The Dude Abides

I'm repeating myself.

2006-03-14T14:38:00.001-08:00

The Dude will continue to abide again when finals are over. The Dude Abides.

I'm repeating myself.

2006-03-14T14:38:00.000-08:00

The Dude will continue to abide again when finals are over. The Dude Abides.

Final Week

2005-12-05T08:44:00.000-08:00

I don't know if we are supposed to post this week? I was only able to skim over various aspects of The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Societies by Pierre Bourdieu and it definitely looks like a book that I will go back to and read for myself. AllI can give is a brief synonpsis of the book. It is a series of interviews from people in various life situations and different backgrounds to see what there life is like in the midst of intercultural diffusion

To understand what happens in places like "projects" or "housing developments" as well as in certain kinds of schools, places which bring together people who have nothing in common and force them to live together, either in mutual ignorance and incomprehension or else in latent or open conflict - with all the suffering this entails - it is not enough to explain each point of view separately. (3)

What we, who are privelaged, are given to think about these projects is extrememly one-sided. We must begin to look at these places as complex and intricate, whose problems are unique to there environment. The same problems cannot be plastered on to all low-income housing projects.

But using material proverty as the sole measure of all suffering keeps us from seeing and understanding a whole side of the suffering characteristic of a social order which, although it has undoubtedly reduced poverty overall (thoug less than oftern claimed) has also multiplied the social spaces (specialized fields and subfields) and set up the conditions for an unprecedented development of all kinds of ordinary suffering. (4)

I think this is the goal of this book. Again I was only able to glance it over, but it seemed like the interviews were amongst a relatively wide spectrum of French people. The stories seemed really good and range from informative, to funny, to sad. Hope all is well in the last week of the quarter. Blessings

Week 8 Analysis

2005-11-28T09:58:00.000-08:00

I really enjoyed reading this book, Inventing Popular Culture. I thought it was very insightful and eye opening. In the chapter 6, Storey explains the shift away from Identity as a fixed idea of the self to something that is constantly becoming, never complete. As we begin to look at ourselves in this new light, it is vital that we acknowledge the role that structures and powers play.

"Although we may be inventors of ourselves, identities are made in conditions and circumstances which are rarely of our own making. Therefore, although identities are a sign of agency, identities are always made within structures and discourses, which both enable and constrain the making of identity". (80)

Knowing our identities are not fixed and are in constant need of reinvention and interpretation, it becomes necessary for our sanity to accept this fluid motion of the growing Self. If the various structures have similarities to this Self, which I think they do, it is wise to begin to think of powers as everchanging and in need of constant reinterpretation. The most important question we can then begin to ask is how we begin and then continue this process. What does reinterpretation look like? Well, if we are going to keep with this spirit of reinterpretation then what it might look like will inevitably change as well. A good start for Westerner's is understanding our dominance and need for power. We all know and hear that U.S. exports are hurting the rest of the world because They are becoming Us. We are pushing our Western values and lifestyle on others who dont need them. However what this view entails is still a view of dominance because we believe other cultures are not smart enough to make these things there own. We believe that they are easily influenced by our ways and that they themselves cannot make It their own. As we read in Globalization and Culture, the world is changing through global eyes and we ourselves are influenced by these other countries even in the exports that we send out. If you think about it we do not always send overseas or across borders that which is strictly American. It is American with Puerto Rican/Irish/Hispanic/etc. connotations. To say this is not letting the Power hungry corporations off the hook, but it is looking at it with different eyes. In the last chapter on these very ideas titled Global Culture, the author Storey makes some important insights.

"It may be the case that certain commodities are used, made meaningful, and valued in ways which promote capitalism as a way of life, but this is not something which can be established by simply assuming that market penetration is the same as ideological penetration. Such a claim depends on an argument which maintains that commodities have inherent values and meanings which are imposed on the passive consumers."

That commodities have inherent values is not the case. It is a very arrogant stance to assume that just because they drink Coke and wear Jeans that they will inevitably become Americanized. We drive Japanese cars and eat Mexican food and yet do not become them, do we? This is not denying the Powers involved in globalization, but it is reimagining them. What we fail to realize is the impact of the micro-levels of culture, the local culture. The macro-levels are the ones we see from the outside, but where people are really influenced is the local. I dont know if I agree with the conclusion that the author brings to the table, it seems a bit utopian. But what I do see is in my analysis of War/Militarism/Terrorism is a way to see the Powers and a need to constantly re-evaluate our responses and approach to Pacifism/Just Peace in an ever changing world. If we are looking for definite answers we are looking for the wrong answer. As we have seen in our study of War, an absolute is near impossible. I think?

