Daniel Larison

Whom Do You (Objectively) Serve? (II)

God And Country

By Daniel Larison • November 11, 2009, 9:37 AM

Rod has an interesting post on allegiance to God and country connected to the Fort Hood massacre, but I think he misses something when he writes this:

If any Jew or Christian would put his national identity over his religious identity, he is an idolater and should repent. I pray that I will in all times and at every opportunity choose fidelity to God over fidelity to nation. The thing is, as a Christian, one has pretty much never had to make that choice. I do not worry, and indeed honor, the Muslim soldier who places God above country — but only as long as there is no serious conflict between serving both.

I was thinking about this yesterday, and it occurred to me that there have probably been cases in the past in which American Orthodox Christians serving in the military were either training for a possible conventional and nuclear war that would annihilate the better part of the world’s Orthodox population or were deployed as part of a mission to bomb an Orthodox country (i.e., Serbia). Would these Christians have been in the right to turn on their comrades? Absolutely not. Even though the attack on Serbia was completely unjustifiable and morally wrong, Orthodox Christians pledged to U.S. and NATO military service would have been obliged at the very least to remain loyal to their governments. If there were a severe conflict between their obligations to their fellow Christians and their duty, they would either have to resign or at least refuse to engage in hostilities. In practice, as regrettable as the conflicts themselves were, Orthodox Christians have warred against each other for centuries dating back to the middle Byzantine period. That in itself is not a good thing, but no one on either side in these conflicts believed his religious obligations compelled him to betray his natural and political loyalties. There were Orthodox soldiers on both sides in the Russo-Japanese war, and the bishops in both countries prayed on behalf of the armed forces of their respective nations.

Treason and mutiny, which are the actual crimes that Hasan committed in addition to murder, are not justified by one’s political views of what is being done to one’s co-religionists by the government. As I understand it, only if the government demanded apostasy and the abandonment of the faith would Christians be required to resist or disobey a legitimate government. Hasan seems to have believed that he had a religious duty to make a violent political and policy protest on behalf of other Muslims. To the extent that Islamism blurs or even erases the lines between religious and political obligations, or makes loyalty to the ‘umma greater than loyalty to one’s own government, the distinctions I mention above would be extremely difficult to maintain. There are going to be times when there will be serious conflicts between duties to God and country, but for the most part that is not what compels treason of this kind. Men commit treason to achieve a political objective or to make a political statement. Their politics may be infused with or closely identified with religious ideas, but it cannot be pinned squarely on their religious convictions when most of their co-religionists do not reach the same conclusions and do not share those politics.

I would add one more thing. Americanists who want to continue bludgeoning and bombing other countries cannot expect the immigrant populations they so happily welcome to remain indifferent to what is being done to their home countries or co-religionists. To the extent that the Americanism to which they expect immigrants to assimilate involves unnecessary and aggressive wars against other nations, it is the hawkish Americanists who are contributing to the erosion of national unity even as they squawk about the need for assimilation and it is they who are putting the loyalties of new Americans to the test.

34 Responses to God And Country

Northern Observer says:

November 11, 2009 at 10:24 am

Rod is wrong on the theology in my opinion. Secularism or deference to secular authority and obligations has a good theological backing in Christianity. This is the most famous passage, but there are also parables about the attitude slaves should take to masters and the obligation of slaves not to hate the master that can alse be seen as applicable:

Matthew 22: 15-22

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

I can’t speak for Judaism but I am fairly sure that rabbinical judaism has similar conventions.

What I do know is that Islam does not. Be it mild Ismali or the most raddical Salafist Islamic doctrine, there is no provision for the faithful to obey a state in good consience if it acts contrary to the Koran or Sharia. There is no theological backing in Islam for the separation of Church and State, and this is a problem. I know that some Islamic scholars in the west have provided theological arguments for peaceful coexistance, but their arguments are new and without precedent while the violent salafists can point to mountains of historical scholarship for their intepretation.

