 |
 |
 |
 |
What are the Alternatives?
Alternative #1
Alternative #2
As already discussed, when speaking of history, the "status quo" is an illusion. The only rule is that things change. Our country, its government, its culture and its people will not remain the same; they will change. The process of corruption, as readily observed in nature, is seldom reversed. Normally, the process of corruption will continue until the whole is consumed. Thus, the question is not whether the status quo can be maintained. The question is not how corruption can be reversed. The question is whether the Christian part of this country can be saved.
Alternative #3
Civil War would be an attempt to reverse the process of corruption by replacing the current illegitimate government with a lawful, Constitutional government. As von Clausewitz noted, war is a continuation of politics by different means. [1] Again, we are faced not merely with a political problem. If that was the case, a civil war might offer the possibility of redeeming the nation as a whole, because if government is the only problem, replacing the government, in this case by force, solves the problem.
But this is not the case with the United States as it moves into the twenty-first century. Our problem is a breakdown in moral and cultural consensus.
Lawful government rests upon a foundation of a moral citizenry. Unlawful governments tend to rest upon the opposite, and the United States is not an exception to this rule. Our citizenry is comprised of numerous ethnic, racial and religious or atheist groups that disagree on even rudimentary moral principles.
For example, in the Morality of Law, Professor Fuller stated that basic
legal duties must be reciprocal. Yet today, millions of African Americans believe government should disciminate against European Americans but stop European Americans from discriminating against them. Many Jews advocate Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, but deny the United States can be a Christian Nation. Feminists believe the government should protect them from their husbands but deny that it should protect their unborn children from them.
Even if Christians won a civil war and tried to re-institute Constitutional government, they would be unable to govern, because the moral citizenry that was the basis for our Constitutional form of government has been dissolved.
Even so, Christians cannot make war unless the war is a "just war." Christianity invented the concept of a "just war," specifically, the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). The principles of "just war" are:
Defending those unable to defend themselves from unlawful aggression has historically qualified as "having just cause." This is so whether one is seeking to protect Negro slaves, Jews or unborn children.
"Proper authority" has traditionally meant the national sovereign, although the New World Order now denies that any single nation has the authority to declare war. That power is to be the sole prerogative of global government. Point noted, and dismissed. But more difficult is evaluating what constitutes "proper authority" in the context of civil war. On the one hand, if the extant national government - our "sovereign" - is legitimate, no civil war could be just. If, however, our national government is not legitimate, who has the authority to declare war? A method for determining lawful authority among insurgents is required, and the area is problematic.
"Right intention" means that even if "just cause" is present, the objective of the war cannot exceed redress of the injury that constitutes the "just cause." For example, if a nation's province is invaded, that nation has just cause to declare war, but does not have "right intention" if it seeks to conquer the invading nation in its entirety.
In the context of a second American civil war, "right intention" might limit insurgents to a war against the federal government, rather than the sovereign governments of individual States. Many State governments are innocent of the types of tyrannies and abominations practiced by the federal government. A just civil war could not be fought against such State governments.
"Reasonable chance of success" seems clear, but can mean at least two things. First, insurgents must have a reasonable chance of winning the war. But also, they must have a reasonable chance of winning the peace. Even if insurgent Christians were able, by some miracle of divine Providence, to win a military campaign against federal mercenaries, what would they win? The chance to govern a sprawling conglomeration of ethnic, racial and religious minorities?
"Success" might mean giving up the idea of governing the United States as defined by its current boundaries, and seeking to govern only a particular region or regions within those boundaries.
"Means proportionate to end" requires that the means of civil war be no more (or less) evil than the injury sought to be redressed. Where the killing of innocents constitutes the injury, killing innocents to stop the injury would not be a lesser means. Killing the guilty would be a less evil means.
Other theories of "just war" impose an additional requirement: The just war can be waged only as a last resort; all other non-violent means must be exhausted.
The issue of whether Christians could fight a "just war" against the federal government remains debatable. Certainly, preparing to fight such a war is advisable, inasmuch as such a war may become necessary and justifiable.
If the "last resort" criterion is imposed, such a civil war would not be a "just war," at least for now.
Cultural and geographical separatism, a non-violent method of self-preservation and withdrawing support, remains an untried option.
Alternative #4:
eXile is an attempt to initiate non-violent separatism. But one of its ten principles is that Christians must prepare to fight to survive.
- The conventional political process:
As already discussed, Christians have tried to use the ordinary political process for many years - to no avail. As will be discussed, for decades before that, the enemies of Christ were implementing a demographic and cultural strategy to eventually accomplish the deChristianization of America. They succeeded. Christians are now a minority in their own country, and as such, have no legitimate or realistic expectation to prevail in a democratic process.
- Status Quo:
- Civil War:
eXile:
Footnotes:
[1] On War, Princeton University Press, 1984, pp. 75-89