Since taking office, President Barack Obama has been reluctant to call the struggle in which we are engaged the “War on Terror,” choosing instead the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operations” – an expression so vague as to be meaningless. But is there a good reason for Americans (and Conservatives especially) to prefer to call our ongoing struggle against al Qaeda “The War on Terror?”

The U.K.’s Director of Public Prosecutions has refused to dignify the attacks in London by agreeing with Khan’s characterization of the conflict with al Qaeda. In January 2007 he noted, “London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered . . . were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ’soldiers’. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals.”

Although the Obama administration has been the target of invective from Republicans for treating terrorists as criminals rather than soldiers, careful consideration should be given as to how to classify the murderous miscreants of Islamo-fascism, because words actually have meaning, and rhetoric actually has an effect.

If we are, indeed, at war, then we are prosecuting it poorly, and have been since the inception of operations. Our approach to al Qaeda and its Islamist adherents looks more like the police action of Vietnam than the all-out, pull-no-punches, win-at-all-costs strategy we used to defeat our enemies in World War II. As an obvious example, during World War II citizens of enemy nations were not free to come into or leave our country at will. If we are really at war, let’s start acting like it. If we are not, let’s stop calling it a war.

We need to get our categories straight. If we are at war, the November 5, 2009 attack on Ft. Hood by Nidal Hasan, which killed (officially) thirteen people and wounded thirty others, was not a terrorist attack, but an attack by an infiltrating enemy soldier (in fact, Hasan’s business card declared him to be a “Soldier of Allah”) upon a military installation. We can’t have it both ways. Either we are not at war and this was a terrorist attack, or we are at war and this was a military attack.

If we are at war, what privileges and rights are we willing to give up until victory is achieved? This is not an insignificant question. In 1969 President Richard Nixon launched “The War on Drugs.” When a nation is at war, citizens of that nation have to make concessions until the war is won. One of the concessions of the “War on Drugs “comes through asset forfeiture laws. Because we are told we are in a “War on Drugs,” the assets of American citizens suspected of being (not proven to be) used in drug trafficking are liable for forfeiture.

Consider the case of Emiliano Gomez Gonzalez. On May 28, 2003 Gonzalez was stopped by a Nebraska State Trooper who he gave permission to search his rental car. The Trooper discovered $124,700 in cash. The cash was seized as money presumed to be gained from drug trafficking and, on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court, the asset seizure was upheld.

It is significant that Gonzalez had no criminal history, and no known involvement with drugs. There were no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or records of drug transactions found in the car Gonzalez was driving. Furthermore, Gonzalez had a plausible explanation for why he was carrying that much cash. No matter. Given that we are in a “War on Drugs,” the Eighth Circuit ruled that the mere “Possession of a large sum of cash is ’strong evidence’ of a connection to drug activity.” These are the kinds of “inconveniences” we must to put up with if we are in fact at war.

Are we really engaged in a “War on Terror?” If so we should start prosecuting it like a war. And American citizens need to count the cost of what being truly at war against al Qaeda will mean for their freedoms.

Chip Hammond is pastor of Bethel Presbyterian Church in Leesburg, Va. A former Police Chaplain, he has studied the history of and modern movements in Islam since September 2001.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

Picture above from Wikimedia Commons licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License.

In another somewhat encouraging (but probably too late) sign, thousands of Spaniards took to the streets to protest the recent passage of a bill that would legalize abortion on demand for up to 14 weeks into the pregnancy.  This is a huge move for Spain – a country that formerly allowed abortion only in restricted circumstances.  The thousands protesting the decision is encouraging, but the law is not (read the whole story here).  It seems to me that this kind of hyper-active, unrepresentative government is becoming increasingly common in the Western world.  It can be seen in the advance of gay marriage in the U.S. and in strange pro-abortion and animal rights legislation in Europe.  Elected officials throughout the West appear ambivalent to prevailing public opinion and eager to appease activist groups.

Finally, on a more depressing note, the average person in the world today appears to view internet access as a fundamental human right.  A survey (find it here) of 27,000 adults in 26 countries produced some depressing results.  Nearly 79% of adults believe that internet access should be a fundamental human right.  This instance shows how low our understanding of rights has become.  Human rights are core and few.  They should be rooted in our very natures – not dependent on outside circumstances or the development of technology.

This new understanding of rights largely stems from a progressive viewpoint that believes human nature is fundamentally defined by human progress or evolution.  Progressives view man as ever evolving, ever improving towards some kind of perfection.  A constantly-changing human nature naturally lends itself to a constantly evolving definition of human rights.  But this view of rights loses its connection to a transcendent morality rooted in absolutes, and without absolutes the very concept of human dignity and justice is undermined.  Who knows what new rights we might gain or which rights some of us may lose in our constant “evolution”?  The progressive mentality opens the doors wide for abortion, euthanasia, human abuses, and a constant redefinition of human institutions.