Supporting the right theological development in Islam is not something I think US policy makers, or any policy maker, are skilled enough to pull of. I guess a good start would be providing asylum to persecuted “pacifist” islamic scholars and teachers while refusing asylum or immigrant status to traditional salafist type imams and other teachers. But it is easier said than done. It always amazes me that France sheltered the monster Kohmeini before he went home to seize and ruin Iran.
JJM keeps losing his password says:

November 11, 2009 at 10:40 am

You get this all the time, but this is a good post.

Sadly, the nuance will be lost on fierce partisans, who will either assume that this post is damning of Islam generally or an attempt to whitewash Islam’s role in the Ft. Hood massacre, while your overall position, I think, is more balanced.
Aaron says:

November 11, 2009 at 11:27 am

A pedantic correction to Dreher’s statement: a religious Jew’s national and religious identity always coincide. His nation is the Nation of Israel, and his religion is Judaism. Of course I know what Dreher meant. He meant loyalty to religion vs. loyalty to the state, or commonwealth. Like most Americans, he can’t even conceive of what nationality is. But when you put his statement that way it already starts to sound a lot different. After all, it actually seems pretty rare nowadays that religious and national (in the sense of ethnicity) loyalties conflict.

Dreher seems awfully smug saying that Christians don’t have to make that choice. Some prominent Christian thinkers would strongly disagree. Stanley Hauerwas comes to mind.

And what’s that bullshit disclaimer at the end of Dreher’s quote, anyway? In the next (unquoted) sentence, he says that he doesn’t even honor someone serving God first when it means not serving in the military! Basically, “I mean what I said only when it doesn’t really matter.” Gee, that’s helpful, thanks.
vanya says:

November 11, 2009 at 11:36 am

“There were Orthodox soldiers on both sides in the Russo-Japanese war”

Minor pedantry, but don’t you mean the Russo-Turkish warI? Who were the Orthodox soldiers fighting for Japan?
expertlaw says:

November 11, 2009 at 11:44 am

>>> To the extent that Islamism blurs or even erases the lines between religious and political obligations, or makes loyalty to the ‘umma greater than loyalty to one’s own government, the distinctions I mention above would be extremely difficult to maintain. <<<

I think you're putting your finger on something, that is difficult for those of us raised in modern western culture to grasp: In radical Islam there is no compromise between your religion and the state. There's certainly no leaving aspects of your religion at home or at church in order to participate in a secular society.

The same loss of distinction between church and state can occur in any fundamentalist religion – consider, for example, the Branch Davidians, the People's Temple (Jim Jones), or FLDS – but whereas in other societies that form of fundamentalism is far outside of the mainstream, in many Islamic societies it is the mainstream. Within that mindset, compromise with secular interests is not just wrong, it's an offense against God.
Daniel Larison says:

November 11, 2009 at 11:53 am

There were Japanese converts to Russian Orthodoxy beginning in the late 19th century during the time of the ministry of St. Nicholas. Concerning the war, there is this item:

“At the time of the Russo-Japanese War, the enlightener of Japan, the Russian Archbishop Nicholas [now glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia — ed.], who remained in Japan, blessed the Orthodox Japanese soldiers who went to war to fight for their own homeland. Although he himself did not celebrate services, since he could not pray for victory over his native Russia, he nonetheless permitted the Japanese clergy who were subject to him to do so.”

The Orthodox soldiers fighting for Japan were Japanese converts. There were not all that many of them, but they were there.

As for Orthodox participation in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, I had assumed that Rum millet subjects were not permitted to serve in a combat role, but would have been involved at most in various support roles. Unless I am mistaken, I thought that Armenians were the only Christian subjects permitted to bear arms in the Ottoman military.
Elvis Elvisberg says:

November 11, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Rod wrote, “I pray that I will in all times and at every opportunity choose fidelity to God over fidelity to nation. The thing is, as a Christian, one has pretty much never had to make that choice.”

That is only true if Christianity is a pure tribal label, severed from any moral concerns.
Imzak says:

November 11, 2009 at 12:42 pm

“It always amazes me that France sheltered the monster Kohmeini before he went home to seize and ruin Iran.”