Week 7 Analysis

2005-11-20T20:21:00.000-08:00

Analysis comes from ch. 5 of Global Transformations , and Globalization and Culture by Nederveen Pieterse. In reading the book "Globalization and Culture" I am really starting to understand the synonymous language in the words capitalism and modernity. Like the Black Crows song, "I am seeing things for the first time...of my liiife!" A lot of the growing disatisfaction of my generation has to do with capitalism. However, capitalism (singular) is an advent of a modern conception of man and nature. As we begin to unravel the terms and face them undeniably with globalization we see a fracturing of our current power structures. The so-called problems that Globalization has started is in fact a backlash of the dialectic of modernity. Globalization is not just a time -space compression but a more paradoxical way of looking at the world as in Pieterse' definition of Globalization:

Globalization is an objective, emperical process of increasing economic and political connectivity, a subjective process unfolding in consciousness as the collective awareness of global interconnectedness, and a host of specific globalizing projects that seek to shape gloabl conditions. (Pieterse 16-17)

What we must come to terms with is the circumstances that nowadays we are all "Moroccan girls doing Thai boxing in Amsterdam", that is we are all mixing cultural elements and traces across places and identities (Pieterse 109)

The common experience now is that we are all experiencing, in one way or another, this mixing or hybridity of borders. One thing that we must keep in mind is that while globalization is all around us, it can, and often does, come with polarizing effects that highten inequality and underdevelopment on a GLOBAL scale. The nation-state that has, for so long, been creating larger gaps between the haves and have nots is being overpowered by the evolution of international, regionalized movements.

All this does not mean that boundaries fade or vanish; they never will because boundaries are a function of power and social life. (Pieterse 110)

We can therefore begin to map out other possible structures that will soon arise to take the fallen national/govenmental borders, these being boundaries of religion, ethnicity, or consumerism. My question with the text comes in the practical aspects of reimagining this hybridization of culture. What does it mean to acknowledge rather than suppress it? What good does this do? This is the question that keeps arising with my emersion into the faults of the Post-Modern. Where do we go from here? Is mere acknowledgement enough? What can be acknowldged is that there will continually be boundaries set up by the powerful, whether that be a state, or Global National Corporation. We, as Christians must deconstruct out alignment with powerful structures and refocus our attention to a Theology of Weakness. Especially in times of fruition people will become aligned with the powerful to preserve themselves. In light of our topic on War, we must pay extra careful attention that we are not setting up another power that takes hold of these borders, because domination will be creeping in the shadows. I want to conclude this section with the conclusion that the book gives in all its post-structuralist glory:

It is by virtue of cultural understandings of nationhood (or ethnicity, religion, identity, national security, national interests) that boundaries end up where they do. Powerful interests are invested in boundaries and borders, affecting the fates of classes, ethnic groups, elites; while borders and boundaries are a function of differentials of power, they are social constructions that are embedded and encoded in cultural claims. The distinction, then, does not run between conflict and culture, for conflict is a cultural exercise. Domestic politics is conducted through politics of cultural differences and so is international politics. This is what is at stake in discussions of culture. Since culture is a battleground, hybridity is a matter of mapping no-man's land. Hybridity does not preclude struggle but yields a multifocus view on struggle and by showing multiple identity on both sides, TRANCENDS THE "US VERSUS THEM" DUALISM THAT PREVAILS IN CULTURAL AND POLITICAL ARENAS. (Pieterse 117)

Ch. 5 of Global Tranformations was interesting because it explained the fluidity of Multi-National Corporations. I am used to thinking of Corporations as strictly U.S., but they are not longer seen as being bound to a particular nation. They act within the best interest of the company so when they are pressured by a local government for their business practices they can pick up and relocate to the area that best fits their needs. They are not American, Japanese, English but rather Sony, Adidas, and Levi's. They also exhibit an almost hopeful push towards unification of peoples, where ideas are shared and challenged in a mutually benificial way, not because of prejudiced allegiance but superior innovation. There are a lot of concerns with this approach but, again, I see a hope as well. Corporations are beyond my comprehension right now though, because I have only looked into their negative aspects. But that does little in light of transformation, because they are not going to be toppled in the near future. So again, we must reimagine what ways we can transform them to move into a more positive existence.