Moreover, progressives ignore the flawed nature of man.  They put their trust in a flawed, destructive creature.  We need but look at human history to see the constant failings that flow so readily from self-centered mankind.  Men are not angels, and we must remember this fact if we are to preserve any sound conception of human dignity, duties, and rights.

Townhall

The Christian Post

Catholic Exchange

Renew America

ChronWatch-America

Free Republic

Dakota Voice

American Chronicle

Los Angeles Chronicle

Carroll Standard

What On Earth? Blog

“Credit Culture – Incentivizing Greed and Irresponsibility” was linked by:

The Sarah Storm Report

Daylife Source Hub

MSG.com

Linkiest

Orange County Republican Executive Committee

Howard County Maryland Blog

One Conservative Voice Blog

Canadian News Reader

Kevin’s Korner

Excerpt:

Even more troubling, animal-rights activists have succeeded in confusing the
public about the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. The
latter is a noble cause supported by the vast majority of Americans who want to
protect animals from cruelty, even though they do not consider animals their
moral equals — a caveat that runs counter to animal-rights ideology. Despite
this distinction, “animal rights” has “become the catchall term for virtually
any effort to protect animals,” Smith says, and the resulting confusion has
allowed the animal-rights movement to gain legitimacy it does not deserve.

That legitimacy threatens universal human rights, which are grounded in the
principle that all humans are equal simply because we are human. If we reject
that principle and argue that our rights are based on something other than our
shared human nature — that it is a creature’s apparent rationality or
self-awareness, for instance, that entitles it to rights — we can wind up
elevating the rights of chimps and pigs above those of profoundly disabled or
demented humans. Indeed, some animal-rights advocates have done just that.

You can ask anyone who knows me well and they will tell you that few things enrage me more than animal abuse.  I’d happily subject the cretins who run dog-fighting rings to the same barbaric treatment they impose on the victims of their amusement.  So, I was glad to see that Campbell took the opportunity to distinguish between those of us with an appreciation of our human duty of stewardship and those of us willing to kill our own kind in defense of a house fly or a silk worm.

Over the course of the last century, Americans have become increasingly obsessed with psychology.  We have embraced a therapeutic culture which posits that everyone is a victim, consciously or not, of emotional and environmental factors which dictate the way we see the world and the way we behave within it.  While Plato was famous for his description of the ideal human soul, in which the head rules the belly through the chest, American pop-psychology increasingly promotes the idea that a person’s identity – who they are and what they do – is more a product of uncontrollable forces than a result of the will operating in concert with (or against) reason and sentiment.

In the past several decades we’ve come up with sympathetic psychological explanations (i.e. excuses) for everything from shoplifting to adultery to murder.  Apparently, however, this wasn’t enough for the folks at the American Psychological Association, who in an attempt to “reflect changes in our society” have newly revised their Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  This most recent iteration of the manual presents several new and unique mental disorders and behavioral afflictions.   An article by George Will captures the absurdity of these new “diseases” thusly:

Today’s DSM defines “oppositional defiant disorder” as a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures.”  Symptoms include “often loses temper,” “often deliberately annoys people” or “is often touchy.  DSM omits this symptom: “is a teenager.”  This DSM defines as “personality disorders” attributes that once were considered character flaws.  “Antisocial personality disorder” is “a pervasive pattern of disregard for . . . the rights of others . . . callous, cynical . . . an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal.”  “Histrionic personality disorder” is “excessive emotionality and attention-seeking.”  “Narcissistic personality disorder” involves “grandiosity, need for admiration . . . boastful and pretentious.” And so on.

Will hits the nail on the head with his observation that where our culture used to see a defect in character we now see a psychological/mental/behavioral disorder.  What was once a symptom of a disordered soul is now a symptom of a medical and/or psychological condition, to be diagnosed and treated by trained professionals, on leather couches in quiet offices, or – if your particular psychological affliction is interesting enough – maybe even on the reality TV program of your choice.

This is merely the latest in a growing trend of western society’s rejection of true culture, which is defined by conservative philosopher Richard Weaver as “a matter of yea-saying” that draws men together under a common banner of basic assumptions about the world.  Culture, in Weaver’s view, is what allows men to transcend their baser instincts in service to a higher ideal; it is what makes men dignified.  Fed a steady diet of self-affirming, self-esteeming, “I’m okay, you’re okay” pop-psychology, the man of today has rejected the perceived limitations and strictures of culture in favor of radical individualism.  Alone in the world, he is free to nurture his basest instincts and most anti-social tendencies, secure in the knowledge that there stands ready a cadre of pseudo-scientists willing to absolve him of all responsibility through the diagnosis of a phony mental disorder.

