you can't handle the truth
War On The Periphery
Around the battlements go by
Soldier men against the sky,
Violent lovers, husbands, sons,
Guarding my peaceful life with guns.
My pleasures, how discreet they are!
A little booze, a little car,
Two little children and a wife
Living a small suburban life.
My little children eat my heart;
At seven o'clock we kiss and part
At seven o'clock we meet again;
They eat my heart and grow to men.
I watch their tenderness with fear
While on the battlements I hear
The violent, obedient ones
Guarding my family with guns.
you guys have probably seen "a few good men." we've all heard that famous line a thousand times, "you want the truth? you can't handle the truth!" shouted by military commander, jack nicholson at the ever so dreamy mr. cruise. jackie boy goes on to say "deep down inside you need us on that wall, you want us on that wall, because without us on that wall, you have nothing!" he says this referring to the wall at guantanamo bay to keep an eye on cuba. the whole gist is that his character has done something terribly wrong, and he tries to justify it, saying that without him and what he does, there would be no freedom for any of us. now before you think i'm going to tear the army a new one (although in reality, 99.9% of the army would tear me two new ones before i could tear them half of one...what does that even mean?), i am not going to have my typical anti-war angry young hippie speak. that is good, but i've done it before, and i'm sure your all sick of it. in fact, the reason i'm talking about war and this movie is because i'm actually beginning to wonder if his statement is true. despite all my depely held beliefs about war and violence, i'm wondering whether i am a hypocrite. i am against war, yet it is because of the military that i possess many of the freedoms i so deeply cherish. if i'm being honest, this is true. i can't really deny it. take away the army and what do we have?
we read this poem in our english class this week. i'm wondering what pacifists do with the thoughts that come from this poem. how do i feel about the fact that the reason i have the freedoms i do because there is a military in place to protect our country? i'm someone who will often talk about how i feel that war and violence is wrong in all circumstances. if that's the case, would i accept the option of taking away our military/police force/grandma doing the neighborhood watch with a can of bear mase? how would i protect my family? it's easy for me to sit here and think i know everything, but for some reason, i can't help but shake this feeling that my stance is missing something important. i'm not stepping away from pacifism, but i am beginning to question whether i truly am a pacifist, or whether i just don't like war. if i am against war, should i not be against the military? i know we can support our troops but not the war. i know we can because i do. but if i truly believe war is wrong, then shouldn't the military not be in place either?
obviously this is as big hypothetical, as this will most likely never be the case. but i'm wondering what you guys think about this. i'm looking at people like tim mcmillan, who works for the rcmp, and rachel elford, whose husband is in the american military. what do you guys think? what does everyone else think? i don't ever see myself in support of war, but i'm struggling to find something above both options that is in line with God's kingdom. let me know what you think...
Around the battlements go by
Soldier men against the sky,
Violent lovers, husbands, sons,
Guarding my peaceful life with guns.
My pleasures, how discreet they are!
A little booze, a little car,
Two little children and a wife
Living a small suburban life.
My little children eat my heart;
At seven o'clock we kiss and part
At seven o'clock we meet again;
They eat my heart and grow to men.
I watch their tenderness with fear
While on the battlements I hear
The violent, obedient ones
Guarding my family with guns.
you guys have probably seen "a few good men." we've all heard that famous line a thousand times, "you want the truth? you can't handle the truth!" shouted by military commander, jack nicholson at the ever so dreamy mr. cruise. jackie boy goes on to say "deep down inside you need us on that wall, you want us on that wall, because without us on that wall, you have nothing!" he says this referring to the wall at guantanamo bay to keep an eye on cuba. the whole gist is that his character has done something terribly wrong, and he tries to justify it, saying that without him and what he does, there would be no freedom for any of us. now before you think i'm going to tear the army a new one (although in reality, 99.9% of the army would tear me two new ones before i could tear them half of one...what does that even mean?), i am not going to have my typical anti-war angry young hippie speak. that is good, but i've done it before, and i'm sure your all sick of it. in fact, the reason i'm talking about war and this movie is because i'm actually beginning to wonder if his statement is true. despite all my depely held beliefs about war and violence, i'm wondering whether i am a hypocrite. i am against war, yet it is because of the military that i possess many of the freedoms i so deeply cherish. if i'm being honest, this is true. i can't really deny it. take away the army and what do we have?
we read this poem in our english class this week. i'm wondering what pacifists do with the thoughts that come from this poem. how do i feel about the fact that the reason i have the freedoms i do because there is a military in place to protect our country? i'm someone who will often talk about how i feel that war and violence is wrong in all circumstances. if that's the case, would i accept the option of taking away our military/police force/grandma doing the neighborhood watch with a can of bear mase? how would i protect my family? it's easy for me to sit here and think i know everything, but for some reason, i can't help but shake this feeling that my stance is missing something important. i'm not stepping away from pacifism, but i am beginning to question whether i truly am a pacifist, or whether i just don't like war. if i am against war, should i not be against the military? i know we can support our troops but not the war. i know we can because i do. but if i truly believe war is wrong, then shouldn't the military not be in place either?