Week 6 Analysis (Global Transformations-Held)

2005-11-14T00:56:00.000-08:00

Understanding trade and global financial institutions is a great resource for those of us who want to understand War/Terrorism/Militarism. So often, what is at stake is financial/monetary. So, it was important to get a small taste of happenings of global finance, both its history and its future, as Ch. 3, 4 of Global Transformations deal with. All countries are now involved in international trade, some to a greater extent than others, but all do it. Trade has shaped and impacted this very world we live in. Certain fruits, for instance, never go out of season here in the U.S. because we can import them from around the globe, now we can have Watermelons year round. “Trade globalization involves more than simply the exchange of goods and services between separate economies since it suggests the emergence of worldwide markets for traded goods and services… it assumes the existence of a trading system in which trade activity between any two countries may affect trade relations between the rest” (149-50). Like Ch. 1, 2 suggested, we are now so interconnected within this global framework that the decisions or unforeseen circumstances within a certain region have a large impact on another. It will be interesting to see what the effects of all the recent natural disasters will do to the global trade market, not including the subtraction of billions of dollars in government aid. Today the world trading system is defined both by an intensive network of trading relations embracing virtually all economies and by evolving global markets for many goods and some services. The shift towards global markets has been facilitated by the existence of worldwide transport and communication infrastructures, the promotion of global trade liberalization through the institutionalization of a world trade system, and the internationalization of production. (176) The areas that draw concern for me are the possible and maybe inevitable shift away from a welfare politic. “Since trade in principle produces a net welfare gain for a country, the gainers could compensate the losers and still be better off. In this light it is not a surprising that more open economies generally have more extensive welfare states. Nevertheless, the growth of trade and changes in the structure have placed increasing strains in the welfare role of SAICS. Although there is no systematic evidence that welfare provision harms trade performance, employers, in the tradable industries in particular, resist increases in their social security contributions, pressing for REDUCTIONS on grounds of GLOBAL CONPETITIVENESS…Thus Global trade has had contradictory impacts in so far as it has increased the demand on the welfare state while undermining the political basis for finding it. JUST WHEN WORKING PEOPLE MOST NEED THE NATION STATE AS A BUFFER FROM THE WORLD ECONOMY, IT IS ABANDONING THEM.(183-4) “Global financial markets are conceived as central to inducing a convergence of political and social agendas among governments of varies ideological persuasions to ‘market friendly’ policies: a general commitment to price stability; low public debts and indeed expenditure, especially on social goods; low direct taxation; privatization and labour market deregulation. These developments argued to be unfavorable to organized labor, public sector employees, welfare state beneficiaries, and other traditional interest groups of the left”(232). I guess when I read this, it seems to me to be pure capitalist. When the market decides that a certain sector is obsolete it diffuses it and moves forward. These people who lose their jobs due to exporting labor and manufacturing will have to become more specialized into something else, thereby moving the structure of the market forward. It seems to be the ideal Regan Trickle Down Theory, so when the rich get richer, the poor get more too. This seems inherently wrong, but maybe there is a great theorist who can foresee this working out for those marginalized by this structure. When I have discussed the effects of War/Militarism/Terrorism it has been in view that in order to change the macro structures of our society we must look at the microstructures. In readily embracing everything Global we might in turn be overlooking the welfare of the people. This can ead to civil unrest, like we see in France right now.

Here in Pasadena

2005-11-07T10:52:00.000-08:00

In an article I recently read in the Los Angeles Times, All Saints Episcopal Church is coming under fire by the IRS for violating tax exempt status. They are in violation because they supposedly promoted a political candidate. However, All Saints was just asking their Congregation to vote based on values, such as Social Justice, not to endorse a politcal candidate.

