Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Supporting the troops

Critics of the Bush administration rear up in righteous ire at any suggestion that they may not support our troops. What does it mean when they say they support the troops? I've seen the occasional bumper sticker that says, "Support our troops – Bring them home." Is this support? Dennis Prager doesn't think so.

Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.

Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

...continued in full post...

In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

At this point, I have a question.

How would this position be any different from the Christian paradigm of "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

Indeed, I sent an e-mail to Dennis Prager making this point:

It occurs to me what the Left says when it argues as you describe is a variation of "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

Committed Christians may say, "You gays may think you are happy; you may think you are living a good and moral life; you may believe you are fighting for your rights against the worst human beings of our age and protecting society against the scourge of right-wing fundamentalism. But we Christians believe none of that. We believe you are living a sinful lifestyle; we believe homosexuality is immoral and against God's law; we believe you are damaging the institutions of the country for no good reason and will destroy millions of families for no good reason; but hey, we love you."

Can a committed Christian honestly say he loves gays?

Maybe this is a bad analogy, or maybe not. I'd love to hear thoughts on the subject.

No comments: