2009.07.22
A 'Judeo-Christian' foreign policy?
Like other commentators, I'm very unclear exactly what Rep. Eric Cantor meant when he told the Christians United for Israel conference that America needed a "Judeo-Christian" foreign policy (somehow, I doubt he meant we need to learn to turn the other cheek; I'm pretty sure he wasn't advocating that America slaughter men, women and children, as suggested in Deuteronomy).
Anyway, here's the full quote by Cantor: "Reaching out to the Muslim world may help in creating an environment for peace in the Middle East, but we must insist as Americans that our policies be firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded." Can anyone else make sense of it?
RSS feed 
Why not ask HIS office?
Comment by BobH — July 22, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
It is the Republican version of "speaking in tongues" so that the code language is received only by those programed to receive it (that Muslim won't change us is the message, I have a decoder) and it just seems like a foolish statement to the rest of us.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 22, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
I'm sure his office is currently busy trying to spin that particular bit of inanity into something coherent and palatable.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Interesting. Especially interesting when one considers that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all 3 Abrahamic religions, all with almost identical or extremely similar core beliefs and structures, and very similar origins. They are also the only 3 'revealed' religions, and share not only concepts, but various figures and personas across all 3 as well. So, hoe then would any foreign policy be developed that was complimentary/based upon 2 of them, but somehow exlcusionary of the 3rd? I don't think that's actually possible.
Comment by Other John — July 22, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
'how', not 'hoe' woops.
Comment by Other John — July 22, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
I think he meant we shouldn't cane women for drinking a beer or bomb markets to kill as many people as possible or saw the heads off journalists or any more of that "kill the infidel" stuff.
Comment by Henry — July 22, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
Nothing makes more sense than insisting that the Muslims we "reach out to" knuckle under Cantor's vision of "Judeo Christian"...whatever.
http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_washington_summit
I took a look at the website from this event.
"The enemies of Israel are the enemies of America. They are the enemies of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These enemies have drawn the battle line. If a line has to be drawn, then draw that line around both Christians and Jews. CUFI's Washington Summit is your chance to demonstrate that we are one- we are united."
Cantor knows his audience. They, like he, are not overly concerned with "creating an environment of peace" in Israel or anywhere. They also don't seem aware that Israeli's constitution doesn't mention "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Henry: "I think he meant we shouldn't cane women for drinking a beer or bomb markets to kill as many people as possible or saw the heads off journalists or any more of that "kill the infidel" stuff."
How does firebombing Dresden and nuking two civilian cities fit into a "Judeo-Christian" foreign policy, Henry? Just asking.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 22, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Lordy, I'm not going to waste the time trying to illustrate the distinct differences between the extremists and the non-extremists. If you don't know that there is a difference by now (like you can obviously 'see' with your 'real' Christians versus the Episcopals from the other thread), then this is just not worth bothering because it's like talking to my toaster.
Comment by Other John (the original OJ) — July 22, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
I don't know how, but I am totally confident that Henry will be able to explain it.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
OtherJohn, what I always find interesting is that when a Christian does something objectionable, like blow up a day care center or a planned parenthood clinic, the party line is always "He's not a Christian/not a typical Christian/you can't judge all Christians based on one whacko".
A Muslim does something, and he's immediately emblematic of millions upon millions of Muslims.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Rep. Cantor is obviously pro-Zionist, so the meaning of anything he says is equally obvious: It means he thinks that's something he can say that may persuade somebody to support Israel.
Comment by Ed H — July 22, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
@ Dan #8
"How does firebombing Dresden and nuking two civilian cities fit into a "Judeo-Christian" foreign policy, Henry? Just asking."
No good excuse for Dresden, but the nuclear bombings clearly saved lives on balance. As you might know, Operation Olympic was set to begin in 1946 with an allied invasion of Japan's southern coast. The battles of Iwo Jima and Saipan provided bloody microcosms of what this invasion would likely become in terms of casualties and savagry. Not only were the Japanese willing to fight to the bitter end, and even commit suicide before surrender, captured plans later revealed that they had guessed accurately as to the time and place of the allied invasion. The cost of human life would likely have been in the millions.
By preserving hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of human lives I think one could argue that Truman's decision fit into a Judeo-Christian ethical model.
You might have done better with the 3/5 rule or slavery in general than the bombings that finally brought the bloodiest conflict in human history to a close.
Comment by Mike W. — July 22, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
"No good excuse for Dresden, but the nuclear bombings clearly saved lives on balance."
I've always found this rationale to be, nationally, incredibly self-serving.
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm
"Truman, however, ordered an immediate halt to atomic attacks while surrender negotiations were ongoing. As the Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary, Truman remarked that he did not like the idea of killing "all those kids." "
Truman knew that what he was doing was horrific. It's ironic that the US, the ONLY COUNTRY TO DATE to use atomic/nuclear arms in combat, is the first to wet its diplomatic and military pants whenever another country decides to join the nuclear family.