Week 5 Analysis

2005-11-07T08:07:00.000-08:00

I guess when you think about it, meaning the globalization of the world, it seems scary. The case has been made, and just within the first two chapters, that the world is beginning to look drastically different. How we discuss global issues can no longer be just lateral, but bi-lateral, or even multi-lateral (which was the word thrown around a lot). The emotion of fear, however, seemingly begins to fade the more I think about this gradual change, or might I say, paradigm shift. It is modernity turned upside down, with all the blood instantly rushing into its head. Look at the language that is being represented here on pg. 85… “The contemporary world order is best understood as a highly complex, contested and interconnected world order in which the interstate system is increasingly embedded within evolving regional and global political networks. The latter are the basis in and through which political authority and mechanisms of governance are being articulated and rearticulated. To refer to the contemporary world order as a complex, contested, interconnected order is to acknowledge the ‘messy appearances’ which define global politics at the end of the new millennium”. Further on, on the same page, its says that “All these developments illuminate a shift away from a purely state-centric politics to a new more complex form of multilayered governance.” In light of our conversations involving powers, it is detrimental to our view of War/Militarism/Terrorism to make connections with this type of thinking. The decisions that are made within the U.S. are going to have significant impacts on the rest of the world. There are no simple decisions based on War anymore. When we chose to wage war the effects are similar to the Matt Damon speech in Good Will Hunting, on whether or not he will work for military intelligence. He equated working with this particular company to directly contributing to his best friend losing his job while having shrapnel in his buttocks. The actions and choices we make as a country effect those around us. The rallying cry of many pro war patriots seem merely to be for the security and welfare of our good nation. I see hope in light of the reading and the discussion which might succeed it. The conversation is moving rapidly towards a global outlook, not merely a nationalistic pursuit of welfare. “Military power has been fundamental to the evolution and institutional form of the modern sovereign, territorial nation-state. The independent capacity to defend national territorial space by military means is at the heart of the modern conception of the institution of sovereign statehood. But, as discussed here, contemporary military globalization poses quite profound questions about the meaning and practice of state sovereignty and autonomy. For in the contemporary age, the traditionally presumed correspondence between the special organization of military power and the territorial nation-state appears to be changing.” (143) The move towards a more inclusive global worldview is one that we should start to embrace. It is a way out of the nationalism that has plagued the church over the last century or so in the U.S. I am also beginning to recognize the move of the U.S. towards the global police outlook because it comes with the evolution of a changing global society. Where they could control various facets with strategic locations throughout the world, now they are morphing into transnational security. Yet with the apparent rise of these transnational peace movements and world affairs sanctions by groups like the U.N. maybe it needs to begin by strengthening these various organizations instead of trying to become one in itself. It is also important to note, that this book was made in 1999, before 9/11, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq. I think that these principles are beginning to come to the head of the discussion in light of these happenings. It seems that nation-states right now are really questioning the move towards disarmament and demilitarization because of the constant threat of nuclear war. I feel that is the jobs of those committed to peace to begin to look at ways of combating this growing dissatisfaction. The alternatives to our contemporary condition must be at the forefront of our call to peace. We must begin to look at these situations with new eyes, eyes that are technologically pertinent, globally inclusive, and peacefully innovative.

Off Subject-Post Modern Theology

2005-11-02T10:38:00.000-08:00

I came across a terrific paper dealing with the predicament of Post-modern theology. I am merely reminding myself to go back and critically read it. Cambridge Companion to Post-Modern Theology. This Picture is from Leon Ferrari, an Argentinian, he explores the contradiction of Christianity and Politics/Culture.

Week 4 Analysis

2005-10-31T09:01:00.000-08:00

In doing my research for this week I began to see a few resources for the church on how to educate lower income areas about the totality of enlisting in the military. More often than not, Military recruiters will set up shop in impoverished communities in a hope to give the young men and women a way out of their situation. For people who are concerned that the poor fight the wars while the rich wage it, this is an area that we really need to look at.

I myself grew up on the border of LA county and Orange County and the differences in socio-economic status’ when driving literally 3 miles is astounding. You go from a predominately working class Hispanic area to an affluent white neighborhood in a matter of minutes. Azusa/Glendora is no different. The young men and women in the lower income neighborhoods are solicited more by the military recruiters, plain and simple. What the Friends committee is trying to do is educate these kids so that they can make an informed decision, not one out of “it’s my only way out” mentality. This again shows that we need to be fighting for Justice on the Macro levels but also on the Micro levels of our society.

There are communities that Christians can become involved in that are dealing with these issues. The United for Peace and Justice Website connects grassroots organizations together within various towns and cities. This website gives listings for gatherings going on in a city near you, and also unites these various communities together for larger events and protests. Most of these organizations do not necessarily belong to a specific religious belief, but as we were discussing in class last week, it can be vital to connect with these types of people, showing the inclusiveness of Christ and not the separation.

Finally I wanted to comment on the PBS website. What a great resource for people who are concerned with social issues. They have a habit of magnifying things that often get overlooked in mainstream media. The documentary The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It shows the Conscientious Objectors in WWII. These people were ridiculed and marginalized for their beliefs. However, they continued to be of service in the U.S. In a war which most argue is a case against pacifism, we can look at the testimonies of these peoples of the good people can do as an alternative to killing. Also in the documentaryA Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict: tells one of humanity's most important and least understood stories — how, during a century of extreme violence, millions chose to battle brutality and oppression with nonviolent weapons — and won. Both of these resources give tribute to the ones who chose the road of Non-Violence as a way to combat injustice.