obviously this is as big hypothetical, as this will most likely never be the case. but i'm wondering what you guys think about this. i'm looking at people like tim mcmillan, who works for the rcmp, and rachel elford, whose husband is in the american military. what do you guys think? what does everyone else think? i don't ever see myself in support of war, but i'm struggling to find something above both options that is in line with God's kingdom. let me know what you think...
16 Comments:
At 5:38 PM , Ryan said...
While I'd really like to leave an inspiring comment, I don't really have time right now. But let me say this: For all our differing points of view on so many things, I can enjoy a conversation about almost any touchy topic with you more than anyone else. I really appreciate and respect your open and questioning attitude about these sorts of things and always have. It's refreshing to hear an honest post like this. Maybe I'll post one on Lorne Calvert, just kidding. But seriously, thanks ya hippie.
At 11:55 PM , Anonymous said...
well, god didn't seem to worried about administering a whack of violence in the bible... lets not forget about hell, thats a pretty violent idea to, so much for the peace loving god of the NT. It seems like God uses whatever methods he likes to administer the needed smack down. Paul never condemns violence either. Think, those who live by the sword die by the sword but those who don't live by the sword also die by the sword
At 10:08 AM , xblairx said...
hey, thanks for commenting "anonymous". do i know you? if so, it would be cool to have your name so i could know who i'm dialoguing with.
if you want to read some of our previous discussion about hell, please go to my archives from january, and there is a fascinating one with comments from "conservative" christians & "liberal" christians (i hate those labels, but i don't know how else to describe us), an atheist, and a homosexual. so i don't want to rehash too much of what was said there here, but to sum up, i think the idea we have of hell is way off. and to subscribe the idea we have of hell today to Jesus or God is probably missing the mark. our idea is that if you are not a christian, you burn in hell forever. personally, i don't believe that is the case, and i don't believe there is convincing evidence that it is. so while i agree that hell is a very violent idea, i don't think our idea can be subscribed to God. my point of this is simply that our idea of what hell is doesn't prove that God endorses violence in any way.
as far as the violence goes, i don't have a sufficient answer. it has bothered me to no end to read stories of God commanding his armies to slaughter women & children in his "holy" name. there is no explaining it away. it is right there in more places than i care to admit. if we look at the bible as a book only, and i stress only, of theology, where we rip it apart piece by piece to understand God, thinking it is good for nothing else, then i think we're missing a significant portion of it's beauty. i'm not saying that studying it for theology's sake is bad, i'm just saying that's not the only way to read it. what if we look at it as a story? what if we see it as the history of a people, first of the Jewish people establishing their identity in the Old Testament, and then as Christians establishing their identity in the New Testament? doens't that change the way we look at it? it does for me. then, we can certainly get those biblical principles and theologies from the text, but not everything has to be systematic and cut to bits. it can be a story. a history of a people like any other people. and the biblical writers viewed their victories as being won at the hand of God, but that doesn't have to mean that God commanded the deaths of women & children.
anyway, i am beginning to ramble, so although i may leave something out, i don't want to bore everyone to death. like i said, my answers certainly won't be sufficient for some, but that is why i am wrestling with this. please respond if you disagree.
p.p.-those who don't live by the sword may still die by the sword, but isn't it better to die doing the right thing than take up violence as an easy out?
At 11:27 AM , Chris & Rachel said...
Read Psalm 18:30-50. I am willing to fight because without men of honor and integrity protecting those who cannot or are unwilling to protect themselves, evil would entwine and capture the whole world. This is not to say that I can “fix” the world by war-but I can make part of it-the part that I have sworn to protect above all else, with my life, safe for my future children. This is a worthy cause of my life. And at the end of the road, the end of our lives, I will go before God at Judgment and tell my Father that I did my best. We should all aspire to be able to say that same thing about our lives.
As for supporting the troops. It is a package deal. Without supporting what soldiers do, you are not supporting soldiers. After a soldier has put his ass on the line, day by day, and you say, “I support you, but not what you did”, you will hear a resounding F…… Y……
Just consider this. Say you spend your whole life writing a book. And people come up to you everyday and say, “thank you for enriching society with writing-but your book sucks”, how would you feel? The war is more than the media portrays. The media is a straight up political syndicate for distorting the truth. You want the truth on Iraq? Write my friend David, and he’ll tell you. Better yet, write me, and in a few months, I will let you know what is going on. When someone says “the war is B.S.”, ask them if they have ever gotten out of their pearly white tower of knowledge and fought in the war-or had a close enough relationship with a soldier to get an honest answer about it. You’d be surprised when they have nothing left to say.