VJ Day has never commanded the sort of celebration and commemoration in this country that VE Day always has. Operation Overlord's anniversaries are widely noted and celebrated. 8/6/1945 is not. Show me one momument honoring our great victory at Hiroshima.
The argument might be made that thousands of American lives were saved by dropping those bombs. The moral repercussions are more ambiguous.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
Mike W. "By preserving hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of human lives I think one could argue that Truman's decision fit into a Judeo-Christian ethical model."
Mike, I think there's an argument to make that dropping the bombs was a pragmatically wise decision. I think arguing that the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of civilians - whatever end the act set out to achieve - fits into a Judeo-Christian ethical model is a bit more problematic.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 22, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Why was it necessary to make either choice? The Japanese were beaten, driven back to their home islands, cut off from all resources. A few years' blockade should have brought them around with no loss of life. Why the all-fired hurry to end it?
Comment by Ed H — July 22, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
A Muslim does something, and he's immediately emblematic of millions upon millions of Muslims.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
one reason is because wwaaaaayyyyy more muslims display this sick behavior than do radical christians
Comment by pammala — July 22, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
@ Dan #15
"Mike, I think there's an argument to make that dropping the bombs was a pragmatically wise decision. I think arguing that the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of civilians - whatever end the act set out to achieve - fits into a Judeo-Christian ethical model is a bit more problematic."
Oh, I never said the decision was not problematic; it clearly was/is. If one resonably assumes that WWII in the Pacific Theatre was not going to end through negotiation, then the most 'Judeo-Christian' solution would be reached through making decisions that caused the least loss of life possible. Given the choice between issuing orders that would kill millions and orders that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, I think Truman picked the most J-D option available to him.
I don't disagree that the decision is problematic, but I think there are better examples in US history, even its foundation, where we did not follow Judeo-Christian teachings. Slavery is the most apparent, but even the Mexican-American War or our treatment of Native Americans stand out well above Fat-Man and Little-Boy when looking for examples of where the US veered from J-D (or Muslim) ethics.
Comment by Mike W. — July 22, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
I think Cantor is trying to say as we reach out to Islamic regions through a policy based on Western Civilization interests.
Comment by BUD — July 22, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Are you absolutely sure of that pammala or is that simply an uneducated guess?
Comment by HCS — July 22, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Using that analogy, I must say that wwaaaaayyyyy more right wing bloggers display radical, unpatriotic, unconstitutional, racist, homophobic and indefensible comments than do radical Liberals and that is emblematic for the Republican Party. I like this line of reasoning.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 22, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Actually, Mike, slavery was often referred to, without complaint, in the Old Testament, as was conquest and brutalization of the conquered.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 22, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
@ Kristen #14
"No good excuse for Dresden, but the nuclear bombings clearly saved lives on balance."
I've always found this rationale to be, nationally, incredibly self-serving.
It might be self-serving, but it's factual.
"The argument might be made that thousands of American lives were saved by dropping those bombs. The moral repercussions are more ambiguous."
While the moral repercussions of any wartime order are ambiguous, the numbers are far larger than you suggest. According to William Shockley, who submitted his estimates to Secretart Stimson (unfortunately, because he did so for so long, Shockley had become very good at estimating casualties), the US could expect 1.7-4 million casualties (400,000-800,000 dead), while the Japanese were expected to suffer between 5 and 10 million dead if civillians mounted a vigerous defense of the home islands. That assumption seems reasonable, given what happened at Okinawa.
Japanese resolve to defend the home islands cannot be understimated. Even after the first bomb was dropped, Japan refused to surrender. Their decision to do so after the second almost went the other way (with the Emporor breaking a tie vote).
Yes, the US is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon and the consequences were horriffic. However, if Truman had not given the order to do so, the consequences would have caused bloodshed on a scale never before seen in human history.
Comment by Mike W. — July 22, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
"However, if Truman had not given the order to do so, the consequences would have caused bloodshed on a scale never before seen in human history."
I'd be hard pressed to name 2 events that resulted in more bloodshed than dropping those bombs did.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
@ Dan #22
"Actually, Mike, slavery was often referred to, without complaint, in the Old Testament, as was conquest and brutalization of the conquered."
As is stoning, dietary restrictions, and the subjugation of women. However, the more common understanding of the J-D seems to be far more enlightened.
If we were to use your definition above, I don't see how Hiroshima and Nagasaki *wouldn't* fit into your definition of J-D ethics, making their choice even less understandable in your post above.
Comment by Mike W. — July 22, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Anyway, I think trying to tie warfare into anything resembling the "Judeo Christian" canon of principles I was taught is a strictly academic exercise. Warfare may be many things, but 'Christian' isn't one of them.
