Sunday, March 02, 2003
It's been awhile since the last blog. It's been a pretty busy two weeks with work and school. I got an A on one of my midterms, 2 points short of a perfect scord; so I thank God for that. I'm grateful he has given me a second chance at college, and hopefully, I'll be going to grad school. Of course, his will be done, not mine.
SHIELDS ARE DOWN, CAPTAIN!
There was an interesting article on Worldnetdaily.com. It seems that 9 of 11 British prosters who had gone to Baghdad to be "human shields" in the event of a U.S. attack have been told to be stationed at strategic military sites or to leave the country. It seems that Iraq is having a hard time getting the protesters to stay at places like power plants and oil refineries. Apparantly, the proesters were thinking that they would be stationed at civilian sites. As the article mentions, "Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding what they considered to be low-risk targets." So, given that they may actually be in what many people would call legitimate military targets in Irq, some protesters are, unsuprisingly, frightened and are leaving the country. Abut 65 have stayed and have gone to strategic targets.
This gave rise to some thoughts in me. What were they thinking? If one is to b a human shield, then wouldn't it be likely that they should shield a military target or other strategic targets like a bridge or a road? What sense would it make to guard a hospital? The policy of the United States military (at least that which has been publically acknowledged by President Bush and his staff) has been to not select civilian targets and to keep "collateral damage" to a minimum. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the United States will intentionally target certain sites; so, shouldn't they go to those sites if hey want to be shields instead of at a hospital?
In a way, this is pathetic. It shows the lack of principle in the world today where people will not stand and fight for their beliefs but will compromise and then leave when it gets rough. Let's consider the position that and war with Iraq is unjust. If it is, then would it not make sense to be stationed at any military target? If, during the course of the war, that target is hit and the protesters are killed in the process, that would make President Bush a murderer, and he would have their blood on his hands. It's sort of like the law in many of the states here. If one person is committing a felony and suring the commission of the crime, someone else dies, that person would be charged with murder. President Bush, is the war is unjust, would be violating ethical standards and the laws of his own country, and if people died during the war, he would be committing mass murder. Some may think it would be stupid to be a human shield, but why not? If they were truly committed to their beliefs (and 65 of them are right now), then they should go ahead and put their lives on the line. However, if the war is just...then, maybe they are being dumb. :)
Can you imagine what the first century Christians went through, and what a lot of Christians today are going through? I know, the first century Chritians weren't human shields...they were only being persecuted by their own government and chased by the apostate Jews. They, however, did not back down. They proclaimed Jesus as Lord even as they were being killed. They refused to disavow Jesus Christ as King. Nothing that could have happened to them would have eperated them from God, and I hope and pray that in times of trouble and distrss that we also remember that. Look to Christ always, even in times of imminent distress.