- Chris
At 1:32 PM , Anonymous said...
Nice to see your thoughts Blair, and nice to see you have not concluded them on the issue of war. Since you called me out, I better answer.
I think maybe it's easy to be naive on both sides of issues like these. I know I was/am. I don't like the idea of war either - at all - and can't imagine going to war and actually killing someone. At the same time, I know I have no doubt I'd feel okay about responding with violence if my family was threatened, and I also know who I'm going to call for help - and I'm going to be real thankful when the police show up to do what I don't want to. I look at it very differently since I started working with these people. I know there are people in military and police that are in it for the power or the adrenaline, but I'd also guess there are some pacifists in it because they are cowardly - and they also likely wouldn't mind calling 911 when their neighbours are fighting or having a party or trying to kill themselves. Like you say it doesn't seem right that we rally against war without considering that it might have something (or alot) to do with the comfort and order we enjoy. I also wonder how things would look like if I had to face "world war" like my grandparents generation - now the army/police seems like a more optional thing. Imagine making these choices in the early 1940's! It's a complex thing no doubt and I'm not sure the answer. I do know I have a ton more respect for "emergency responders" than I used to, and no matter my opinions, they deserve to be honored... that's not much of an answer, but it's all the scattered thoughts I have today.
At 1:40 PM , xblairx said...
hey chris,
thanks for being a part of the conversation. it is awesome to have someone here who really knows what they're talking about! (unlike me...)
i don't know what to say. i don't at all want to be disrespectful. but i can't support the war. and i could quibble, and say that i support the troops, but i don't support the government behind the troops, but that is just starting to sound like anti-war rhetoric to me. if we are going to oppose the war, there has to be better answers than that. so hearing it from you, i must lean towards your statement being right, that if you don't support what the troops are doing, you can't support them. is it possible, though, that i could still love those people, opposing what they are doing, yet still be someone who cares for them and their well being? i don't want anyone to die, whether it is our enemies, citizens of our country, their country, or the soldiers that fight the war. too often i think people on my side of the spectrum, the antiwar side, hate the troops for what they are doing. i think that's wrong. and while i can't support you, i certainly do not hate you. i can dislike what you do but still like you. does that make sense? or does that sound like b.s. to you? it's fair if it does. i'm not arguing or saying i'm right and you are wrong, i'm just being honest about how i feel.
having friends that have fought in the war might change my opinion. and the reason i don't fight is not because i think i know better than you or anyone else. the reason i don't fight is because i believe it is wrong to kill people, whatever the reason. i read psalms 18:30-50, and it makes sense. but what about matthew 5-7? what about every action that Jesus ever took in his life? never was violence the answer.
i desperately hope you don't feel as if i am disrespecting you. i simply must be honest about how i feel, just as you are being honest about how you feel. because we disagree does not mean we have to hate eachother. at least i hope that's the case, cause you could so kick my a**...
At 1:43 PM , xblairx said...
hey tim,
you posted a few minutes before i posted mine, so i didn't see your post when i responded to chris. i'll respond to you later. i just have to run right now, but thanks for joining in.
At 10:29 PM , Ryan said...
Well, I don't really have any more time than I did before, but that's alright, it wouldn't be the first time I avoided doing homework.
After a thorough reading of "Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women", I have found the answer the end the discussion for good. Just kidding, would you believe I didn't keep that book? Well first let me admit that I am someone who often believes something because I want to and all my efforts in researching and examining are not because I want to examine what I believe, but rather so that I can refute any arguments against me when they come. That's why I enjoy these types of discussions with you Blair, I can't seem to keep my guard up against you, but I'm forced to examine myself and my beliefs honestly. So on that note, I have always viewed war as somethings that is necessary in our world. When I was younger, it was something pretty cool with lots of really cool airplanes and guns and bombs and stuff. Not surprisingly, as I grow, I have come to find it more and more horrific (that's the only way I can think to describe it). Movies about way are not longer cool, but bring a strange uneasiness and depression to me. And while I know movies aren't the best source of information, they are the closest thing to an actual war I have ever experienced and hopefully ever will.