Of course, for 1000s of years warring sides have managed to convince themselves that the Gods/God were/was on their side. We're no different.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
I'd be hard pressed to name 2 events that resulted in more bloodshed than dropping those bombs did.
Comment by Kristen — July 22, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Kristen, the reason you are hard pressed to name a worse event is because the dropping of those bombs prevented it. Yes, a very hard decision and a horrendous thing to have to do, but it was the correct thing to do. Japan was warned. They chose the fight to the death route and that's what they got. Afterwards we could have had Japan as one of our states if we wanted to. Instead, we helped them rebouild into one of the most successful countries in human history (we helped Germany out too).
Comment by Jim W. — July 22, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
Pammala...
You might want to do a little research into the wars between Protestants and Catholics in Europe. Some of the bloodiest wars have taken place over that segment of religion without a Muslim in sight.
Advance your calendar a little to the terrorist like bombings in Ireland and England with the Irish Republican Army...
Comment by Will — July 22, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Dan #15...
Wow, I agree 100%.
Comment by Jim W. — July 22, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
@ Kristen #24
"I'd be hard pressed to name 2 events that resulted in more bloodshed than dropping those bombs did."
One might recall the Holocost, Stalin's purge, The Normandy Invasion, or The Killing Fields.
More to the point, because Truman made that decision, you don't have to name two events in the Pacific Theatre that resulted in more bloodshed. Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet would have been your answers if he hadn't. The numbers would have approached 10M, as I mentioned above.
Comment by Mike W. — July 22, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Technically, that's the hypothetical reasoning that was used to justify the use of the nuclear bombs in Japan. We have no way of knowing if that really was going to pan out or not. Certainly, a land invasion would have been terribly bloody, but as others have pointed out, other methods could have been used to secure a Japanese defeat. But, we chose the path of using the weapons, and now may be perhaps the best folks to say why they ought never be used again given the absolute carnage they inflicted both immediately and long-term.
Comment by Other John — July 22, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
have you seen it in the news that some right wing christian has sliced off a journalist head for no reason, or instigated children into suicide bombings, raping young girls before they're executed...yeh I 'd say an educated guess hcs
Comment by pammala — July 22, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
Technically, that's the hypothetical reasoning that was used to justify the use of the nuclear bombs in Japan. We have no way of knowing if that really was going to pan out or not.
There was nothing technical or hypothetical about how a land invasion would have turned out. The men who made that difficult decision knew exactly what had to be done. Absolutely, all of us hope they never have to be used again. But the way the world is heading it will likeley happen again.
Comment by Jim W. — July 22, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
I do not have the knowledge or the will to dispute your point Jim W of Mike W but I have certainly read historians with a very different perspective than the "truth" you are offering regarding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki massacres of civilians. Since the South is still fighting the Civil War over "atrocities" incurred, I think our perspective might not be the most objective and honest analysis on the subject. Evidently there is a real line between atrocity and necessity, if you can imagine.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 22, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
@ Sandi #34
I don't think anyone is saying that the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki was a good thing for humankind. Like all killing during WWII, the deaths were unnecessary and horrible. However, the bombings were the least-deadly option from a series of options, none of which would have resulted in less bloodshed.
Certainly there is a line between atrocity and necessity (e.g. the Holocost vs. D-Day). It just seems clear that Truman's decision falls into the latter category.
Comment by Mike W — July 22, 2009 @ 10:08 pm
They just did that a few hundred years ago through things like hangings and burning folks at the stake...to name some of it. Christianity has had its problems, just like Islam is having them today. The only major difference is that what happened hundreds of years ago lacked the news documentation we have today, and many groups have attempted to whitewash the history by making it seem less brutal than it was. But, you still see extreme Christians doing Godly things like bombing churches they dislike, or abortion clinics, or holding hate rallies whenever they feel that they can exploit the death of a soldier. In none of those instances are they remotely considered to be mainstream Christian, far from it. Everyone is very quick to say they were not a true Christian. Well, same deal with Islam. The Muslims I know openly deplore the crap they see happening in places like Afghanistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. That's why they live here now, they don't want any part of the extremism and have repeatedly called folks like Ahmadenijad false Muslims because of what they espouse. How is that any different? There are nutjobs everywhere...no one has a monopoly on them.
Comment by Other John — July 22, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Evidently there is a real line between atrocity and necessity, if you can imagine.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 22, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Sandi, sometimes atrocity and necessity can describe the same event. I've seen horrendous photographs of the children and old people who were horribly injured by us when those bombs were dropped. Based on what we were facing at he time the decision to go ahead could well be described as a "necessary atrocity." The men who made the final decision did not do so lightly and knew full well what the result would be. I am much more inclined to side with their judgement than some Johnny come lately historian with an axe to grind.