It also amazes me that a good majority of Iranians in Iran will disagree with that sentiment. The Shah was the true monster of Iran, and Khomeini did not seize anything, he initially did not even want any political office. Khomeini was put into power by a popular uprising. It was the Shah’s ruining of Iran that enabled Khomeini to take full control. And since when does fighting against oppression, poverty, and a monarchy constitute one being a “monster.” Was George Washington a monster because he fought the British empire?
chrome agnomen says:

November 11, 2009 at 12:50 pm

rod misses something? what doesn’t he miss?

forgive me, as rod must, for not being up to speed on who is his god, or what is his belief system. one can only surmise that mr dreher speaks out from the confines of a jail cell. either that or he has acquiesced to the many ungodly acts perpetrated over the period 2001-2008, and throughout our history by our government.

as a christian, he says he has pretty much never had to make that choice between fidelity to god or nation? really??? in other words, the policies of this nation and the beliefs of his system have very nearly always been in sync? i can freely admit to being a lightweight thinker among the heavy hitters in this blog and its comment thread, but that statement strains credulity. does anyone who realistically assesses the motives of this country’s policies come to any other conclusion than that they are guided by the worship of manna, or the desire to control the destinies of the less powerful? pardon my naivete, but i don’t see much of the godhead in the face we present to the world.

subjectively speaking.
Northern Observer says:

November 11, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Imzak,

So two wrongs make a right?
And are you seriously comparing Khomeini to George Washington. One is a literalist cleric, the other was an enlightenment thinker …
I guess when you fight injustice you can justify anything or anyone.

Iranians need to come to grips with the fact that they were duped by the clerical establishment in their fight for freedom and move forward from there.

Oh and by the way, Napoleon is my uncle.
RedPhillips says:

November 11, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Rod is paralyzed by his own political correctness. He proposes that the answer to disintegrating diversity is to embrace “creedal nation” mythology which is partially responsible for our diversity worship to begin with.

Note how he has to make it totally clear that even though he is quoting Buchanan and agrees with him on one particular, he finds his larger “bristly nativism repulsive.” Just to make sure we don’t miss it he makes the point twice. But yet I have been critical of Rod in the past for not being clear enough that his criticism of movement conservatism are from the “crunchy” right and not from the Frumesque center. To avoid him being lumped in with Frum, Brooks, Parker, etc. as just another centrist critic of movement conservatism. Is wish he would be as careful to distinguish where he is not coming from when he criticizes Limbaugh as he is when he is praising Buchanan.

It is clear he fears being labeled politically incorrect more than he does being identified as a centrist.

I agree with him that a Christian should definitely put his Christianity before his country, and I am glad he made the point. I have noticed that the direction some of the discussion re. Hasan has been going is to essentially imply that only liberal religions are acceptable. That the problem with Islam as Hasan saw it was that it was illiberal, not that it was false. There is some of this suggestion in Northern Observer’s reply. That Islamist or Christians who don’t embrace liberal interpretations of their Faith need to be good little boys and girls and get with the modern program, instead of actually attempting to find the Truth, illiberal or liberal, that God intended.

What Rod should realize but apparently doesn’t is that this is all related. His pristine deference to political correctness imperils the very Christianity he correctly states should be foremost in the life of the believer. A political correctness that worships diversity and tolerance will ultimately not tolerate a religion such as orthodox (small o) Christianity that considers itself The Truth against all other religions.
Imzak says:

November 11, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Khomeini did not follow the literalist tradition, that’s strictly in the realms of Salafist theology. All Shia schools of thought be they, Usooli or Akhbari, strictly have condemned what they call the “literalism disease of the Salafis”. Khomeini even wrote Sufi poetry dealing with wine and love.

Iranians will come to grips with whatever when the time is right. They do not need Westerners like you telling them what to do. As of now, recent polling shows that Iranians (around 80%) are content with their current government. So let them be.

