"The U.S.S. New York reached New York City Monday morning, sweeping under the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, pausing at the World Trade Center site and pushing along the Upper West Side before circling around, like a contestant in a beauty pageant, to dock in Midtown Manhattan.
It was the end of an inaugural five-day voyage from Norfolk, Va., for the ship’s official commissioning into the Navy fleet on Saturday, as well as an emotional 'homecoming' for a vessel that was named for the state after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has 7.5 tons of steel from the twin towers cast into its bow..."
The celebrity of this ship is the melted steel from the twin towers of New York. Ship-builders, sailors, politicians and family members of 9/11 victims attest to the hallowed anatomy of this ship, advertised by the Navy as "designed and built to fight." The unmistakable message is reverent but vengeful. A brother of a 9/11 victim gave the honest statement, "I really like the idea of people going out and avenging what happened to us." Charlie Daniels' crass song in "tribute" promotes the ship as a "bringer of vengeance" and "bearer of truth's deadly force" created to "hunt down our enemies."
I feel the primal urge too, it wasn't my family and I didn't know those killed on 9/11, but I stood next to the still-reeking mountain of rubble just 4 weeks after 9/11. I mourned the loss of life there and took satisfaction in the swift and efficient annihilation of some of the people that supported the government that gave safe-haven to the 9/11 killers.
But now I question, 8 years later, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, two countries invaded, thousands and thousands of people killed. Is another vehicle of violence, even more efficient and more lethal then ever, really the best tribute to those killed? Appropriate and ample reverence for the innocent lives lost on American soil, but not a whisper for the innocent lives lost in our hunt for our enemies? We spent over one billion dollars on the USS New York. Even if the goal was safety, is the best use of One Billion dollars to build a larger and better weapon?
Must the cycle continue? They struck us, so we strike back harder. They killed some of us, so we kill even more of them.
Are we not sick of it YET?!
This ship will not stop the violence. Five Hundred ships like this will not stop the violence. But they would keep the violence away from us... Is that the goal?
Revenge is hard work and battle takes courage, but forgiveness is harder work and peace takes stronger courage.
14 comments:
"Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second....surrender."
Ronald Reagan
Jesus disagrees with Mr. Reagan on that.
The misbeliefs in the power of violence are deeply embedded and strongly held. It will take a courageous and determined people to wrench them out, shake them by the neck and say, "Not us, not this time."
I read the blog yesterday, and thought I would come back and see what happened. You have voiced a very unpopular opinion. Revenge is more important to american's than jobs, health, security, liberty or any other thing they are told they have. WE can't see past our own desire for revenge. There is no concern about how many hundreds of thousands have died because we allowed 19 people to kill less than 4,000 of us. There is no concern about whether or not justice is being met on death row. How many people do you know that would rather kill everyone on deathrow just to make sure they got the guilty ones. Innocence be damned, I want revenge.
If I were a betting man, I would guess that more people have spoken "Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord" than any other phrase from the bible.
You have made a courageous statement. I think you should be proud of yourself.
Thanks, AIB, it's risky and I really don't expect a discussion (I don't consider an anonymous post that quotes someone else as a discussion) because most people don't want to think about the issue. I am willing to give most people the benefit of the doubt, though. I think most people honestly believe violence must be answered with violence. It's innate, I see it in the natural response of a 5-year-old. You hit me, I hit you back. I think you're about to hit me, I hit you first.
But, since I believe in the Inner Light, I also believe that competing inside us against that "kill or be killed" survival mechanism is "love others as much as myself." That creates a serious dissonance for people: I want to love others, but I'm afraid if I do I won't survive. That's a difficult struggle! The easiest response is to keep the "kill" part of that struggle far away from us, preferably the other side of the world. Let daily life distract. I know it's the easiest for me...
What thinking person does not ponder the conflict you describe? The fear that I cannot survive loving my neighbor as myself causes most of us to isolate/insulate ourselves from the risks thereof. Some brave ones have risked to try, some brave ones risk to rattle the door to attempt to get us to try. Where can this kind of love begin. I see the world and it is beyond my grasp how, I see my own country and despair at trying, I see my town and realize it's too close and might expose me to danger somehow.
So today, I work on believing in my own dignity, value, and worth as given to me by God. I focus on practicing "endless forgiveness and a tender look that becomes a habit" towards the ones I share my days with. I smile at the weary clerk in the store when their answer is a little rude, I take food to the shut-in widow next door, let someone in when backed up in traffic, and so on.