For a ready example of this we need look no further than Tiger Woods, who reportedly underwent treatment for sex addiction in the wake of his adultery scandal.  It’s one thing if Mr. Woods and his wife have sought counseling to heal the wounds of his betrayal and forge a way ahead for their family; it is something entirely different to peddle the notion that the megastar golfer has been a victim of anything other than hubris and a lack of self-control.  Yet this is where we are as a society: Socially aberrant behavior is now understood merely as a peculiar yet “legitimate” variety of personality – something for which the individual in question bears no direct responsibility.

The apostle Paul had his own catalogue of social disorders, attributing the root cause as sin:

Now the works of the flesh are evident:  sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealously, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. . . .  But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. . . (Galatians 5: 19-22, ESV)

Since the beginning of time, mankind has been ready to exploit any tactic or resource at his disposal to avoid taking responsibility for his actions.  The second sin committed by Adam and Eve in the garden was to immediately shift blame for their acts of disobedience to another.  Adam blamed God for giving him Eve as a companion, while Eve blamed the serpent for “deceiving” her (the original “the devil made me do it” defense).

Let us learn from Adam and Eve’s experience that justifying our actions by blaming someone or something else is not the way to go.  A culture of moral evasion, selfishness, and irresponsibility is not a culture that will last.

Consumers in Illinois who lose their jobs and have no other option but to buy their own health insurance will get socked this year with premium increases of up to 60 percent, according to state records.

That group of consumers has been growing, as the recession has created more uninsured Americans looking for ways to protect themselves and their families.  Now, Illinois consumers will get a glimpse into just how wide-ranging rate increases among individual health plans can be.  The data, obtained by the Tribune, also provide a window into the overall trend of premium increases at large and small employers.

For the state’s more than half-million consumers in individual health plans, base rates will go up from 8.5 percent to more than 60 percent, according to state data.  Base rates do not take into consideration health status, gender, age, place of residence and length of a policy — all factors that could raise premiums further.

This is a major problem in the current health care system.  A move to individual choice and freedom will not work until the insurance industry finds a way to eliminate the wide disparity between individual and group policies.  I’ve recently had a lot of experience exploring individual and group plans.  The advantages of the latter are unbelievable.  Portability, coverage of preexisting conditions, maternity coverage, and reasonable rates are just a few of the many benefits of having a group plan (even if that group is as small as two people!).

Early in the 20th century, many insurance groups began as nonprofits.  They were essentially “safety nets” mixed with an element of charity.  The healthy paid the same (or similar) rates to the unhealthy.  They were all protected against catastrophe, and the healthy were willing to pay a bit more for the benefit of all.  Sadly, our hyper-individualistic society seems to have lost this idea completely. We’re all out for the cheapest possible cost to us – whether we’re the consumer or the insurance company.  Plus we now assume insurers will act as everyone’s safety net – not churches, families, charities, or local communities.  This puts the unhealthy in a terribly difficult position: It’s harder and more expensive to get insurance, but everyone assumes you have it, so good luck getting help if you have a medical catastrophe and don’t have insurance!

The old charity-oriented form of health insurance now only exists in the bastardized form of an employer group insurance plan, where the employer cuts a deal with an insurance company to get a set of basic rates to provide a broad range of coverage to his or her employees.

Can we get back to a private charity-oriented plan that increases freedom and individual ownership without leaving the unhealthy out in the cold?  I don’t know, but no one involved in the current debate seems to think much of this idea.

There is no excuse for my behavior; it was shameful, and I knew it.  I knew that I was better than that, and I knew that I would forever be known in that man’s mind as a rude, careless, jerk.  Whether I will ever see him again doesn’t matter.  I’ll always feel a twinge of regret and remorse when I think back to what I did knowing that my behavior on that night was not indicative of my true character.

Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon.com discusses “sexual shame” in her new column.  Noting the recent trend of self-proclaimed feminists publicly expressing shame and regret over their sexual promiscuity and embracing a more traditional view of love, courtship, and domesticity, she suggests that this is not a signal of a “backlash” against the hookup culture:

As I see it, young women have fully proved that we can have one-night stands, hear us roar — and maybe we’re beginning to also allow ourselves more nuanced feelings about our hookups. Like Klausner and Anderson, we can now acknowledge regret over a one-night stand, without being considered, or seeing ourselves as, forever ruined women; if there’s been a recent change in my generation’s relationship to casual sex, I suspect it’s that we’re relaxing our defensive posturing.

