----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:01 AM Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > > > Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of > > wanting to do something more meaningful than getting > > an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what > > your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to > > Harvard takes Jim Wallis seriously. In what sense is this true? Did Sam Huntington or Stanley Hoffman state that? Or did some folks in other fields decide that idea should be taken seriously. I think there is a great deal of difference between the two. . Why should I take Jim Wallis's analysis of international relationships seriously? Has he shown good craftsmanship in this or related field before? Can you give an example of when he has formulated an explanation of historical events, giving detailed backup with data? Can you demonstrate a rigorous paper that he has written? I view the 6 point plan as somewhat akin to creationism. Now international relationships is not a science, so there is more wiggle room. But, there is a disturbing similarity between refusing to use reason, observation, and education to determine the most likely outcome of any action and refusing to use it in describing the earth's past. Both assume a preferential place for one's own faith and place it above the observations of others. The bias against war cannot provide a bias in analysis. Facts are, history was, and people of different faiths who are committed to rigor should be able to come to an understanding. Faith becomes important when we ask, given my choices, what should I do? Observations and models of observations do not provide fundamental axioms of morality. They can tell us if we do X, they is Y chance of someone being hurt. A pacifist should accept that never using force will result in numerous deaths under certain circumstances. If they still say it is wrong to use force, that is their moral decision...it's not denial. But, if they state that indicting the tyrant will change things, so force is not needed, they are practicing denial....which is not a moral action. Finally, I'd be curious to see how the 6-point plan would change the minds of the Republican guard. It appears that the mechanism would be that the indictment would appeal to their consciences...so they would remove Hussein out of shame, once the world proclaimed the evil of his actions in court. I do not consider that plausible. If that isn't the mechanism, what is? Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
