“Great God in Heaven, save us from the humanitarians who are generous with the lives of other people's sons. Amen.”
Tom Eddlem, “The Non-Interventionist's Prayer.”
Following King George III's proclamation of February 4, 1780 as a Royal Day of Prayer -- with a special emphasis on the American War -- one loyal clergyman explained that the purpose of the observance was to renew the public's “zeal for the government.”
This must have been unsettling news for those among the King's loyal subjects who believed the purpose of worship was to express one's zeal for God.
The concept of a presidentially proclaimed National Day of Prayer suffers from exactly the same defect: It is a ritual designed to unite people in devotion to the Regime, rather than the Creator.
This isn't the intention of the earnest people who will fill worship halls on Thursday to do what comes naturally to them – express the desires of their hearts to God. The problem resides in the fact that they will have been summoned to do so by the president, with the implicit expectation that they will be praying for the success of his initiatives – particularly the war that has come to define his tenure.
Well, which is it -- are we to pray on behalf of the troops, or the criminals who refuse to bring them home?
A foretaste of that “continuous prayer meeting” was offered by Shirley Dobson, wife of Dr. James Dobson and Chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, in her May 1 prayer on behalf of the military. To her credit, Mrs. Dobson asked for a quick end to the war in Iraq, but presumed that the will of the Almighty is in sync with the Bush administration's program to “establish Democracy” in that country.
The federal government has no constitutional mandate to establish Democracy anywhere, which means that Mrs. Dobson was asking God to confer His benediction on an illegal enterprise – even if one assumes that the inspiration behind the invasion and occupation was altruistic, rather than predatory. But given the unfathomable corruption that characterizes the war, it must be seen as the equivalent of a home invasion on a grandiose scale. Praying for its success would be like asking God to protect a band of armed robbers and to prosper their criminal undertaking.
Nothing that could be accomplished in Iraq is worth the price paid by this young couple. They were engaged before he was sent to Iraq, where his face and most of his head were blown away by an IED. Let there be no mistake: I am not saying that the men and women who enlisted in the military did so with plunder in mind. But they have been suborned by completely wretched and power-crazed people who have no scruples about shedding innocent blood.
At some point, however (and I'm hardly qualified even to guess what that point would be) each of them will have to take ownership of the moral consequences of continuing to serve in a consummately unjust war, as did Lt. Ehren Watada – who faces a court martial in July for his principled stand against this illegal war.
Many, perhaps most, of those who heed the regal summons for Thursday's act of nationalist devotion will assume, along with Bates, a loyal soldier of King Henry V, that “we know enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.”
For those with even a remedial understanding of very recent history, however, such claims of exculpation through obedience summon the distant echo of jackboots on cobblestones, and offer a faint whiff of Zyklon-B.
It was a pious and sophisticated nation that gave rise to those atrocities. It ruler – a cynical demoniac surrounded by perverts and occultists – eagerly encouraged his subjects to engage in mass prayer on his behalf, even as his little clique undermined Germany's Christian Church with the objective of its ultimate destruction.
We shouldn't assume that America enjoys some happy immunity to the same disease that infected Germany. Some, including myself, believe that we've not only contracted that affliction, but are approaching its terminal stage. Prayer plays a central role in the only known remedy – but it has to be the product of honest self-scrutiny and the humility to accept God's will, rather than trying to dictate to Him.
Mark Twain was one of America's most notable unbelievers, but through Huckleberry Finn he gave voice to one of the central truths of eternity: “You can't pray a lie.”
Nor can we properly ask God to reward and bless any enterprise that is built on lies The Iraq war was rooted in lies and nourished with official corruption; it has yielded mass murder, terror, and civil war. It is a crime against our Constitution and, more importantly, an affront to God.
Yes, let us pray for an end to the war and for the safe and immediate return of our soldiers. But before we pray, we should ask ourselves:
*Do we pray for the success of occupiers, or for an end to the occupation?
*Do we pray for torturers, or for the tortured?
*Can we honestly ask God to confer his unction on presidential acts and policies that violate an oath – sworn in God's Name – to uphold and defend the Constitution?
8 comments:
We spend alot of time documenting the demonic insanity of the state, but next time you are on the road look at all the pro state, pro military, pro politico bumper stickers. We get what we deserve. The American people, i.e. your neighbors, are the real enemy. For example, 24 is one of the most popular shows on the telescreen. I'm addicted to it, but I realize that it is unadulterated state worship; most people don't think about it that way, I fear. Ignorance is only a mitigating factor, it does not excuse those in the service. You go to Iraq to pay for college, you have some blood on your hands, an amount only God knows.
> Mark Twain was one of America's most notable unbelievers, but through Huckleberry Finn he gave voice to one of the central truths of eternity: "You can't pray a lie."
Obligatory Twain
Mark Odell
While I don't watch TV if I can avoid it, I'm forced to agree with the thrust of Zachary's comment: The majority of those in our nation taking any action at all, even if only to document their choices on the bumpers of their vehicles, have bought the lie. Based on my understanding of Jehovah, I'm forced to pray His wrath falls soon, though I know I'm standing on the target zone.