And yes Khomeini and Washington can be compared as they both changed history and overthrew a system and established a new one.
Gordianus says:

November 11, 2009 at 4:03 pm

My guess is that Dreher meant that Christians have until recently been able to assume that the USA would conduct itself along generally Christian lines. This is less and less true, but for many Conservatives the desire to pretend that it is true, is irresistible.

It’s not as though Hasan is the first of his faith to take his dissatisfaction with our country into his own hands. He chose treachery over resignation or flight to a more acceptable society. The question is, how is it that Muslims find nothing incongruous in voluntarily living among infidels while reserving the right to murder said infidels. I suspect that they view the whole world as Allah’s and see no need to adapt to the quirks of we who have not yet submitted to his dominion.

Any Western Society that accepts Muslim immigration is obviously asking for trouble. Of course as a society with no real creed we are at a loss to apply such a restriction.
Northern Observer says:

November 11, 2009 at 8:58 pm

I am not sure how observing that Khomeini is an enemy of human freedom and dignity, along the lines of Lenin, Robespierre and Mao, is tantamount to telling Iranians what to do. It is as if the revolutions accomplishment is so fragile that a little puff of air will cause it to go weak in knees …

And you know, one can hold the view that Khomeini is one of history’s bad people without buying into the idea that the Shah was a great guy, or that what America/Britain did in 56 was swell, and that Iranians are just waiting with baited breath for NATO to come ‘liberate’ them. It seems desperate to paint any critic as falling into the invaders camp; lest anyone listen to the critique too closely.

The regime is real and Iranians will move it as they see fit; but let us not lie to ourselves about its qualities simply because we dislike American interventionism.

Oh, and theologically, AK is not really remembered for being the great wine and love poet. He’s more a of a great fascist thinker, like Qutb. But I encourage all people to investigate the writings, they are quite revealing.
Grumpy Old Man says:

November 11, 2009 at 9:39 pm

@Aaron:

I am neither a scholar nor a follower of Judaism, but there is a Jewish dictum, in Aramaic, “Dina de malakutha dina,” which means “The law of the nation is the law.” Jews are to obey the laws of the country where they live.

There are limits, for example, denouncing fellow-Jews to the authorities, renouncing monotheism, and accepting conversion to another religion.
herb says:

November 12, 2009 at 4:22 am

Not to quibble with such a minor point, but I’m curious about your assertion that “the attack on Serbia was completely unjustifiable and morally wrong.” Operation Allied Force, right? The post-Dayton effort to prevent yet another Milosevic-sponsored ethnic cleansing campaign? Morally wrong? Completely unjustifiable? How so?
Aaron says:

November 12, 2009 at 5:42 am

Grumpy, my only disagreement with you is on terminology, which is crucial. “Malakutha” (or at least the Hebrew cognate) is translated “kingdom”, which today would correspond to state, *not* nation: “the law of the state is the law”.

Consider the spy Jonathan Pollard, who betrayed the US for the State of Israel. Looking at Pollard’s motivation, Dreher might say he betrayed his nation for the sake of his religion. I would say he betrayed his state for the sake of his nation. Regardless of which terminology one prefers, there’s a world of difference between the formulation in Dreher’s terms and in mine.

Bad terminology leads to big mistakes. Terminology is crucial. But it’s also really annoying when people keep harping on it like I’m doing here, so I’ll be quiet now before I’m asked to shut up.
Imzak says:

November 12, 2009 at 6:59 am

“The regime is real and Iranians will move it as they see fit; but let us not lie to ourselves about its qualities simply because we dislike American interventionism.”

I cannot lie about Iran or Iranians since I have family and friends who live in Mashad, Tehran, Tabriz and Qum. You’re not lying either, you’re just parroting the same propaganda lines of anti-Iranian hysteria. It’s okay, it’s just a symptom of being brainwashed.
Imzak says:

November 12, 2009 at 7:07 am

You should study the definition of fascism also before you make such false characterizations of Qutb and Khomeini as fascists. Your line of thinking is that fascist equals bad; and Khomeini equals bad so therefore Khomeini equals fascist.

