Retrospektive: Iraq Communitarian Vs Cosmopolitan complaints

Welcome to a new series that I am thinking of doing called Retrospektive, this will look at old issues and examine them from our current knowledge. For the first one I have chosen the Iraq war and the complaints about the conflict from the communitarian and Cosmopolitan view points of Foreign Policy.

The Iraq war came under a few major criticisms, that we were lied to over Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, that we actually went to war for oil, that it has been a western invasion of Muslim countries, the human cost (on both sides) has been too high and the financial cost has been too high. If we divided this into communitarian and cosmopolitan then we have a general complaint about being lied to, and to some extent that the human cost has been too high (though a communitarian side would focus on the home casualties). Then we have that the cosmopolitan complaints of going to war for oil and that it was a western invasion and the communitarian argument that the financial cost was too high.

The interesting thing is that the main arguments that I have heard are that we were lied to, we went to war for oil, and that the human cost has been too high. It is interesting that the main arguments that we hear are two general complaints and a cosmopolitan complaint dispite the fact that in general people side a lot more on the Communitarian side of the debate within F.P.

at first glances you would almost expect people on the communitarian side  to actually think that going to war for oil isn't a bad thing at all! After all you are advancing your countries economic development and economic interests and managing to achieve it with precious little repercussion from the UN. So why do communitarian use this argument frequently rather than focusing on the cost of lives to our armed forces or that the financial cost was to high etc?

Well it is because of two reasons, one the idea that we were lied to and so the decision to go to war wasn't based on good information. Secondly  the average communitarian can see that the Iraq war has lead to an increased military risk to our country rather than a strengthening of security and that is far more important than any financial cost.

For cosmopolitanists the vast majority also agree that there was a weakening in security in the middle east due to this conflict and that even if this doesn't affect us directly, which it may well, then it is still affecting many people in the area. However there is a strong dividing point for cosmopolitanists, was removing Sadam a good thing? even if it had been the worse case scenario and he had WMD's and was committing mass human rights violations does Iraq possibly show that Interventions can de stable areas more and actually lead to a weakening of the human security that we so desire to protect?

I personally wouldn't go as far as to say this, I think Iraq was a cases of a very bad interevention, like somalia in the past, however there have been some very important interventions that have occured. When I was at the Next Left conflict John Denman MP said that we need to be more  careful in choosing our interventions, I agree and think we need to go further than just that. We need to make sure they are conducted in the correct way and that we are committed for the long term, longer than we think they will take.

This may mean that we don't get involved in some conflicts, we may well end up sitting on the sidelines and watching some horrible events occur, however if we know/strongly believe that our intervention would just make the situation worse then it is something we will have to do. The balance between Order and Justice is not one that is easily solved.

Can Christians really believe in Property?

The Christian perception of God (generally, not universally) is one that is all powerful, and creator and sustainer of the whole universe. there are also many verses that discuss that all things belong to God, we don't actually own them we are only left in charge of them. After all in genesis Adam and Eve are made stewards of the garden and told to "work and look after it".  That doesn't really suggest that they owned the garden, it still belonged to God, yet they were in charge.

This really seams to fly in contradiction to history and what such thinkers like Locke have to say about property, where he claims that property started to exist the first moment a man placed boundaries around a piece of land. And yet there doesn't seam to be any real theological backing for it.

When placed in the context of history and we see that Locke is speaking at a time when all property belongs to the king (as he is God's divine instrument on earth) and that Locke is justifying the removal of James the Second and seeking to protect people from further unjust rulers. Its also important to note that Locke's views benefited him greatly with his business in the Americas and the property that he "owned" there due to establishing perimeters around land that had traditionally been occupied by native Indians (though they had no concept of ownership of it).

So perhaps Locke's views may have been shaped out of self interest, does this mean that as Christians we shouldn't believe in Property or we should just try and treat our "property" as not really ours, but God's and use it as such? There is a distinct possibility that the Second option is actually harder than the first.