Week 4 Resources

2005-10-28T12:58:00.000-07:00

School of the Americas: Time to end a horrific legacy by David Batstone-People are gathering together to protest the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formely known as the school of the America's. Thousands of faith based activists will gather in Georgia Nov. 18-20 of this year.
Dobson Supports War Efforts In Iraq- "America comes as a liberator — not as a conqueror,” Dobson said. “To my knowledge, the U.S. is the first country in history that had the world’s most dominant military power, and yet did not use that hegemony to conquer, enslave, and plunder weaker nations." -from Dobson's Radio show, its archived if you want to listen to it.
Mennonite Central Commitee: A faith based organization which seeks to be active in this issues of war, poverty, and equality. They have a lot of different resources to become involved with.
Decade to Overcome Violence (2001-2010) Churches Seeking Reconciliation and Peace: This site gives links to various church organizations that are dedicated to Peace.
Interfaith Communities United for Peace and Justice: this is a local group in Pasadena, California. ICUJP was founded in Los Angeles after 9.11 to support the work of Faith leaders from Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Jewish and other spiritual faiths and traditions who say "Religious Communities Must Stop Blessing War and Violence..."
United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of more than 1300 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building. Links to local groups can be easily found on this website.
The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It - PBS did a film on Conscientious Objectors during WWII. This site allows you to read its history and its story.
The Poverty Draft: this is given by the Quakers as a means to educate people in low income areas to really assess whether the military is the right thing for them.
A FORCE MORE POWERFUL: A CENTURY OF NONVIOLENT CONFLICT: tells one of humanity's most important and least understood stories — how, during a century of extreme violence, millions chose to battle brutality and oppression with nonviolent weapons — and won. This is a PBS website and again, gives information regarding each of these endeavors.
Just Response: I found this rather amusing since we are trying to wade througth the Just war/pacifism debate. Maybe what we need is a just reponse. This site is dedicated in trying to do so.

Concerning Chosen People Ministries

2005-10-21T11:24:00.000-07:00

First of all I thought that the lemonade was superb. The overall presentation left me with more questions than actual information. I can only imagine the difficulties of trying to explain the gospel to a peoples who have been so devout to their heritage (telling a Jew that they have a chance for eternal life but that 20 centuries of their ancestors are in hell is not good news). Dr. Dauermann spoke of the commission as being presented to the Jews first, then the Gentiles. Obviously, throughout the scriptures the Jews are God's people, but what does that mean for us today when we are so far removed from this type of thinking? Can we get back to this type of thinking without showing favoritism in the Palestinian/Iraeli battle? Again I do not know enough about the subject to discuss anything with authority. And I don't think the 45 minute lecture on the subject gave me any answers. However, I felt like even in my continued questions I am learning.

Concerning Powers

2005-10-20T11:48:00.000-07:00

In our further research there will probably be continuous dialogue between war and peace, Just War and Just Peace, Pacifism and Realism. However, in looking at these various dichotomies, I began to see a real problem in the Powers, which we spoke about in class.

As Loren Cobb, the Quaker Economist says, “peace is seldom threatened by military war between nations, even though these wars receive the most attention in history. The absence of peace is, instead, far more an issue of civil war and local conflict, of urban violence and rural lawlessness, of domestic violence and the abuse and neglect of children. When peace does not exist at the level of families, towns, cities, or ethnic groups, then we have a problem every bit as serious as formal warfare. Peace is a critical attribute that extends across all levels of society, with equal importance at each level.” We must, therefore, question the morality at these institutional levels, especially in the U.S.

One problem with questioning the Powers (military, government, global corporations, etc.) is that we may come across as un-American or traitorous, which in itself shows how successful the state has been in its coercive language. It is of consequence because it shows how aspects of nationalism have crept into our individual belief systems, and how easily the state can become paralleled with our religious beliefs.

Here is an example of a question which might seem to be un-patriotic but needs to be asked… and answered. “If the military exists to defend our freedoms, and does not just function as the force behind an aggressive, interventionist U.S. foreign policy, then why are our troops scattered across 150 different regions of the world? Why doesn’t the military control our borders? Why do we need a Department of Homeland Security if we already have a Department of Defense?”

It is with these eyes that I see the pro-Christian view of war to be most troubling. The article on “Pro-war Christians Should Come Clean” shows the consequences of professed Christians who become aligned with the state. The logic and rhetoric from these people is disturbing because ultimately their hope is in America.