And really, Khomeini is a “bad guy” of history? Your comic book view of the world amuses me. According to whose history? To the hundreds of millions of Iranians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Pakistanis, Indians and Indonesians; Khomeini is a great leader and inspiration.
Grumpy Old Man says:

November 12, 2009 at 7:52 am

@Aaron

Your translation is better. The ancient state or kingdom was often not national at all in anything like the modern sense.
Northern Observer says:

November 12, 2009 at 10:56 am

The facism moniker is accurate because of the content not the negative association with old european regimes.
Fascism is an authoritarian political social reaction to modernity and liberalism. The writings of Qtub and Khomeini fulfill this role in modern Sunni/Shi’ite political thought. That they associate themselves with the Koran does not change their quality.

My values are not your values. Khomeini is bad or good depending on your values. But from where I sit he was long term bad for the Iranian people.
Imzak says:

November 12, 2009 at 11:58 am

“But from where I sit he was long term bad for the Iranian people.”

Maybe for the Westernized Iranian diaspora who have long forgotten about their identity and culture, but for Iranians in Iran, he is their hero.

Khomeini would also win any world popularity contest against any US president. It also should be noted that US presidents and politicians have far more innocent blood on their hands than Khomeini.
BarryD says:

November 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm

, on November 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pm Said:
Rod wrote, “I pray that I will in all times and at every opportunity choose fidelity to God over fidelity to nation. The thing is, as a Christian, one has pretty much never had to make that choice.”

Elvis Elvisberg: “That is only true if Christianity is a pure tribal label, severed from any moral concerns”

Which is to say that it’s pretty close to being true for Rod.

Gordianus:
“My guess is that Dreher meant that Christians have until recently been able to assume that the USA would conduct itself along generally Christian lines. This is less and less true, but for many Conservatives the desire to pretend that it is true, is irresistible. ”

Let’s see:

You’re a soldier, and told to sweep through an indian village (whether or not they attacked you) and kill everybody, including women and children.

You’re a soldier in several countries and eras, and told to kill anybody who resists the ‘our SOB’ government the US is setting up there.

You’re prepping bombers with white phosphorous and napalm, which will be spread over several square miles of enemy city.

You’re preparing nuclear weapons to be ready to launch in a few minutes (i.e., so short a time that neither the people of the USA nor the leadership will be involved); those weapons are generally targeted as ‘counter-population’ methods.

You’re spraying herbicide over S. Vietnam or Central/South America, in a way which will kill the crops of thousands of poor peasants on each mission.

You’re in Vietnam, as part of the 9th ID, in operation ‘Speedy Express’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Speedy_Express). The sort of operation which comes back with far, far more kills than weapons captured. Or any other unit which has been told “If it’s dead and Vietnamese, it’s VC” (and which goes in the enemy body count).

You’re in Iraq, trashing the evil government of Saddam Hussein, but spending the next year or so trashing local efforts to organize anything out of the chaos, resulting in a chaotic h*ll-stew of criminal gangs and ethnic/sectarian religious militias slaughtering large number of civilians, while Al Qaida happily takes advantage of the clusterf*ck to kill many more. After a few years of that, you form an alliance with a cooperative set of nasty Islamic fundamentalist leaders, who engage in a vicious ethnic cleansin campaign (but I’m sure that US leaders will deny any knowledge or involvement with that).

You’re in Afghanistan, after a genuinely righteous campaign against Al Qaida and the Taliban, you basically dial down the forces to the level of ’cause chaos, but not settle the matter’ for several years, while the original Taliban survivors and locals who hate what you’re doing organize a guerrilla war. At which point you’ll dial up the forces to the level of ‘trash the place, but not settle things’ (because that’d take a half-million soldiers for a decade, in the best of cases).

And that’s just a start.
bayesian says:

November 12, 2009 at 1:35 pm

Imzak -

“Maybe for the Westernized Iranian diaspora who have long forgotten about their identity and culture, but for Iranians in Iran, he is their hero.”

I have no idea how to determine the degree to which this is true, but it doesn’t strike me as impossible by any means.