Comment by Jim W. — July 23, 2009 @ 1:11 am
I normally do not cotton to those who trot around the globe "aplologizing" for America. But this time I might make an exception as both sides are taking responsibility for past actions. The following linked article is very encouraging.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/817036.html
Comment by Jim W. — July 23, 2009 @ 2:26 am
Since the South is still fighting the Civil War over "atrocities" incurred, I think our perspective might not be the most objective and honest analysis on the subject.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 22, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
-William Tecumseh Sherman
This "southner" agrees with that northen general's statement.
Comment by Jim W. — July 23, 2009 @ 6:06 am
"Kristen, the reason you are hard pressed to name a worse event is because the dropping of those bombs prevented it."
Casuistry.
DDay didn't come close. http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/ddaycasualtyest.htm
The plague eventually killed more than the bombs did too. I don't see how we can compare an "event" that occured over the course of several years to a more singular one.
I'm not saying there's moral parity between Hiroshima and the holocaust. All I'm saying is that the chant we've been fed for 60 years of "Dropping the bombs saved lives!" (Very 1984) is not a universally shared opinion. At the very least, we owe it to the people who died to take a hard clear look at what we did
Comment by Kristen — July 23, 2009 @ 7:28 am
@ Kristen #40
Causity? Perhaps (essential causity is probably a more accurate description).
No credible analysis of an Allied invasion of Japan put the likely death toll below that of the bombs. Japanese behavior at Okinawa and throughout the Pacific made it clear that surrender was not a conceivable option for them. Even after Hiroshima, they would not surrender. As your link above points out, Nagasaki only convinced half of the War Cabinet that surrender was necessary (Hirohito broke the tie in favor of capitulation). Operation Downfall (the combination of Pastel, Olympic and Coronet) would have been far more bloody than Overlord (which, by the way, was far greater than D-Day and involved the bombing of cities that would never take part in the invasion, but were leveled in order to fool the Germans). Millions would have died, and I would submit that the number of scholars who believe the bombings did not save lives on balance are numerically on par with the scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by human activity.
The decision must have been horrible for Truman to have to make, but I think history, along with captured Japanese records, have vindicated his choice.
Comment by Mike W. — July 23, 2009 @ 8:40 am
At the very least, we owe it to the people who died to take a hard clear look at what we did
Comment by Kristen — July 23, 2009 @ 7:28 am
We have, many times over.
Comment by Jim W. — July 23, 2009 @ 8:56 am
Millions would have died, and I would submit that the number of scholars who believe the bombings did not save lives on balance are numerically on par with the scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by human activity.
Comment by Mike W. — July 23, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Ya lost me there Mike. But to each his own.
Comment by Jim W. — July 23, 2009 @ 9:01 am
Mike W you persist in what you have determined to be the justification for the decision but it is not nearly that cut and dried. There are many accounts of Japan being willing to surrender before either bomb was dropped if the Emperor could keep his throne. Troop deaths on all sides of a war have always been the expected. Literally targeting civilians was the wrong decision, much like Vietnam and Iraq, the other alternatives seem to point to a better choice being available. Judeo-Christian would seem to imply that you look and look HARD for those other alternatives before you target civilians or send troops into harm's way.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 23, 2009 @ 9:05 am
@Sandi: "Mike W you persist in what you have determined to be the justification for the decision but it is not nearly that cut and dried."
Actually it largely is that cut and dried.
It may seem harsh and unsympathetic but it is also contemptible to judge the decisions made at that time based on the information actually known (as opposed to conjecture let alone subsequently learned material) by the several ALLIED leaders at the time those decision were made from ANY standpoint other than that.
Comment by MrRational — July 23, 2009 @ 9:23 am
@ Sandi #44
"Judeo-Christian would seem to imply that you look and look HARD for those other alternatives before you target civilians or send troops into harm's way."
I don't think we disagree on that point, Sandi. Perhaps where our opinions diverge is whether or not Truman (or FDR in Normandy, for that matter) did take that hard look. I believe they did.
Comment by Mike W. — July 23, 2009 @ 9:23 am
I have read that there was such evidence of Japan's knowledge that surrender was a forgone conclusion and terms were the obstacle AT THAT SAME EXACT TIME. Pardon my notion that "judging" history is what we have done since it started. It is how we learn what works, what does not, and what should NEVER be repeated. If that is judgmental or contemptible -guilty as charged.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 23, 2009 @ 9:32 am
I disagree MrRational. I'm sure the decision to drop the bombs was subject to plenty debate and discussion among Truman, the allies and his advisors. I'm not judging them based on any new information that has come to light. The arguments against the mass slaughter of civilians are the same today that they were 60 years ago. Based on the quote from Truman's aide, he was not unaware of them himself.
Comment by Kristen — July 23, 2009 @ 9:40 am