Christian virtues Essay Example for Free

Christian virtues Essay No general code of conduct covers both of them as if the kingdom of God had dawned before its time, Left-wing political idealists and just war theorists fail to distinguish these two hands of God and try to reconcile the tension between them, often at the expense of the state. They try to impose Christian virtues such as love and mercy upon the state but fail to recognize the depravity of our present lot and the need for the state to restrain its evils. Communism might have found its place in the early church with Ð ° people who were prepared to share all their possessions (Acts 2.43, 44; 4. 32), but this economic system does not work in the unregenerate world of laziness and selfishness. Pacifism might have served the church and its members well as Ð ° witness to divine grace and mercy, but the state would abdicate its responsibilities before God if it did not bear the sword and protect its citizens from criminals. It was Thomas Aquinas, not Augustine, who developed just war theory along the natural law tradition. Augustine did not discriminate clear, universal principles in order to declare Ð ° society or its wars just. He saw Ð ° distinct dichotomy between private behavior, which might refuse the use of the sword in self-defense, and the public right of the state to defend itself for the good of the community. Machiavelli agreed and spoke of two moralities subsisting side-by-side, the morality of the individual soul and the morality of the city. Some actions, while not virtuous from Ð ° private or Christian views, are still absolutely necessary if one wishes to defend the Republic. Protestant theologians tend to agree with this assessment. Emil Brunner did not believe that we could impose Ð ° version of absolute justice on Ð ° world darkened with sin. In the old Testament God did not impose Ð ° ban on divorce ‘because of the hardness of their hearts’, even if ‘it was not this way from the beginning’ and absolute justice would demand otherwise. Relative justice is all we can hope for in the realm of society and Ð ° world fallen from its original image. (Amit 2003 127) Reinhold Niebuhr rejected the possibility of doing well without causing some evil. In the real world, one must become tainted with its evil and fight force with force. So useful have terrorist attacks been to advancing the neocon agenda that hawks are intent on provoking more. As William Arkin wrote in the Los Angeles Times, Rumsfelds Defense Science Board recommended in 2002 the creation of Ð ° super secret â€Å"Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception. Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at `stimulating reactions among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction—that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to `quick-response attacks by U. S. forces. Such tactics would `signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk. † (Amy 2004 38) Another argument can be made that Islamist extremism, however it arose, can be combated more effectively if Ð ° larger number of citizens have Ð ° stake in non-extremist, increasingly democratized political systems. More freedom should be created to foster enhanced political participation and human investment in Middle Eastern states. Ð  greater degree of participation may occur without the implementation of other requisites of democracy. If our definition of freedom is free elections, Ð ° free press, and labor unions—it is absent in Saudi Arabia. Supporters of the Kingdom point to other methods of creating balance and justice in society, whereby the royal family protects the citizens and defends their values in exchange for their loyalty. While this may smack of feudalism to the reader, such bargains were fulfilled in Islamic history through the Ottoman concept of the circle of equity; self-governance of religious minorities; and the recognition of local, tribal, and familial authorities. Todays Middle Eastern rulers are facing similar questions about the ways that democratization will alter earlier understandings of leadership or threaten its longevity. â€Å" (Sherifa 2005 28)