N.T. Wright on the death of Osama bin Laden
Popular author and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright has accused the world of giving America a free pass for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and killing an unarmed man during the recent attack that killed Osama bin Laden.
The former bishop of Durham sent a short statement to The Times’ religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill in which he pointed out that Americans would be “furious” if Great Britain’s military had staged an unannounced raid against hypothetical Irish Republican Army terrorists and killed them, unarmed, in a Boston suburb.
The only difference, Wright says, is “American exceptionalism.”
“America is allowed to do it, but the rest of us are not,” said Wright, who is now the research professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. “By what right? Who says?”
President Obama, Wright says, has “enacted one of America’s most powerful myths,” the vigilante hero going outside the law to execute “redemptive violence” against an enemy who has rendered the legitimate authorities impotent. “This is the plot of a thousand movies, comic-book strips, and TV shows: Captain America, the Lone Ranger, and (upgraded to hi-tech) Superman. The masked hero saves the world.”
While this myth may have been a necessary dimension of life in the Wild West, Wright says, it also “legitimizes a form of vigilantism, of taking the law into one’s own hands, which provides ‘justice’ only of the crudest sort.”
“What will we do when new superpowers arise and try the same trick on us?” he asks. “And what has any of this to do with something most Americans also believe, that the God of ultimate justice and truth was fully and finally revealed in the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, who taught people to love their enemies, and warned that those who take the sword will perish by the sword?”
Wright, a prominent figure in the Church of England, has gained fame on both sides of the Atlantic for his academic and popular writings on the New Testament and the historical Jesus. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams also commented on bin Laden’s death this week, admitting to “a very uncomfortable feeling” about reports that bin Laden wasn’t armed when he was killed “because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done.”
“When we are faced with someone who was manifestly a ‘war criminal’ as you might say in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be observed,” Williams said.
<>
Herman Cain’s Crony-Capitalism
However, a sober look at Cain’s statements tonight and his past record show little to be enthused about. He stands diametrically opposed the fundamental positions of pro-liberty candidates like Ron Paul. Cain is pro-war and appears to be pro-Empire, against a Federal Reserve audit, and has been supportive and apologetic about the bailout. Free market is incompatible with crony capitalism and Fed intervention.
<>
Over One Million Dollars Raised for Ron Paul
This is always a remarkable claim to the power of a message. Who would ever have imagined a 76 year old man who has been in Congress for over 30 years would raise a million dollars from young and old? It’s in the message. Words have power, and ideas have consequences.<>
First Reaction After the Debate
I am a fan of Ron Paul. I have supported him since 2004. I have great expectations for the 2012 elections. Paul will certainly do a better job in the polls than he did in 2008. He is no longer a new kid on the block. His fans are everywhere. He receives an average of 10 calls for interviews a day; his internet army is unconquerable to the infinite horror of some conservatives. Last night’s debate was a good start; not the best start, but a good start. I have often mentioned that Paul needs to be a bit more personal. His reference to his long marriage was good, but not sufficient. He needs to address the American people. Herman Cain did a fine job last night. His policies are standard neo-conservative, but his mannerism is more appealing to the American people. For the most part, Americans are not much into philosophic discussions, yet, they appear to be coming around it. The Federal Reserve/Foreign Policy talk is no longer bizarre, but a much anticipated one in conservative circles. Ron Paul has started something. I hope it goes far.<>
Why is America’s Footprint shrinking in the world?
Pat Buchanna writes:
Why is America’s footprint shrinking in that part of the world?
First, Americans have never been less popular there, and one demand of every revolution is for a new government, independent of the United States, that will defend the national sovereignty.
Second, we are broke. We can no longer afford the bases. We can no longer afford the wars. We can no longer afford the aid.
Third, the true vital interest of the United States in this part of the world is that these Islamic countries not become base camps of terror, especially nuclear terror, targeted against the United States.
That end is surely better served by packing and departing than by staying and fighting.
<>
Ron Paul and Tonight’s Debate
According to Brent Budowski, Paul will win tonight’s debate. He writes:
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) will win tonight’s big Republican debate because he will be the only candidate discussing serious ideas in a Republican field that is one of the weakest in modern presidential politics.
Since most Republican candidates with a chance to win are not participating in tonight’s debate, it will be a test of former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. My guess is that Pawlenty will be trying to appease various Republicans while Dr. Paul will be clearly advocating his ideas and will win the battle of the sound bites after the formal debate has ended.
<>
Tom Woods Speaks on Foreign Policy
This is a terrific illustration of the false premises of American foreign policy.
<>Ron Paul officially a presidential candidate
http://dailypaul.com/163667/tim-pawlenty-and-ron-paul-are-officially-running-for-president
Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul are officially presidential candidates.
Both formed “exploratory committees” in the previous month and a half, for the purpose of exploring the possibilities of candidacy.
Both have filed for presidential candidacy in South Carolina — a requirement for participating in the first GOP primary debate of the 2012 election cycle, cohosted in Greenville, S.C., by Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party.
And both candidates were aware that, by doing so, they have officially become presidential candidates in the eyes of the law. Spokesmen for both Pawlenty and Paul acknowledged that filing for candidacy in South Carolina changes their bosses’ status in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/tim-pawl…<>
Why Ron Paul’s chances are better in 2012?
I have stated this several times, but Paul Mulshine states it better:
If Ron…were to run, he’d have a ready audience in all of those tea-party people whose movement got its start with [Paul’s Dec. 16, 2007] money bomb. The tea-party types actually like listening to lectures about fiscal responsibility. Early in the 2008 campaign, Paul seemed to bore even his base with all that talk about the Federal Reserve. It sounded esoteric.
Once the financial bubble burst, though, monetary policy was a hot topic among conservatives. Throw in trillion-dollar deficits and the Fed’s policy of “quantitative easing” in the years since, and suddenly every candidate’s sounding like that guy who was denouncing the Fed in Philly four years ago.
And consider this quote on foreign policy: “We shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don’t end.”
Did Haley Barbour say that just the other day? Probably. But Ron said it first, in that Fox News debate four years ago when the Republicans were ready to run him out of town on a rail. That same rail will be a crowded one this year. And I for one can’t wait to see who is on it.
<>