I have to admit to being one of those "support the troops" people--until I started reading this blog and Lew Rockwell. But I, and others I know of the same opinion, didn't think of it as supporting the government. I always had qualms about Iraq, but I thought of our troops as a bunch of Mel Gibsons in The Patriot or Braveheart. .
I'm a Scots-Irish Southerner who thinks of our troops as part of us and separate from the Pentagon or President. I wish I could be as articulate as Will in describing what I mean by this--it's almost as if it's in the blood.
It's going to take a lot to rip the curtain of fantasy from the eyes of those like me. Groups like Code Pink can't do that. Expressions of disrespect for the young soldiers over there will have the opposite effect.
It's going to take more bloggers like Will Grigg leading the way among Christians to reveal the truth that the government is wrongfully using our children as cannon fodder, subverting their morals, and destroying innocent Iraqi's along the way.
If I can change, I think a lot of our neighbors with the bumper stickers can too--if they are approached correctly.
"This isn't the intention of the earnest people who will fill worship halls on Thursday to do what comes naturally to them – express the desires of their hearts to God."
Really? It's not?
I understand and agree with your position here in principle, Will.
Indeed, many churches are aiding the State these days, but it's often because they are much too busy trying to be "hip" with the pop culture instead of being a constant thorn in the pop culture's side. Nothing new here, as Paul witnessed the same problems in his day. He had to constantly encourage and admonish the believers of his day in Athens, Corinth, and Thessaloniki where he planted churches.
Nevertheless, as concerns agents of the State in the abstract, and as Zachary alluded to above and to repeat what I've always said, in essence, from the get-go: The folk in various positions of authority possess a character makeup and integrity that reflects the same traits possessed by the commoners at large.
Until the commoners change or alter their collective majority warped mindset (and sometimes ignorance) about the Constitution, their love of chronic dependency, their enthrallment with Hollyweird and its sadistic productions (i.e. 24, American Idol, Fear Factor, ad nauseam), their chronic addiction to porn and sex in general, and so on, why should anyone otherwise expect those in various positions of authority, from the bowels of this same cultural morass they arise, to possess and display a more virtuous and/or upright character?
Please, that’s pure fantasy and an unrealistic expectation in the extreme.
And this tired retort about “holding certain individuals to a higher standard than the rest of us” one often hears is pure, unadulterated nonsense as well. That’s thinking analogous to one saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Remember, this kind of wrong thinking is also exhibited by too many commoners as well as many authority figures because, once again, authority figures (parents, police officers, pastors, etc.) were formerly commoners (children, civilians, regular church members [part of the congregation], etc.) themselves. What they learn and record in their minds as commoners [or insert your favorite subset of society as mentioned above] from other contemporary commoners, as well as authority figures, of the given era, will naturally bring that baggage with them, in a later era, into positions of authority they then migrate into. It's Human Nature 101.
And so those few who just happen to be "mad as hell and ain't gonna take it anymore" types who are determined to "kick the rascals out in the next election," here's a newsflash: Simply tossing out morally rudderless power-mongers from the halls of government simply to be replaced by the same (since the culture hasn't changed) accomplishes nothing. If the culture can be changed, the authority figures who hail from it will likewise be changed, but not until then.
Anyway, on to another front. This hate crime legislation on the table now is yet another indication of how corrupt our culture is and the level of apathy displayed by the commoners themselves says volumes.
The commoners, after all, willfully voted all these reprobate politicos into office, so why are commentators inclined to ignore their role and thereby leave them off the hook and focus upon only "the State" officials alone in their daily harangues?
Do they really, really believe that the run-of-the-mill commoners are vastly opposed to tyrannical limitations on speech, press, religion, etc.? Has any org polled the populace at large about such matters?
I mean what else could explain why Kennedy, Hatch, Schumer, et al, are continually reelected over and over and over again? Simple, because the commoners GET WHATEVER THEY WANT FROM THOSE POLITICIANS!
There only seems to be any “hell raised” these days when there’s any proposed limitations, however remote the possibility of enactment, on debauchery, depravity, and other forms of rot.
Yes people, there is such a thing as freedom from something (freedom to NOT do something, avoid something or someone, ignore something or someone), in addition to the universally recognized freedom of something (freedom to do something). It all boils down to freedom of association (and, by extension, disassociation), into whose coffin the final nail may be close to being hammered home shortly.
It's a good time to remember Twain's 'War Prayer':
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html
-Paul
Hey Dixie!... I was just thinking, as is my want, that in todays culture, where "diversity" is crammed ceaselessly down our throats, doesn't the very concept of diversity contradict itself?
If, as an example, I don't wish to associate myself with someone...someplace...something, regardless of reason, then am I not expressing my own individual "diversity"? Am I not being unique in that regard, or am I only "allowed" specific forms of "expression" as "defined" by these saints of socialism? Seems some animals are more equal than others, with a nod to Orwell, so long as the chief critters define the debate.
Post a Comment