianism. Her essays have played a part in shaping my own views of political philosophy. I agree with much of what she says about government. However, I am not an Objectivist.

Objectivism is incompatible with biblical principles. To explain why, let’s study the underpinning concepts of Objectivism. Let’s begin with the Essentials of Objectivism as presented by the Ayn Rand Institute.

Metaphysics

Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural

A belief system that rejects the supernatural is contrary to the Bible. The Bible is filled with accounts of supernatural miracles. Jesus walked on water. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush. Ten plagues afflicted the Egyptians. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. God spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Epistemology

Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge)

The Bible says a great deal about faith. In John 20:29 Jesus says “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Hebrews 11 says it is “by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command.” Hebrews 11 lists off all the biblical heros and declares that “these were all commended for their faith.” Faith is not an optional part of a biblical worldview. Because Objectivism rejects faith, it rejects Scripture.

Human Nature

Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions)

According to the Bible, God is sovereign over all things. God can harden the heart (Exodus 7:13, 9:12). He controls our eternal destiny: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5). God is in control of nations: “The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.” (Psalm 33:10). A man does not control even his own destiny: “Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand.” (Proverbs 19:21).

Ethics

“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action.”
“Rationality is man’s basic virtue.”
Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Man’s reason is a poor guide: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12).

Politics

Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

The sociopolitical system that is compatible with Objectivism is laissez faire capitalism. The way to achieve this is through a minarchist libertarian government. This is not incompatible with biblical values. The underlying values of Objectivism are unbiblical, but Objectivist politics are not.

Esthetics

“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.”

I don’t even know what this means.

Of the Essentials of Objectivism, only one out of six (Politics) is compatible with biblical values. As a Christian, I cannot be an Objectivist. Objectivism is based on a godless secular view of the world. It worships man instead of man’s Creator.

Why I Am Not An Anarchist

Published by Kenneth Martens June 25, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 37 Comments

This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.

Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.

Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.

Or to put it more succinctly:

Anarchy = no government
Minarchy = minimal government

Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.

Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.

[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

“The Nature of Government” (PDF document)

I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].

The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.

The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.

To summarize:

I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.

Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.

So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.

Why I am a Christian libertarian

Published by Kenneth Martens June 18, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 59 Comments

This essay responds to the common objection that libertarian ideology is inconsistent with a biblical worldview.

Isn’t that unchristian?
When I tell people I’m a libertarian, they look at me like I’m crazy. “Isn’t that unchristian?” they ask. “How can you support legalized drugs and gay marriage and immoral stuff? What about morality and God’s law?”

What about morality?
Good question. What about morality? I’m a proponent of biblical morality. It’s God’s law, after all. I believe that mind-altering drugs are bad, that homosexual acts are detestable to God, and that God hates sin. I don’t support sin. I just don’t think the government should get involved in punishing it. Let’s let God sort it out on judgement day. The government doesn’t need to enforce morality.

Shouldn’t governments enforce morality?
When I explain that, I get a response something like this: “But governments have to enforce morality. That’s why God gave us governments–to keep justice. Governments can’t condone sin.” That’s true. God did give us governments and he expects us to obey them. But do you really want the government to enforce God’s moral law? Many Christians will say yes, but they’re inconsistent about it. Let’s try this thought experiment.

Do you think freedom of religion is a good idea? Most American Christians do. But idolatry is a sin. If the government enforces God’s morality, all religions except Christianity should be illegal. Many Protestants would like to outlaw the Catholic church. While we’re at it, we should outlaw some of the wishy-washy Protestant denominations too.
Do you think freedom of speech is a good thing? Of course! It’s one of the basic civil liberties listed in the US Constitution. But God considers lying lips an abomination. If the government enforces God’s morality, lying–not just perjury under oath, but all forms of lying–should be illegal.
Do you think gay marriage should be permitted? The standard Christian response is “Of course not, homosexuality is a sin.”

Does a “morality-enforcing” government really enforce God’s moral standard?
So to recap:

Idolatry is a sin, but we should have freedom of religion.
Lying is a sin, but we shouldn’t throw people in prison for lying.
Homosexuality is a sin, so gay marriage should be illegal.

One of these things is not like the other one. Clearly, most Christians accept the fact that the government is not an instrument to enforce God’s laws–except for the particular moral laws that they find really, really important. That’s not consistent. There’s no biblical basis for permitting idolatry but erecting legal barriers to homosexuality.

Libertarianism is just more consistent, that’s all
So I don’t see any contradiction between being a Bible-believing Christian and an advocate for a minimalist libertarian government. I don’t support sin, but–like most other Christians–I don’t think the government needs to be the morality policeman. I’m just like most non-libertarian Christians, except my political philosophy is more consistent than theirs.

Should you be a libertarian?
Maybe. You don’t have to be. You can be a good Christian without being libertarian. The Bible doesn’t talk about political philosophy, so as Christians we have a great deal of freedom in this area. I won’t question your salvation or your theology if you’re a staunch Republican or a Democrat or a socialist. I hope you won’t question mine just because I’m a libertarian.

The Next American Civil War

Published by Kenneth Martens May 21, 2008 in Politics and Book Reviews. 18 Comments

Empire cover art Empire, by Orson Scott Card
Tor Books, 2006
352 pages
Amazon.com link

Spoiler warning: This article discusses plot details about Orson Scott Card’s novel Empire. If you intend to read the book and don’t wish to know too much about what happens, you may wish to skip this article.

What will spark the next American civil war? That was the question posed to science fiction writer Orson Scott Card by Donald Mustard of Chair Entertainment. Chair wanted to develop a game based around an American civil war, and asked Card to figure out how that war might happen. Card gave it a shot. The result was Empire, a thriller novel published in 2006.