On the other hand:

“Khomeini would also win any world popularity contest against any US president. ”

Yeah, right. Pity – I had entertained hopes that your comments might provide useful alternate perspective, but evidently you’re just a better than average troll. Still, congrats for the better than average part.
Imzak says:

November 12, 2009 at 1:51 pm

babyesian,

I must have hit a nerve. No apologies.
bayesian says:

November 12, 2009 at 2:10 pm

(Does “Izmak” mean something or have some particular relevant connotation in Farsi or Azeri or Turkish? – I include the latter two because the phonetics seem more Turkish than Indo-Iranian. Quick googling and check of the online translators didn’t find anything.)

Of course no apology, and no nerve hit – credit where credit is due for a quality troll job. The troll detection filters need constant updating and you helped (hint – the handle isn’t an Armenian name, it’s an adjective).
Imzak says:

November 12, 2009 at 2:29 pm

So you really think Khomeini would lose a worldwide popularity contest with say, Obama? Please. Even Nelson Mandela praised Khomeini as a liberator. Obama and all the US presidents before him find pleasure in bombing poor and innocent peasants in destitute nations. The rest of the world has nothing but hatred for US leaders.
Gordianus says:

November 12, 2009 at 2:49 pm

BarryD, It was never the policy of the US government to exterminate Indian women and children. I write about the Indian Wars and have never come across an instance of an officer in the regular army instructing his troops to kill Indian women and children. Many were killed in attacks on villages in the heat of battle. But standard operating procedure was to capture and transport Indian women and children and elderly to base or reservation.

You go on to mention several instances of very rough treatment engaged in by our government. It’s pointless to argue that the US never killed innocents. But we did fight according to rules that were generally accepted by other Christian nations and did attempt to restrain the conduct of troops. We also have allowed for conscientious exemption and our medics treated the enemy.

My point was that the actions of our government were loosely within the framework of accepted Christian norms. As you point out however, as the Twentieth Century progressed and our Republic became more secular, our war aims and methods became more like those of our foes.
BarryD says:

November 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Gordianus, what’s odd is that in *my* world, the ‘Christian Right’ has been pretty fine with increasing brutality in the US.
Gordianus says:

November 12, 2009 at 10:19 pm

BarryD, the Christian Right’s pro-war stance is undeniable. Especially so considering it is from their segment of society from which so many of the troops come. My guesses as to why is the following.

a. Bush was perceived as a fellow Christian and used the language of liberation to explain his wars.

b. While the wars can be seen as aggression, the actual role of the vast number of troops is “peace keeping.” That is, they patrol and guard while being shot at by Muslims. It’s natural therefore for their folks back home to see them as patriotic, long suffering professionals. And within the limits of their experience they are. The policy is anti-Christian but soldiers are not.

As I said before, there is a growing gulf between the goals of the managerial elite who run this country and mostly Christian soldiers, workers, farmers, etc. who supply the manpower.
Northern Observer says:

November 13, 2009 at 11:04 am

“Khomeini would also win any world popularity contest against any US president. It also should be noted that US presidents and politicians have far more innocent blood on their hands than Khomeini.”

Your arrogant overconfidence betrays your insecure doubt.
If his legacy was so wonderful it would be self evident and you would not be here defending him like some crazed basiji.
Many evil things in the World have been popular, it does not make them right or good. As for world popularity my guess would be that indiffirence or ignorance would win over either candidate.

How AK is remembered among the shia is one thing, but outside the perspective of faith AK will more likely be remembered more for his theories of government, his intolerant teaching of Islam and his muderous persecution of the Bahais in Iran, not to mention anyone deemed a regime opponent.