The desire to split groups based on political affiliation also shows how religion can often become aligned with the state. For example, there are Republican strategists who target people of a certain faith as a way to expand the base of their party. Through this base, the religious leaders use the Republican platform to gain dominion over society. Therefore it becomes a fight for political power through a skewed lens of religion. A perfect illustration of this is the Theocratic Right (what is commonly referred to as the Christian Right), who, believe that Christians are mandated to gradually occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns. (It should be noted the Theocratic Right is opposed by many Christians however, and should not be seen as synonymous with Evangelicals. Evangelicals run a wide range of political alliances).

It is my belief that Christians need to take a stand, especially within the structures of our government. However, we need only to look at the pitfalls of becoming aligned with these structures, to see how easily we can drift off course. If we are to be peace-makers we must become active not only on the issues of war, but also in the microstructures of society.

Off the Subject--

2005-10-19T12:25:00.000-07:00

I am answering a personal response question for another of my classes. I tried to give this response in class, but was experincing the flu, and when I went to speak, only stupidity and grunts followed. So here is my salvation to the question "What is your view of God and the universe -- How are they connected?" I have so many competing views of God that it is almost impossible to pinpoint a coherent view. It logically follows for me that the universe likewise has various views, each of which I partially subscribe to. As I was saying in class last week, I think that paradox is the only way for me to truly hold all of them together. My mind has never questioned whether God exists, but rather, what difference does it make if God exists. I believe the universe is too complex for there to be any other alternative than it being created. Exactly how, well, I’ll leave that up to people who study science. I have read Debski’s book on Intelligent Design, no conclusions. I took a course on astronomy and the anthropic principle, and have more questions than solutions. I believe in the Big Bang theory and that the universe is expanding and will eventually run its course. However, my thoughts are only on these things when asked “what do you think about the universe?” (Otherwise, I am thinking about the philosophy of the Big Lebowski) Paradoxically, I think that man is an anomaly. That within structures of almost infinite size and complexity, there lies a very simple, yet equally complex person. (The movie Powers of Ten by the Eames’ is a good example of this) To look at man in this scope is jaw-dropping for me. I am at a place right now which is all at once profound, yet childishly simplistic. How are these competing views of science/universe/man able to co-exist? Christ. So instead of throwing science out for religion, or religion for science, or humanism for science and religion, I conclude that they are connected. Truths are not built upon foundations, but a sort of web, such as Thomas Kuhn defends, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which he presented the idea that science does not evolve gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he calls "paradigm shifts." I think this is also the case for practical truth in our lives and our worldviews.

Week 3 Resources

2005-10-17T10:41:00.000-07:00

This site examines the English Minister Charles Spurgeon's view on war.
Should a Christian Join the Military? by Laurence Vance. This is on the same site and tries to answer the question if a christian should ever join the military.
Pro-War Christians Should Come Clean by Darrell Dow. This article examines what the Christians justification for war in the media have been. It's pretty ridiculous, but this was the representative view of the Christian Right on T.V.
This article tries to point out that the Theocratic Right believe heavily in Theocracy, and are different than Christian Right. So they wage war on secular society, and try to implement a society with all Christian leaders. It is a war on secularism, with the hope of getting God elected in its place.
This site tries to give a theology concerning the logical inconsitencies of Pacifism. Stating that God is not passive, either is Jesus.
This is a wiki site explaining the thought and importance of Yoder. His book The Politics of Jesus is influential to those seeking a Pacifist response to War.
This view of pacifism states that in order for you to be a christian you must be a pacifist, which also means your an anarchist (not in a negative connotation).
This is just a journel entry, but it goes a long way in explaining the roads that we must travel down for sustainable peace.
10 practices of Just Peacemaking recorded in SojoMail.
Christian Ethicists Advocate Just Peacemaking as Corollary to Just War. This article examines the need for a proactive approach to peace.