The Blue and the Red
Card looked at America. He found no divisions that have “the geographic clarity of the Mason-Dixon line.” But civil wars need no boundaries. The greatest division in America today is liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, blue states vs. red states. That’s the conflict that flares into a shooting war in Empire.

But, as Card knows, blue states aren’t really blue and red states aren’t really red. The divide only grows distinct when we compare urban centers to the rural areas. Urban blue, rural red. With this kind of geographical dispersal throughout the United States, a shooting war isn’t likely to happen spontaneously. No, it requires a conspiracy.

The Conspiracy
Here’s how it happens in Empire. A liberal billionaire (think George Soros) secretly finances a private military. He bides his time, waiting to overthrow the US government. Meanwhile, a disaffected Army general plans his own right-wing coup. When unknown terrorists assassinate the President and Vice-President, the general seizes the opportunity; but his move is premature and the coup fails. In response, the liberal militia invades and occupies New York City, declares the US government to be illegitimate, and claims to be the only true government of the people. To avoid civilian casualties, the new US President (formerly Speaker of the House, as per the rules of succession) opts not to send the US military into New York City. The nation endures a tense standoff between the revolutionary forces and the US government; every day that the standoff continues, more liberal states and cities pass resolutions recognizing the rebellion as the legitimate government of the US.

Could it really happen?
Card’s basic premise is that the left-right divide in America is sufficient to lead to civil war. But is this realistic? I think not. Even Card recognizes that the average American isn’t radical enough to wish his political enemies dead. Most Republican don’t think that Democrats are evil, and vice versa. That plays out in Empire. The only significant violence is caused by the private militia that invades New York City. There is no massive violence and bloodshed between Americans. The rest of the nation sits around waiting to see what happens; a few city councils and state governments pass resolutions, but nobody takes up arms. Republicans don’t murder their Democratic neighbors. Liberals don’t lynch conservatives. In the end, after the rebellion collapses, the Republicans and Democrats even get together and–in a show of bipartisanship–nominate the same man for President.

Neither left nor right
If the left-right divide is the biggest problem in America today, the nation is strong. Is there anything that could flare into civil war in America? I can’t think of anything. Do you have any ideas?

Terror in the Mind of God

Published by Kenneth Martens May 8, 2008 in Religion and Book Reviews. 14 Comments

Terror in the Mind of God cover art Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, by Mark Juergensmeyer
University of California Press, 2000
243 pages
Amazon.com link (3rd edition)

Reviewer’s note: This book review is about the first edition of Juergensmeyer’s book Terror in the Mind of God published in 2000. The third edition published in 2003 incorporates information from the September 11 attacks. I have not read that revised edition. This book review only covers material in the 2000 edition of Juergensmeyer’s book.

In his 2000 book Terror in the Mind of God, Mark Juergensmeyer explores the relationship between religion and violence. He begins by examining a number of case studies, including

Radical right-wing Christianity in America
Protestant-Catholic issues in Northern Ireland
Jewish terrorists and assassinations in Israel
Islamic terrorism
Sikh violence in India
The Tokyo subway nerve gas attack

In all these cases, Juergensmeyer notes that the sects that turn to violence are marginal and are not accepted by the mainstream religions to which they claim affinity. On the other hand, the mainstream religious community can often understand the motivations of the terrorists, if not approve of the methods.

Juergensmeyer identifies several key qualities that tend to lead to religiously-motivated violence:

A worldview that interprets history as a cosmic war between good and evil. The struggle is not against earthly institutions, but against heavenly powers. Often this happens when a culture fears for its existence, like the Sikhs fear becoming subsumed into India’s dominant Hindu culture.
The unavailability of other options, such as the democratic process, to achieve one’s goals.
The satanization and dehumanization of enemies, as when Islamic fanatics paint America and all Americans as evil, or when radical right-wing groups in America refer to all non-Aryans as mudpeople.

As for the terrorist acts themselves, Juergensmeyer interprets them as performance violence. They are not intended to directly achieve one’s goals. They are symbols of a culture war. When Paul Hill murdered an abortion doctor, he wasn’t expecting to significantly reduce the number of abortions performed in America; rather, he felt compelled to act to send a message that abortion is murder, and that deadly force is justified to defend the unborn.

The weakest part of Juergensmeyer’s book is when he tries to interpret terrorism as a form of male sexual aggression. That, and his continual attempts to paint Timothy McVeigh as a religiously-motivated terrorist. I have just read two McVeigh biographies, and Juergensmeyer is deliberately misrepresenting McVeigh’s motives for the Oklahoma City bombing. It is true McVeigh had contact with the radical Christian militia groups–notably the Christian Identity movement–but Juergensmeyer does not distinguish between contact and motivation. He sprinkles his book with unspecified comments about McVeigh’s associations and links to Christian Identity–links which are often nothing more than an innocuous phone call, but you wouldn’t know that from Juergensmeyer’s insinuations. Then he goes into detail about Christian Identity’s stated motivations for religious violence, and makes the unwarranted assumption that McVeigh shared those motivations.

I don’t know why Juergensmeyer felt he needed to stretch the truth about McVeigh. Not all terrorism is religiously motivated, a point which Juergensmeyer admits more than once. There are plenty of other terrorist incidents that can be legitimately tied to Christian Identity groups, so there is no need to conjure up a fictional version of McVeigh. It calls Juergensmeyer’s credibility into account. Even worse, in his public speeches Juergensmeyer is now apparently using McVeigh as a counterpoint to Osama bin Laden, claiming that McVeigh is as “Christian” as bin Laden is “Muslim.” That’s a lie, of course. McVeigh’s motivations were wholly secular (although his crime was enabled and encouraged by a fringe group of Christian lunatics), whereas bin Laden’s fatwa against America specifically uses religion to justify violence.

Zeal For Truth