Depends on what you mean by "gravity". Remember McClellen? Also I can certainly see ways to have to much gravity. Imagine extending it to lawa enforcement. Should cops refrain from coffee and donuts because in fact they have a distasteful occupation? Are we to expect people fight in a perpetual emotional despondancy? And how close is that to "proper gravity"? It is not clear to me that those who get most upset by war are those who are the best educated about it.

Indeed Jason, that is what I mean. It would be difficult to take it with too much gravity. Remember "shock and awe"? Presumably that was about efficiency, but I am willing to bet it stimulated a lot of feelings in a lot of Americans, including Christian Americans. that had little to do with efficiency.

I'm not sure that is realistic David as "keeping it front and center" can distract, and inefficiently waging war can make it dirtier and bloodier. However maybe I misinterpret your wording. It does convey the impression that it is wrong to wage war unless one is in a state of artificially preinduced shell shock. I think though what you really mean is that one should take it with a proper amount of gravity.

Having an "underlying problem" does not necessarily translate into cowardice, Billy. It can as easily be interpreted as error. The problem is that you are conveying insults that are unnecessary to your contention and contrary to gentlemanly discourse.

"Christians need to get over the fact that war is dirty and bloody, but sometimes necessary" ?? Seems to me we need to keep that horrible reality front and center, as we consider at length whether it is necessary - both before we begin and continually as we pursue ... whatever it is we are pursuing. Christians may not be called to be pacificists, but neither are they called to be warriors (at least of the flesh and blood sort).

Any extreme is bad (unless I'm forgetting an exception). If someone says that war was the FIRST response to resistance, then I would call them a blood thirsty savage, or something of the like. If someone says that war is NEVER the answer, then I say they are cowards. The principles of justifying either position are weak and immoral. Yes, pacifism is immoral since it does not support defending the weak against a violence attacker. Also, we are responsible for defending ourselves as well. Yes, war as a first response is immoral because it doesn't allow for the possibility of alternative, peaceful responses. Any time a war theory deviates from the the traditional elements of "just war" theory, I assume there is an underlying problem with the person's thinking on the matter.

Hmmm. I don't think everything's been said on this thread yet. (i.e. seems we need to air some more laundry...) ...//... First, quite strong words from Billy and I'm wondering if that was said in the heat of the moment or if it should be taken as true for all pacifists, everywhere, for all time. ...//... Second, I think David's comments (2010-01-22 13:11:25) hit on something that we really can't ignore in our culture: The commodification of Christianity. Not that we shouldn't meld our work and faith, but there's a very fine line in our time between God being our end or our means. Is this not true? ...//... Finally, Benjamin, I can't help but think you were also writing in the heat of the moment, as your last comment doesn't really make sense, though I get the point you attempted with your rhetoric. I don't believe it forwards discussion though. Do you have any practical ideas for how what you see as a problem could be solved? Are you against all war or just Christians in war? Thanks guys.

re the original post and "were they a silent witness". No. they were a witness with lots of sound effects. Loud explosive noises, followed by the sound of the interaction of bullets with human flesh, followed by shrieks and screams, followed by lots of weeping, followed by more weeping, and finally followed by nauseating country songs and the sounds of american soldiers committing suicide due to untreated combat related PTSD. Oh. and very finally followed by the sound of someone (stockholders? CEOs?) making enormous amounts of money and living happily ever after.

One noteworthy effect of all this hoopla is that scripture was quoted in the popular press.

One of Jason's original questions was "did the company misuse the Scriptures, or were they a silent witness to God's word?" Although they obviously "pointed" to God's word, I think they did misuse it - and I would think the same if they had inscribed those verses on light bulbs. At best, this "witness" falls in the same category as holding up a homemade "John 3:16" sign at a football game (sincere motives, but inconsequential); at worst, it might be construed as using God's word to promote a product. I am sure the creative minds on this site could see a thousand ways to (mis)associate Bible verses with all sorts of products. Have you ever been bothered when a favorite/meaningful song is used to promote a product? Imagine God's word being used in that way. I hope we can all find better and more accurate ways to witness to our faith.

Perhaps it would be useful to put in ...//... for new paragraphs then type in the initials/name of the person to whom the comment is directed. It looks neater, too. ex. ...//...JT:

We've talked about it before, although I haven't yet gotten it put in the comments policy on the side of the page. (I've gotten behind with a few updates lately.) It's simply that there should be no more than two comments in a row from any one commenter, or else the comments section is in danger of turning into a monologue instead of a dialogue.

oh. Can you please share the new policy with all of us?

Billy, wanted to check if I heard you correctly. Did you say "pacifists are cowards"? Can you elaborate?

So if I understand this, people are upset because a serial number you have to look carefully to see is inscribed on something used by a government institution? Aren't there other governmental items in D.C. that still have Bible verses inscribed on them, and in fact some rather large things - like buildings? And the other issue is that these gun sights might be used to kill Muslims? And it's worthy of ABC News covering it? This doesn't quite seem proportional the lack of media coverage over the inverse of the situation (and please note the second paragraph): http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Njk5MjYxZjNiNDc5YWQ0OWIzMzhjODE2Mjc2MmJkMzQ=

Jason, that's four comments in a row. Please remember the new policy about that -- thanks.

By the way Benjamen this is as much about my sense of the fitness of things as about a moral judgement. I am not a "hoplophobe" and I do not think being warlike is the most shocking of flaws in a religion and if I thought Christianity was warlike by nature as opposed to historical accident I would think this fitting. As my reference to Sikhs implies; my objection to Sikhism is that I think it incorrect(which is merely an unfortunate but logical result of taking any position) not that I think it warlike. By comparison, I have a dislike to having to much pomp and circumstance around the POTUS but not around Queen Elizabeth because the implications of pomp are royalist not republican.

Billy, pacifists are not necessarily cowards, and NON-pacifists used to consider being called that an insult worth dueling over. SOME pacifists are cowards, just like some warlike people are savages. However just as I do not say Yoni Natanayu or Jan Sobieski or other notable warriors were savages, so I do not say Amish are cowards.

)Benjamen, any alledged "co-opting" of Christianity by warriors is an ahistorical meme. All that happened is that political circumstances evolved to render quietism unnecessary. Christianity was never quietist by doctrine either but by necessity. If you do not believe my contention, then ask yourself why people speak of "Constantinism" rather then "Justinianism" which would be closer to their argument as Constantine really did no more then accept Christians as a part of the Empire. And the contention that he should not have implies that he really should have continued feeding lions which after all is an environmentally friendly policy. In any case the whole statement is frankly a red herring. A religion is not a tribe primarily but a metaphysical propisition. In other words it's degree of truthfulness or falsehood is outside of history, sociology and so on even though in fact a religion will have such things. In other words the mere fact that the Knights of Malta professed Christianity, does not matter two bits in the question of whether Christianity is a warrior faith. And the fact that a large number of members of the US armed forces are Christians matters even less.

Benjamen I already adressed the alledged "co-opted by warriors" point which is meaningless unless perhaps you think we should single out their occupation as unfit for salvation. And the fact that 70% of the US armed forces identify themselves as Christians is quite good. They can carry a Bible in their pocket, can they not? My point was that I did not like having Bible verses on the weapon itself. Symbolism matters.