Week 2 Analysis

2005-10-14T14:38:00.000-07:00

First off I want to apologize for not having my stuff in Thursday morning. I was lying in bed with the chills, and running a rather ridiculously high fever. Probably every conflict is fought on at least two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people via propaganda. The latter, the war on peoples minds, is often used prior to the actual war. In many cases, war itself is not to be expected. Consequently, propaganda is often employed to get closer to war, if that is the preferred foreign policy option. Here are 4 rather simplistic views of how propaganda is passed down to its subjects (I’m sure you will be aware of them and their examples) 1. The Big Lie, adapted by Hitler and Stalin. (i.e. state-controlled Egyptian press has been spreading a Big Lie, saying the World Trade Center was attacked by Israel to embarrass Arabs) 2. The truth doesn’t matter, but give them a story that is plausible. (i.e. demonizing the “enemy” who does not fit into the picture of what is right, reinforcing reasons and motivations to act due to threats on the security of the individual) 3. Tell the truth, yet do not give the other side’s viewpoint. (using partial facts, or historical context, using a narrow range of discourse, using selective stories that come over as wide-covering and objective) 4. Tell the truth (both sides), the good and the bad. Western governments, for the most part, avoid The Big Lie, because their peoples will not allow such bold lies. However, the governments are able to manufacture consent through the creative use of the last 3 steps. I find this to be most frustrating because the ones spewing out this propaganda are more often than not, the ones who stand on the sidelines and facilitate, rather than engage in battle. Next let’s take a look at what strategy of propaganda various terrorists groups employ as cited in Identifying Religious Terrorism through Profiles of Propaganda by Roderick Hindey. He says there are 3 basic approaches repetitive formulas and self-hypnotic meditations; the targeting of youth binary thinking in simplistic terms “Although indoctrination and propaganda do not always result in terrorism, they logically precede it. And although propaganda and indoctrination do not work like weapons of physical mass destruction directly, in terms of damage to human minds and freedom they function as weapons of incredible mass destruction”(Hindey). In order to move along in the peace process, especially in regards to terrorism, there needs to be a proactive defense. First off, we must understand propaganda and accurately interpret its message. We have to be able to think critically about the herd-type of thinking and demand that others do as well (this means pointing the finger at ourselves first). We (ourselves and others) must learn to be unafraid of otherness and to interact with viewpoints opposed to our own. One of the leading structures which give rise to our problem of War, Terrorism, and Militarism are therefore the media outlets which allow for such subliminal propaganda. We are fed the news and given facts which are most likely skewed. The responsibility of people who claim Christ as their Savior is to interpret and search out the truth. We cannot be naïve to think that these things do not matter. We cannot base our knowledge of world issues on popular media. We must take a Biblically sound, intelligent view of the world. We must not align ourselves solely to patriotism and nationalism, but rather to that of Godliness and Christ-likeness, first and foremost.

Week 2 Resources

2005-10-11T10:13:00.000-07:00

I will be periodically adding to this post. This week I want continue to look for cases regarding justifications and counter-arguments for war, but also begin looking at propaganda in the modern and post-modern age. 1. http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Military.asp - This site discusses how propaganda is used in various aspects of war, ie. in preparation for war, military and government control of information, news organizations, etc. There are also a few case studies towards the end of the article. 2. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583225366/qid=1129051492/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-2982431-3296863?v=glance&s=books - Media Control by Noam Chomsky is an incredibly informative book which begins to outline how within the last century, the development of propaganda has significantly impacted the way we view war. There is a crucial link between the pshychology and sociology of propaganda, both good and bad. 3. http://www.peacecoalition.org/facts/PDF/just_peacemaking.pdf - this article is an overview of Just Peacemaking. 4. http://www.public.asu.edu/~sheilrod/RHdenial_in_private_and_public_life.htm Denial in Private and Public Life:Emotional Anemia in Ethical Thought by Roderick Hindery. This article examines the ways in which we deny things, both in our public and private lives. 5. http://www.public.asu.edu/~sheilrod/RHIdentifyingReligiousTerrorism.htm Identifying Religious Terrorism through Profiles of Propaganda by Roderick Hindey August 4, 2004 This is yet another article that begins to interpret and weave together a coherence between religious fundemenatalism and propaganda. 6.http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/jfq1002.pdf The Peace Enforcement Dilemma by T. Frank Crigler talks of the weakness of the peace enforement theory. 7. http://www.wichurches.org/board/statements/studyguide.doc This is a study guide put out by Wisconsin Council of Churches as a means for discussion and deliberation in better understanding the role of violence in Church and society, in deepening understanding of the call to a Christian response of nonviolence, and in forming personal and congregational commitments to specific actions of nonviolence. 8. http://www.ucc.org/theology/justpeace.htm This is a general Synod pronouncement and proposal for action on the United Church of Christ as a 'Just Peace Church', gives their biblical foundaton for Just Peace. 9.http://christianteens.about.com/od/advice/a/war_4.htm A Christian Perspective on War by Brandon Hill, This article actually does try to show the various sides of War, I was suprised that it was actually what we are trying to do, in one way or another. 10. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_warpac_xtn.htm Christianity and Pacifism by Austin Cline This article is pretty objective to the history and current state of Christianity's response to War.