When looking at the issues you speak of, seemingly insignificant. Yet....what if it were really quite simple..... spreading the love you have been given, that inner knowing you are loved by Him,that you are a person of great value to Him. How could it be possible not to move out of the safety and attempt to love.... everyone?? Thanks for rattling the door and reminding. LLZ
If you believe Jesus was just a sage then it doesn't really matter if he disagrees with Reagan, both of their opinions being just that. If you believe Jesus is the god of the Bible then you know the Bible says that Jesus has ultimate destruction and eternal damnation for his enemies.
This has been an odd conversation coming from residents of the world's only superpower. Nearly everything we all have today was indirectly or directly attained through the use of violence, even with LLZ's smiles at the rude clerk.
LZ - thanks for sharing your thoughts, what you say sounds similar to other things I've read of making grace and nonviolence a part of every decision throughout our day. We can't know where peace ends up, but we can know where it starts.
JnF - not sure what you know about what I know, I'd have to know what you mean by "damnation" and by "enemies." But I'd prefer to hear what you believe than guesses at what I know. And, yes, it is odd that those who benefit from an unjust system would question the system. Odd and, IMO, helpful. It's a topic I raise regularly, but I think will be coming up more specifically - I benefit from an unjust system, so now what?
I have found that prayer is one of the best ways to break down the wall of un-forgiveness in my heart. When I begin to pray for the person who has wronged me, God begins to give me new eyes to see that person and a new heart to care for that person. As I pray I begin to see that person as God sees them, and I realize that person is precious to the Lord. I also see myself in a new light, just as guilty of sin and failure as the other person. I too am in need of forgiveness. If God did not withhold his forgiveness from me, why should I withhold my forgiveness from another?
Sounds great, Anon, sincerely. So in the context of this discussion, would you apply the same standard to a nation? If harmed, should a country seek forgiveness and not revenge?
When I say "you", I mean more in the "you fellow world citizens out there" sense and not so much in the "you, DVD" sense. So we're clear in what the Bible (not JayEnEff) says about how Jesus will deal with those who did not follow him, I refer to Revelation 19. It says, "The rest of them [those who didn't follow Jesus; i.e. his enemies] were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse [Jesus], and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh." (Now THAT'S a Last Supper!) Regardless of whether one believes that it is true or not, I don't think I'm missing something when I type that the Bible says that Jesus has destruction in mind for his enemies.
Referring back to the early comments, though, my larger point, was that the Jesus of Revelation does seem to agree with Reagan. He (Jesus, not Reagan) in the end, goes to war with the biggest weapons he has. Where Reagan was limited by a choice between peace and surrender, Jesus opts for a third option: Ultimate victory through ultimate destruction Ultimate victory. I once say a Marines bumper sticker that said, "Kill them all. Let God sort them out." Someone's been reading their Bible.
Sorry for polluting your blog with typos. I should really proof-read more. I meant to type:
...Jesus opts for a third option: Ultimate victory through ultimate destruction. I once saw a Marines bumper sticker...
JnF, there are people who read the bible verses you quote and believe it means exactly what you seem to be saying, but there are also people who read it and completely disagree about its meaning. Just as there people who read (and believe) Genesis yet disagree over whether the world was created in 6 24-hour periods. You cite a "John Hagee" style interpretation while I espouse a Henri Nouwen or Greg Boyd style.
People use the same bible and disagree over everything from homosexuality to predestination. It would be an undeveloped opinion for either of us to step in here and say, conclusively, that the bible condones or prohibits war. To the extent I did that, I apologize. My intent in saying "Jesus disagrees" was to limit it literally to Jesus' words and example.
P.S., tough topic and I really appreciate the engagement, let's keep working! I've got a couple good books on my reading list that will give me some more insight and you'll be hearing about them as soon as I am able. But thanks again to the thoughtful commenters, I very much appreciate it.
I realize this wasn't the subject of intent of your original post, but we've now gone down the rabbit hole.
I happened to be flipping channels last Sunday morning and saw John Hagee in the listings, so I watched his sermon. It struck me as kind of funny that you said I cited his style of interpretation – that of a televangelist political-eschatological freakshow.
What I was actually citing was nearly a couple thousand years of orthodoxy. As I said before, the issue isn't whether one believes it is true (which I do not). It is whether the Bible says it or not. With billions of people in the world, there are obviously going to be people who dispute it, but the overwhelmingly orthodox view is that Jesus will eventually destroy the fallen angels along with the unrepentant or non-believing humans. (See details of Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel painting of "The Final Judgment" at http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/40-Judge.html . At the center of the ruckus is Jesus, holes in hands and feet.)
I've never heard of Henri Nouwen or Greg Boyd, but I'll do some checking. I just hope I don't find them on Sunday morning TV.
Post a Comment