April 26, 2002

Should U.S. respond to attacks?

Through A Glass Darkly, by John Myers, Internet Photojournalist

"Does the U.S. government have the moral and legal standing to act, unilaterally if necessary, against those responsible for the 9-11 attacks?"

The question is the sixth in a series of essays on the Sept. 11 attacks in Straight Answers to Moral Confusion in National Crisis by the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The series authored by Alan F.H. Wisdom focuses on the role of America's churches in response to the attacks.

Some of the more conservative churches have answered the question in the affirmative, Wisdom notes, quoting Bishop Joseph Fiorenza writing to President Bush for U.S. Catholics.

"Our nation, in collaboration with others, has a moral right and a grave obligation to defend the common good against such terrorist attacks," he wrote.

Dr. Gerald Kieschnick, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, was even more explicit about the source of U.S. government authority. "To deal with such sin and evil in the world, God has given us civil authorities -- President Bush and our government -- to promote peace, order, and to provide protection for the American people."

But many mainline denomination statements were at best luke warm, Wisdom notes. Three top officials of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) said "it is our prayer that these responses may be of the kind that will contribute to a future of peace."

Other mainline statements spoke against military action and offered no practical alternatives, implying that the U.S. did not have the authority to act on its own, Wisdom says.

World Council of Churches General Secretary Konrad Raiser blasted the U.S. for having "repeatedly ignored its international obligations and declared its intention to ignore the rest of the world in pursuit of its own perceived self-interests."

Raiser advocates allowing the United Nations to respond to the attacks and denies the U.S. has the legitimacy to act alone.

Wisdom responds, "The attacks of Sept. 11 were directed against American citizens on uncontested American soil. They present a classic instance of a situation in which a government has not only the right, but also the duty, to defend its citizens against a great evil.

"The mainstream of the Church Universal has always taught that government is instituted of God and that one of the principal purposes is to restrain evildoers and protect law-abiding citizens in the exercise of their freedom," Wisdom says.

I must add, it illustrates clearly how far removed our nation has become from the faith of our fathers that we could even be debating in our churches whether our government has the legitimate right to defend our nation against foreign invaders.

Was their any argument among the founding fathers about whether they had the "right" to overthrow British tyranny?

Compare Osama bin Laden and his murderous cohorts to the British, whose gravest sins which sparked the American Revolution boiled down to "taxation without representation," and the ridiculousness of such liberal theology is exposed.

If the current leaders of the World Council of Churches had been in charge in America in colonial days, we'd still be paying British taxes on our daily cup of tea while munching "biscuits."