Oh and let us not forget his imperialistic attempt to silence free thought and speach in the World by ordering the murder of Salmon Rushdy for writing a comedic novel. Khomeini is the face of an inolerant, violent and imperalistic Islam. (not do mention didactic and humorless)

In the longer term say 100 years I believe that Kohmeini’s political doctrines will do for reputation of theocracy what communism did for the reputation of central government. The signs are already there …
Mark Moore says:

November 14, 2009 at 6:41 pm

I can’t fault Dreher for the first part of his formulation:”If any Jew or Christian would put his national identity over his religious identity, he is an idolater and should repent. I pray that I will in all times and at every opportunity choose fidelity to God over fidelity to nation.” That’s just the way it is. The nation-state receives its authority from God, but I don’t get to forfeit my responsibility to answer God’s call to mercy just because the nation-state says jump. Was it Karl Rahner who argued that the eternal is not impressed with how much we give or do, but with whether we show mercy?

Justice isn’t slamming a bunch of people in jail or exacting vengeance with firepower, it’s found in seeking mercy for those who are abused by those who control capital and political power.

@ GOM & Aaron — kingdom and tribe are still with us, and, no, they do not translate to nation-state. That is the part of our problem in Afghanistan- no? The nation-state of Israel is a nation-state; it is not historically or religiously synonymous with the people of Israel. God’s Israelites, so to speak, are scattered about the earth in Jerusalem, but also in Johannesburg or Juneau, just as God’s other children are. The people of God are sprinkled about with little regard for the ever-shifting crayon lines we insist on drawing on maps.

My loyalty is to a transnational kingdom; the kingdom of God. I live in a nation, but in an age of global guerrillas and transnational corporations just what does state or nation mean? And what loyalty do I owe it? Actually, I *live* in a much smaller sphere, a neighborhood defined by ecology and economy that doesn’t pay any attention to municipal or state boundaries. To that tribe I am loyal, because in that sphere I can show mercy and do good.
Palimpsester says:

November 15, 2009 at 9:33 am

@Mark

I think you’re referring to Kierkegaard in regard to mercy:

http://rmadisonj.blogspot.com/2009/11/all-saints-day-2009.html

Are you one of those John Robb Global Guerrilla/Sharon Asnyk Causabon’s Book/Rob Patterson Resilient Community cultists?
jgress says:

November 16, 2009 at 1:05 pm

According to Gilles Kepel’s history of political Islam, it is not in fact true that Islam mandates disloyalty to a non-Muslim state where a Muslim resides. However, a Muslim is obliged to make war against a state that persecutes or makes war on Muslims. In practice this means removing yourself from obedience to the unbelieving state and putting yourself under the authority of a Muslim state. Obviously, whether or not a state is persecuting Muslims is a matter of interpretation. This is why bin Laden makes so much of the aggression of the West, since that is the only way he can justify his universal call to arms.

Offensive war does, of course, play a big part in Islamic history. This is because while offensive war against non-Muslims is not mandatory, if the non-Muslims are not at the time fighting with Muslims, nevertheless any war to subjugate non-Muslims to Muslim rule is praiseworthy. Yet, the decision to wage offensive war rests with the Muslim caliph; ordinary Muslims do not have the authority to call other Muslims to an offensive war against unbelievers.

As far as I can tell, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all agree that a believer should obey the laws of the state he is in, regardless of the faith of the state. The only exception is where a state law conflicts with the laws of the faith, in which case the latter takes precedence. This includes if a non-Muslim state is persecuting Muslims, in which case the Islamic principle of defending Islam must overrule loyalty to that state.

The big difference between Islam and Judaism on the one hand, and Christianity on the other, is that in the former, religious leaders have complete authority in determining whether or not Muslims or Jews may obey unbelieving rulers. Christian leaders, the bishops, do not have authority to require disobedience to the secular authorities except where the secular authorities are commanding Christians to sin.

Islam has this obligation to wage war, but as I pointed out, this obligation can only be fulfilled where there is a Muslim leader with authority to command Muslims in battle. In Judaism, there isn’t an obligation to wage war as such, but there is an obligation to obey the Jewish leaders in any conflict between Jews and Gentiles, and to refuse obedience to any Gentile authorities in cases of such conflict. In Christianity, refusal to obey secular authorities is only mandated where the Christian is being forced to commit sin. So, among the three religions, Christianity has the strongest teachings on loyalty to the state. But even here, loyalty is conditional on the requirements of the faith.