What’s to deal? I’ve never sided with anti-American zealots, unless you lump being critical of the war and George W. Bush in this category. Glad to see you admit, though, that you do, indeed, question left patriotism. A lefty “lie” that’s turned out to be quite true.

Why are you critical of the war? Besides being a pacifist, which amounts to letting others die so that you can be free, what about the war so troubles you? Pacifism isn’t an argument, it’s a cause, one most readers here don’t share. So you might as well drop it and focus on factual reasons—not concocted administration “lies,” because you were critical of the war effort before those “lies” ever escaped Bush’s lips—but actual reasons the rest of us can relate to.

Refute the evidence of lefty anti-Americanism in this post, then say that the lefty lie turned out to be true. The facts are very much not on your side, so stop hiding behind the flag and deal with them.

And by the way, one blogger questioning your patriotism is not the same as the President of the United States questioning your patriotism. That’s yet another distinction of fact that seems lost on the left.

Uh-oh Bryan — er, I mean Dubya — the Huckster is onto you!

Why am I critical of the war? Well, I’ve explained this a number of times already on this site, but I’ll try again. It might sound fluffy and pie-in-the-sky to you, but I take it dead seriously because it gets at the core of my being: my religious faith. I firmly believe, as a Christian, that the example of Christ should rule my life. We can debate this example as it relates to the issue of war, but I have come to the determination through thought and prayer (and much of both), that the Christian response to enemy attack is not via the sword. Jesus was very clear on this point. He chose the cross over the sword. In the end, so did Peter. So did many of the early Christians. Jesus also admonished us to love our enemies. That said, I recognize that as a human, subject to the weakness and anger that comes with our being human, I find it difficult - especially when it comes to my visceral hostility to those that murdered thousands of innocent people on 9/11 - to live up to the Christian ideal. At least for me. And I understand the very natural human reaction to strike back in self-defense. Because of this, I do not pretend to judge the moral correctness of those who support the war. To me, that is something one has to deal with in the solitude of his own conscience if he is a moral atheist and with his own conscience and his god, if he is a believer.

One of the things that I have always liked about the Christian right is their adherence to the mantra: WWJD. It’s a great question to ask. I believe that Jesus would not support war. Period. And so shouldn’t I. You’ve pulled out Old Testament scripture on this in some of our past exchanges. If that works for you, fine. I do not judge. But in my mind, when there is a conflict between the Old Testament and the example of Jesus, Jesus trumps the OT. I am a Christian, after all.

You might then say that I am ungrateful that others fight the fight for me. I have an acute sense of that claim, and my responsibility to respond to it. This is why I do not just sit in the solitude of church or home and keep silent. I criticize the war publicly because I don’t believe in that fight. I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I cowered in the shadows, protesting the war in the quiet of my heart, but secretly grateful that it is being fought. I don’t think the war is right, and I will continue to say it - for my own sense of duty to those who fight and die, if for no other reason.

You might also fairly ask me what, then, are we to do? My honest answer is that I don’t know. But I do know that, for me, war is not it. I am convinced that there must be other ways than war and killing to resolve our conflicts.

This is a very personal statement. I know it sounds saccharin, but it’s honest. People can mock my faith-based anti-war position, but I could care less. I’m not in the debate for them, nor am I in the debate so that you can relate to my reasons and my argument; I’m in it for my soul.

Now, as far as refuting the lefty anti-Americanism in this post, I would be foolish not to recognize that this fringe exists on the left. It’s a small, but vocal, fringe. There is an equally troublesome anti-American fringe on the right, those like McVeigh and others in the militia movement. But I don’t swipe at all conservatives and question your patriotism because of this lunatic fringe at your end of the ideological spectrum. My point is simply that there is some truth to the claim that leftists in opposition to the war and to the policies of the Bush Administration are viewed as unpatriotic. I never claimed that Bush personally has questioned my patriotism, just that it is not pure fantasy on the part of liberals to assert that their patriotism is questioned - whether deservedly or not. You can say that some loony-left liberals deserve to have their patriotism questioned (and I might even agree), but that is not the same as saying liberals are making this whole thing up (i.e lying). The fact remains that you are questioning the patriotism of the anti-war left, in a very sweeping and decidedly unjust way.