With all that said, I can't really imagine a world without war. I think I still view it as something that is regrettably necessary in the world we live in. To simplify it, just like Police are necessary in the city and country that we live in, I think war is necessary to "take care" of the horrible people who are bigger and stronger than others and choose to abuse that power. Now I'm the furthest thing from a history major and this is one of the two times in life when one would be helpful (just kidding) but looking back on what I know of history, what do we do when people like Hitler are doing such horrible things with their immense power? Or when the the people of Iraq are oppressed? etc etc. Again to simplify it, and also to make the typical argument, what would you do if you see a man beating a child or an old lady to death? I can't imagine any answer that would convince me that I should stand back. Now I agree that killing that guy should be an absolute last resort, but what if it comes to that? anyways, I guess that point has been made many times before, but its something that I can't let go of, and won't allow me to be a pansy, I mean pacifist like Blair (just kidding buddy)
But with all that said, its not the end of my struggle. A good point Blair made, what about Jesus? I can't imagine Jesus responding like I would in any such situation. Well anyways, that's where I'm stuck at on the issue, and let me say it's a rather uncomfortable place.
Looking back on what I just wrote, I just realized that I made pretty much all the typical arguments, and really didn't say much of anything, but I guess the fact of the matter is, its a pretty common place to be stuck, and I guess that's the reason for them being the common arguments and questions.
Thanks everyone for the input and thanks Blair for starting it all up (again). It's so good to hear people have these honest discussions.
At 1:09 PM , xblairx said...
ryan, ryan, he's our man, and if he can't do it...
i probably can because i am way better than him.
thanks ryan. i was hoping to hear from you. that book was terrible, by the way. i'm with you, though. i often find arguments that benefit me rather than an honest search for truth. i'm trying to change, so we can help eachother.
i agree with most of what you said, but something keeps eating away inside of me. maybe it's because i'm a pansy...but does war have to be necessary? i know that sounds like crazy talk in the world we live in today, but why should it be? because there is always going to be bad people? well, why does there have to be? what if we loved those people enough that they no longer seemed bad anymore? that may sound impossible with men like hitler, saddam, *cough*george bush*cough*, but what if it's possible? should we give up on the ideals that Jesus calls us to because we think it's impossible? i know you wouldn't say, yes blair we should give up, so that's more of a general question than one directed toward you. i just feel like so often in our world, whether it's with war, racism, poverty, aids, disease, etc... we, we being christians, have a tendency to just say "oh well, it'll always be there, so we just have to deal with it." i think there has to be something higher we can attain to than that. what if Christians everywhere really were willing to offer their lives so this didn't happen. what if we really loved our enemies the way Jesus did? i think that is the impossible thing we are trying to imagine. i don't know how to do it, but i don't want to quit striving for it.
so in answer to your response, ryan, i have given you 50 more questions and no answers. beat that, jerk...
At 8:45 AM , Jordan said...
Matthew 5:39-45
It's not exactly ambiguous, is it? It seems to me that Jesus opposed violence, including violence used as a means of resisting evil. So why is this even under debate among Christians?
I have a theory, but I'm keeping it to myself. ;-)
At 9:11 AM , Anonymous said...
Paul's inspired word said it best in 1st cor. 13
"it is like this : when i was a child,i spoke and thought and reasoned as a child does. but when i grew up, i put away childish things. now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. all that i know now is partial and incomplete, but then i will know everything completly, just as GOD knows me now.
there are three things that will endure -faith, hope and love-and the greatest of these is love."
I am not saying this is a childish discusion i am saying could you both be right.
i know you all know this and if you don't some day you will, but remember who the real judge is (God) and what his real goal is (agape love)for allllll.
At 1:07 PM , xblairx said...
it's fine if you feel that way, but how is it childish to attempt to come to a better understanding of God through discussion with other people, both christian and non-christian? just because we see things imperfectly now doesn't mean we shouldn't struggle to know God.
i'm wondering if you could elaborate a little on how we could both be right?
At 6:24 PM , xblairx said...
i'd like to hear your theory, jordan, if you don't mind sharing.
At 10:51 PM , dave said...
blair,
i think i've linked to this before,
but read this. its really good. some thoughts on war and the gospel.
start from the bottom of the page (the first post in the series) and work your way up... then click "next entries" at the bottom for the rest. its really good. a texan COC preacher-turned sort-of-pacifist. the story of the changes that rocked his life is here.
At 1:22 PM , Anonymous said...
you got it right ... civilization consists of the institutionalization of violence by some to protect the society by insulating it from the threats from the outside and allowing secular society to thrive. the view from the inside needs to continually be refreshed with this understanding as well as evaluating whether the military itself is a threat ,and what the long terms goals should be for the body politic.
At 1:25 PM , Anonymous said...
Jordan .... because the faith of Christians is imperfect and Jesus lived in a dim, distant, and perhaps fantasy past where miracles happened. Most people and myself do not believe in miracles and take christianity for the ideas it gives rather than literal truth. Somehow thowing that in their faces as hyposrites is insulting to Christians and misses the whole point of what religion is about I think. or should be about.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home