Getting Started With the Terms

2005-10-06T09:58:00.000-07:00

After reading the 10 resources, I have decided that it is possible to write a 10-15 page paper out of it. The more I read, the more questions arise, the deeper the rabbit hole becomes. My group was looking for definitions of War, Militarism, and Terrorism. So that is what I tried to do, except terrorism, which shall take some convergence, as there are over 100 definitions.

War occurs only between political communities (entities which are states or are going to be states). The Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia (SPE) makes a differentiation of statehood and nation. A nation is a group that thinks of itself as a people (common culture, language, historical background) A State, more narrowly, is the machinery of government which organizes life within a given limitation. The issue of statehood is central to the essence of warfare, since it seems that warfare is ultimately about governance. If there can be no peaceful resolutions to issues such as who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideas triumph, etc. then war is the definitive means for deciding these issues. War is defined by the SPE as an actual, widespread, and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance.

War has two somewhat paradoxical facts however, 1. It remains central to human history and 2. It remains central to social change. (It might also be central to the character of human beings by showing our drive for dominance over others)

The Ethics of War and Peace have basically 3 traditions. I’ll give just a brief summary of each; however, this does not in any way give fairness to these facets of the discussion.

Realism: Moral concepts should not be employed when dealing with international relations. Realists emphasize power and security issues, self-interest as the maxim of the state, and the will to power over international issues.
Pacifism: A pacifist objects to killing (not just violence) in general and, in particular, objects to the mass killing, for political reasons. A pacifist rejects war and believes that there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war.
Just War Theory: Claims that states can have certain moral justification for war. JWT must follow six criteria: just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, proportionality. Many of the rules developed by the just war tradition have since been codified into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict, such as The United Nations Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions

Terrorism is hard to define because, according to a U.S. Army survey, there are over 100 definitions for terrorism.

Militarism, according to Wikipedia, is an ideology which claims that the military is the foundation of a society's security, and thereby claims to be its most important aspect. The militarization of society is defined in relative relation to others, and hence views the society as a material entity which exerts its influence and power over others. As I read Jim Wallis’ evaluation of The Project for the New America I was not surprised to see that previous government administrations (Reagan to the current Bush Administration) had implemented plans to continue the dominance of the U.S.. What this article points out is that America is readily becoming the example of militarism. There have been various phases of this militarization within the past 25-30 years. Right now, it is the real or exaggerated fear of terrorism that is being used to drive the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. There are now U.S. troops in 130 countries around the world, permanent bases in 40, and a growing number of others providing basing rights. People are now referring to the United States as World Police.

The question we must ask ourselves is “where do we draw the line between being a peaceful agent around the world and policing the world for our global enrichment?

Resource List

2005-10-05T11:14:00.000-07:00

These are the sources that I have come across, all of which are pretty rich with information. I am in the process of filtering them into 500 words or so. Good luck to you all.

In Response to Terror By James Turner Johnson http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9902/opinion/johnson.html

Google Search: What is militarization en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization

Definition and Summary on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Terrorism Knowledge Base: Glossary terms http://www.tkb.org/Glossary.jsp

Christian Contrarian Article on Hauerwas from Time Magazine http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/TIME/society.culture/pro.shauerwas.html

September 11: A Pacifist Response by Stanley Hauerwas http://www.faithmaps.org/Sept11.htm

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: War http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/ The Project for a New American Empire By Duane Shank taken from Sojourners http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030911

A Better Way to Fight Terrorism by Jim Wallis taken from Sojourners http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9811&article=981141a

When War Must Be the Answer By James V. Schall http://www.policyreview.org/dec04/schall.html

2005-09-29T10:29:00.000-07:00

I am from La Mirada, Ca. by way of Fullerton, and Azusa. I graduated from Azusa Pacific University with a degree in Philosophy (yah, real practical). Yet that is partially why I am here. The practicality of education is also the problem with education. My journey, as of now, is actually to teach Theology and Popular Culture. For one, because I think that it debunks a lot of myth while also creating it. I know, it can go around in circles, but what the hell. There has to be a part of Education that sparks peoples interest to understand what is going on under our very noses and also what is being nicely packaged for us all to believe. The theology, as I hope to become acquainted with, will hopefully bridge the gap between the two. So that in analyzing and predicting the trends in our environment, we can pursue Godliness. I hope that not only this class, but my education here at Fuller, will prepare me for a role in Higher Education. I hope to be a sponge as to how this discourse can and will take place.