Your stance isn’t saccharine, it just isn’t widely held and doesn’t really contribute to the overall debate on the conduct of the war. You wouldn’t support war for any reason, at any time. Fair enough, but that doesn’t say anything to the rest of us about whether the war is just or whether it’s being conducted legally, or effectively.

As for WWJD, I think it’s less clear than you seem to believe, but that’s a debate for another time. Suffice it to say that Jesus did once use force on His own, and suffice it to say that Paul indicated that nations and governments had certain responsibilities to their citizens, among which was to defend them against lawbreakers. And one of the first Gentiles saved was Cornelius, a Roman centurion, who was never commanded to leave his job or renounce war. And he was a soldier in the very army most directly responsible for the cricifixion (though we probably agree that spiritually, you and I are just as guilty of the crucifixion as the men who actually drove the nails in).

As for Dems.com, they are not fringe no matter what you say. That’s the entire point of this post. They are mainstream Democrats, as the party has itself moved swiftly to the hard left since the war began. They are radical, hateful, vengeful and full of rage—against their fellow Americans, not those who kill their fellow Americans. That’s very clear from the stories they highlight and the general tone of their emails and their site. And they are not a fringe group. They are part and parcel of the modern Democrats.

Jimmy,

I respect your beliefs.

I have a question for you. If the President said we can only defend half of the USA from terrorist attacks and asked all who wished to be protected to move to that portion of the USA. Would you move there? Be careful, because if you answer yes aren’t you condoning the war by accepting that protection. After all the war is the defense of the USA and the world from terrorist.

Ordi - I’m pretty content to live where I am. And since I’ve moved 7 times over the past 8 years, I’m not too eager to move again. But I also don’t have a death wish, either. By agreeing to move myself and my family to where I might feel safe from my enemies’ attacks is by no means condoning a war. And walking away from danger to safety, or trying to find another non-violent response to the threat, does not equal the condoning of war. By the very same logic of your analogy, if my home is burglarized and my family assaulted, my relocation to a safer neighborhood with better police patrol doesn’t mean that I condone the police’s hunting down of the burglar with deadly force.

But the crux of your question is really no different than the situation I more often hear (most recently from my father) posed to me about how I would react if my wife or daughter were being held at gunpoint and I could save her by taking out the attacker. I don’t know how I would act in that situation, but I know how I SHOULD act. In my fear and anger and weakness, I might choose the sword in the heat of the moment without thinking about other ways to resolve the crisis; but I really believe that’s not the right path. A forgivable path, perhaps, but not the right path.

Jimmy,

In my senerio by seeking the very protect offered by the President and the men and women who protect this country you would be accepting protection from the very people you thought should not go to war. Thereby condoning their very purpose, to protect us! We are in self preservation mode. You would be too in this senerio.

In the police senerio you escalated to deadly force pretty quick. Police do not use deadly force without a reason. The same is true for our military. Sept 11th was that escalation.

ordi - I guess this is where you and I will disagree. Wanting to feel safe and living in a protected society from danger does not equal condoning killing as a response to this danger. Simply, you think 9/11 demands a war, I don’t. I respect your reasoning and I understand it; but, I still don’t have to agree with it and think it is the right thing to do.

Jimmy,

I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DEMANDING THIS WAR or any other war. You missed the simple reasoning in my senerio! If you took the President up and moved to an area of the country for protection, you accept the fact you need protect and the unfortunate fact that we are at war like it or not.

Because you do not want or approve of the war does not mean we are not at war! It is destroy the terrorist groups or they destroy us and OUR society. Period the end! Don’t tell me there is another way because you can not reason with unreasonable people! Wake up and smell the coffee!