Islamist Ideology & Its Threat

[Dan Z]

Perhaps my dualism is fraying a bit around the edges...and I'm still wrestling with where those edges are (we've worked together at this topic in a previous thread)...but I am beginning to feel stronger about the fact that being salt & light in God's world means being willing to speak up when we see injustice - particularly when it comes to the sacred value of life and human dignity. Whether it be at the individual or societal level, we Christ followers need to bear witness to a better way. Might that include keeping our eyes open for when Caesar is being unjust?

Unjust by whose standards? What is this "basic justice" you speak of? If you're speaking of justice as defined by God in the Old Testament, your difference with theonomy is not a matter of substance but of interpretation or degree. If you're speaking of justice according to the teachings of Jesus, I think joshuabgood is much closer to the mark than you are. If you're speaking of justice according to the Constitution, that's another matter still. Or maybe it's justice according to natural law, or some other basic human rule? So which is it?

These are great questions Mike - and a good opportunity to talk about the a Kingdom-based application of the Sanctity of Life ethic. In fact, let's start a new thread where we can work this through.

[mike]

I had to give some feedback, Dan, after reading your thoughts written as policy advice to the government.

Good catch Mike! I agree...I was (unintentionally) out of bounds there according to my own faith commitments, and gratefully receive your brotherly rebuke.

No offense - not intended so much as rebuke as much as wanting to understand you further.

[mike]

Unjust by whose standards? What is this "basic justice" you speak of?

A family that has been selected by our government and screened repeatedly for years is finally told it is time to go to the United States. They sell everything they own and head to the airport. Then they are told, nope, they can't come. No good reason is given for the change of mind. Is that just?

Students currently studying in the United States dare not go back home for the summer because they cannot get any assurance that they would be able to come back in. No good reason is given. Is that just?

Families are separated who once had legal approval to be able to be together here in the United States, but now they must all leave the county or else face uncertainty of being able to reunite at any clearly known time. Is that just?

Last year, there were 90,000 visas from these 7 countries. Not a single terrorist incident involves anyone from these countries. We've had 3,000,000 refugees since 1980, again without a single terrorist incident. This isn't about just 109 people.

Same question for you as for Dan -- what is the basis of the justice you are talking about?

[Bootstrap]

Unjust by whose standards? What is this "basic justice" you speak of?

A family that has been selected by our government and screened repeatedly for years is finally told it is time to go to the United States. They sell everything they own and head to the airport. Then they are told, nope, they can't come. No good reason is given for the change of mind. Is that just?

Students currently studying in the United States dare not go back home for the summer because they cannot get any assurance that they would be able to come back in. No good reason is given. Is that just?

Families are separated who once had legal approval to be able to be together here in the United States, but now they must all leave the county or else face uncertainty of being able to reunite at any clearly known time. Is that just?

Last year, there were 90,000 visas from these 7 countries. Not a single terrorist incident involves anyone from these countries. We've had 3,000,000 refugees since 1980, again without a single terrorist incident. This isn't about just 109 people.

Same question for you as for Dan -- what is the basis of the justice you are talking about?

I answered your question with these three questions. How would you answer them?

[mike]

Same question for you as for Dan -- what is the basis of the justice you are talking about?

I answered your question with these three questions. How would you answer them?

It depends. It seems unjust based on what I think is the ultimate standard for justice -- God's, and that of the teachings of Jesus. But is that the standard that we expect our government to align itself with? If so, then not only is Trump's executive order unjust, but, as joshuabgood said, having borders at all is unjust by the standards of Jesus.

If the standard of justice we are using is the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, I think it is debatable whether these unfortunate situations were examples of injustice. I guess that is what the courts are fighting over right now.

And that is my question - what is the basis for this justice you speak of? Your answering with questions did not answer the question.

I have the feeling that a lot of the criticism of Trump's policy is not a dispute over substance but merely of degree and interpretation. Most of the people who are critical do probably believe in our country having borders and immigration laws and restrictions of some kind. That is why I asked on the other thread for people to post their view of what immigration and border policy should be ideally. I found that quite interesting and JBG's comment was precisely what I was hoping would come up.

[Bootstrap]

It depends. It seems unjust based on what I think is the ultimate standard for justice -- God's, and that of the teachings of Jesus. But is that the standard that we expect our government to align itself with? If so, then not only is Trump's executive order unjust, but, as joshuabgood said, having borders at all is unjust by the standards of Jesus.

If the standard of justice we are using is the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law, I think it is debatable whether these unfortunate situations were examples of injustice. I guess that is what the courts are fighting over right now.

And that is my question - what is the basis for this justice you speak of? Your answering with questions did not answer the question.

Do you believe that a law can be unjust?

This is probably worthy of its own thread. Perhaps it would be good to launch the thread when there is less going on, but here's the broader question: does a country have any moral obligation except to the letter of its laws? You seem to imply that it might not, I think that it does. One indication of that is that God judged nations - not just Israel - for failing on certain moral obligations. Another indication is that most moral people would agree on certain basics that are not required by the laws of most countries we consider relatively moral. Sometimes a country is good beyond what is legally required, and sometimes morality requires that.

As Christians in a diverse society, we contribute our opinion to the understandings of common good that come to be reflected in our laws. That's part of being salt and light. And it's different from grasping power like a theonomist.

[Dan Z]

I'm pressing this forward in the other thread, but my answer is that the basis for justice is found in the Judeo-Christian ethic of the sanctity of all human life. That, at all levels of interaction, from societies to interpersonal, God as the giver of life cares about how his children are treated.

At the interpersonal level, if I see a person being deprived or abused, I have an ethical obligation as a follower of Christ to act ("Greater love has no man..."). And while I am not "ordained" to govern, it seems that my silence in the face of societal/governmental injustice and abuse would represent an ethical dereliction of duty (e.g. abortion, genocide, discrimination, etc.).

It's not so much telling government how to govern (that's where I got off track in my original post), but calling foul when government steps out of bounds - the role of a referee rather than a coach.

[Bootstrap]

Let me copy this into the other thread and reply there.

[Bootstrap]

Here's a thought about threat.

Some dogs bite. I've been bitten by dogs twice. Some breeds of dogs are responsible for more dog bites than others. I have heard some people suggest that we should forbid pit bulls as pets because of this. But I think it really does depend how the pit bull was raised and trained, and I've known some great pit bull pets.

Suppose that we had 3,000,000 pit bulls, and not one ever bit someone. Would you allow someone to have a pit bull in your neighborhood? It's not that dogs never bite, and we all know that we got bit badly on September 11th, but when you have a good track record over a long period of time, shouldn't that inform your behavior?

Suppose someone said there's no way to prove that a pit bull won't bite someone, so we're going to forbid pit bulls for an undefined period of time so that we examine the question. Would that be reasonable, given our track record so far?

[mike]

I'm pressing this forward in the other thread, but my answer is that the basis for justice is found in the Judeo-Christian ethic of the sanctity of all human life. That, at all levels of interaction, from societies to interpersonal, God as the giver of life cares about how his children are treated.

At the interpersonal level, if I see a person being deprived or abused, I have an ethical obligation as a follower of Christ to act ("Greater love has no man..."). And while I am not "ordained" to govern, it seems that my silence in the face of societal/governmental injustice and abuse would represent an ethical dereliction of duty (e.g. abortion, genocide, discrimination, etc.).

It's not so much telling government how to govern (that's where I got off track in my original post), but calling foul when government steps out of bounds - the role of a referee rather than a coach.

Replied here