Grace Changes Everything

I was reading the Total Politics interview with Archbishop Cramer and his thoughts on the interplay between religion and politics. If you frequent my blog then you will not be surprised that I found this topic interesting having a strong faith myself and a long standing interest in politics then the considerations of how they are linked, especially as it isn't just a philosphical discussion but one that impacts me every day. If my religion clearly dictated certain policies, and I believed my religion to be true, then surely that would mean I would be obliged to agree with that political path. conversely If some new laws come into effect that affect religious groups or practices then these may directly or indirectly affect me.

Each political party has proponents who argue that their party is most compatible with Christian belief and practice and in the run up to the election I predicted, and saw occur, that some people would come out and claim Jesus as their own. Cramer on his Blog argues for an understanding of the roots of conservativism from its Christian roots and how they should impact it now. Part of me really admires this, the reference to the original beliefs, of all parties, is something that is good and should be done. In addition to this the promotion of Christian views within politics and how they should affect us is also something I believe is a good cause. To say that something which Jesus obviously claims will affect our entire mindset and yet then decided that it shouldn't affect our thoughts on politics seams quite strange to me.

So this is where we get to the actually point of this post and where the title comes from, why I disagree with enforcing Christian morals upon people, even if I personally believe they are good and worth promoting. Grace.

It is the most amazing theological concept and truly separates Christianity from all other religions, it should prevent a judgemental faith and insure an inclusive and welcoming community for all, even if people never choose to follow Jesus. However like so many things it is easily corrupted and turned into a reason to judge and too feel superior to others.

Put simply Grace means that your salvation, your acceptance and reconciliation with God, has nothing to do with your actions or even thoughts, it is all dependent on God. It should lead to the realisation that actually as a Christian you are just as flawed and imperfect as any non Christian, it should lead to the realisation that even if I don't go out beating people up the anger I feel towards people means that I too can not judge them.  If this was true then forcing someone to conform to Christian morals no longer makes sense form a Christian perspective, after all they will deep down dislike them and not believe in them which according to Jesus is just as bad. On top of that the Christian perspective on life is that the fleeting moments that exist in this life aren't actually that important, rather the eternity in the new heaven and new earth are what really matter, so why bother

System shock

Tonight hasn't been an easy night, for those of you who don't know I am currently doing a CELTA course (a part time course so that I can teach English as a foreign language) and at my teaching practice tonight I didn't meet up to the mark. It was a vast improvement on my previous lesson and there are some easy and obvious issues that can easily be solved. However it does seam now that every time I love one problem I develop another! This whole course has not been made easier by the fact that I am dyslexic and so getting to grips with Grammar, to write clearly on the board and with some organisational skills.

So I am at a lose end, what if I don't pass this course? My plans for the next year will basically completely fall through, I won't be able to go abroad, I won't be able to teach around here and considering the way things are going at my current job I won't have a job and the issue of what job to do next will still be there.

It's all very funny though, only yesterday I was with some of the other members of the well and we were discussing the passage James 4:13-17

¹³Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." ¹⁴Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. ¹⁵Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that." ¹⁶As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. ¹⁷Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.

All very appropriate I'm sure you'll agree, I had been trusting in my on plans and to some degree boasting about them and felt certain they would occur, then all of a this happened. A complete system shock that means that the certainty I had in my ideas and what I would be doing is no longer certain.

Its not a certainty that I will fail this course but things do need to improve if I am going to pass. But its okay, if I fail then I have failed, luckily God is with me and with him I can deal with any failure that I make.

[Haven't done a blog post like this before what do you think about it? More like this?)

Where are you on the global rich list?

Today I was with some of the people from my church and the topic got round to money and wealth and some one mentioned this web site: The Global Rich List

The idea of the website is that you enter you average yearly salary and it shows you where in the worlds rich list you would come. It's truly shocking how high you come from so little money and I do think that it puts into perspective our lifestyles and the luxury we live in.

In recent years disposable income levels and standard of living costs have risen dramatically, we have more money to spend on junk and useless things that we don't need than ever before in our lives and yet many people seam to insist that this isn't the case.

The worse thing about this is that I trap myself in this lifestyle, in recent times I have guilty of acquiring plenty of "things" that I really don't need and really won't make my life any better. Trying to break free of consumerism really isn't easy.