So Mark sent me this article on how Bush just completed this big arms sale with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - and it got my wheels spinning. Originally it made me pretty mad because I'm not a big Saudi fan because of its oppressing theocratic government that gets away with drowning women in bath tubs because its America's largest middle easter ally.
OK but anyway for some reason that got me thinking of the separation of church and state - and the polarized outlooks each demands. For instance, chances are the arms deal with Saudi Arabia will benefit America, and most of the American people by ensuring stability and security of Les Aux Etats Unis. Now, as a governmental leader, isn't that what an American President is supposed to do? They are supposed to strictly protect the interests of the country and of the American people. Now here I am, getting angry with this decision because as a Christian, and a good 'ol civilian, God commands the exact opposite of me.
Instead of being called to protect myself, I'm asked to sacrifice my security, stability and whole life for the sake of others. That would mean telling Mr. King Abdullah here "Um, no way you're not getting those weapons until you stop killing 13 year-old girls for being raped."
So then - if government leaders are asked to do all they can to protect their countries, and Christians are asked to sacrifice their protection, um I wonder how that works when you are a Christian leader? Because somewhere, someone has to get the raw end of the deal - so to speak. Does this make any sense?
I'm tired.
3 comments:
Well the second half of your blog I will skip for now...that's a long answer that I would have to think about a little more. As for the first part, I doubt helping the American people was the rationale for the Saudi deal. I am sure a handful of people were helped quite nicely. The thing that irritates me about this...other than what you already mention, is we have this odd habit of going to war with countries that we armed 20 years earlier. Let's ignore the fact that Osama bin laden is from Saudi, as well as the majority of hijackers on 911. And let's ignore the fact that he is now in Pakistan see link: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/51b-proposed-in-sales-upgrades-weapons-for-pakistans-f16s-02396/
Pakistan is literally having a blast doing all sorts of who knows what, I don't even care to read about it. I am not sure what Pakistan/Israeli relations are like, but it seems odd to me that we spend so much time talking about peace in the middle east while we sell billions of dollars in weapons to both sides. I guess you could make the argument that if both sides are armed to the teeth, neither will want to attack the other. I wonder if Israel makes much of a fuss about these kinds of deals.
Anyway, too bad we couldn't have sold the taliban weapons that would expire after 5 years or something. Of course I'm not really sure what were doing in Afg. anyway as it is believed that Bin Laden is in Pakistan and has probably been for years. Isn't that the reason we went there? Maybe I'm just confused.
And thanks for letting me use your comment space for ranting. My blog has enough of it.
I've always been rather hypocritical in that I'm glad that there are leaders making those tough choices and that I don't have to be one of them. I want to serve Christ AND have other people ensuring my safety in any way they can, even if it doens't match my Christian ideals.
I would make a terrible president... because I'm Christian. It seems ironic that the past two elections were based largly on weather the candidate was Chrsitian.
We're going to see lots of deals that exceed Bush's time in office. He's trying to pass something that will keep us in Iraq without touching congress and forcing the next president to be there. There's a reason there's an 8 year limit on how long you can be president.
Post a Comment