That Christina Aguilera has settled down doesn’t seem like an about-face to me, so much as the happy ending so many women expect to come from all their youthful flirtation, dating and hookups. And, despite all of Carrie Bradshaw’s sex in the city, it was never a secret that she wanted to ultimately find lasting love — that was kind of the whole point. Maybe instead of signaling a backlash, these are actually signs that we’re slowly inching toward a world where a woman isn’t either good or bad, a wife or whore, a virgin or slut. And maybe Gottlieb has been met with such intense anger because implicit in her argument is the suggestion that women’s sexuality and romantic life is an either-or equation.

As if we haven’t invented enough ways to embrace and promote moral ambiguity.  Don’t worry ladies, your post-coitus feelings of shame, regret, and emptiness are not nature’s (or, gasp, God’s) way of letting you know that you’ve dishonored your body and slandered your dignity.  No no, these feelings merely indicate that you are one step closer to total emancipation from artificially constructed gender-based sexual stereotypes.  You’ve already established that you can play the field like a man, now you are free to respond to the morning after guilt like a woman!  You should assert your right to promiscuity while demanding the option of claiming the security and comfort of matrimony at any time you choose.  In fact, it would seem that the former is a necessary prerequisite to the latter.  Would Big have ever married Carrie after all those years if Carrie had refrained from bedding dozens of men (and breaking at least one heart) in the interim?  Could Christina Aguilera truly appreciate the blessings of wife-and-motherhood if she’d not first explored her “naughty” side?

Generally, when you express regret, shame, or guilt, it means you know you did something you shouldn’t have, and wish you could take it back.  Why anyone would twist this into a positive sign of women’s arrival at true sexual liberation is perplexing.

And Heaven-forbid that a man might actually choose to reject the Christina Aguileras and the Carrie Bradshaws of this world in favor of the Taylor Swifts.  Only a total chauvinist would prefer a virgin to a whore.

As Mitt Romney sets out this week to promote his new book, “No Apology,’’ he is also auditioning for a rapidly disappearing role in American politics: a politician who is speaking out against the “temptations of populism.’’

“The populism I’m referring to is, if you will, demonizing certain members of society: going after businesspeople, going after Wall Street, going after people who are highly educated, people who are CEOs,’’ Romney said in an interview. “That kind of ‘All of our problems are due to that group’ is something that is unproductive.’’

This brings up two questions in my mind: First, is this strong anti-populism a good thing?  I’m generally suspicious of populism, especially when it springs forth as a rapid political movement rooted in passion.  That said, I don’t think all forms of populism are inherently wrong.  I also agree that demonizing people groups is wrong, but substantive criticism is sometimes mislabeled as “demonizing” by people who don’t want to deal with that criticism.

Second, will this work for Romney?  He’s essentially criticizing the populism that elected Barack Obama and shunning the populism of the Tea Party movement.  He is obviously betting all of his chips that the voices of those groups are much louder than their numbers merit.  He is relying on a “silent majority” of centrist party-line voters who are put off by the current political debates.  I’m not sure he can win this way.

John Albert Gardner III, 30, was scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in San Diego.

The Lake Elsinore man pleaded guilty in May 2000 to molesting a 13-year-old female neighbor and served five years of a six-year prison term. . . .  Gardner “never expressed one scintilla of remorse for his attack upon the victim” despite overwhelming evidence, prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo.  He had faced a maximum of nearly 11 years in prison under terms of a plea agreement but prosecutors urged six years.  A psychiatrist who interviewed Gardner, Dr. Matthew Carroll, wanted a stiffer punishment, saying in court documents that he was a “continued danger to underage girls in the community.”

What is wrong with this picture?  What is wrong with our justice system that we allow these monsters to go free?  It seems to me that there are some crimes that are so reprehensible, so heinous and depraved, that the possibility of repeat offenses cannot be allowed.  The “rehabilitation” of a criminal must be weighed against the threat to society if that person were to re-offend.  That being said, a pedophile’s “right” to serve their time and walk free has to be considered in the broader context of the threat they pose to innocent children.  Our judges think they are so enlightened with their pained, nuanced application of the law, when sometimes all you need is plain common sense to see that a sick, monstrous abuser of innocents has a much higher burden of proof to regain his freedom.  Our judges and lawyers get so caught up in their own egos that they forget who they are there to serve and protect.  They are meant to apply the law to help maintain an ordered liberty in society, in which case the rights of innocents to go about their lives free from the risk of sexual abuse and murder trumps the rights of a sex offender to have a second chance.

I realize that in our vanity we have decided that no one is incapable of being “rehabilitated” if we can just apply the right system of therapy or the right psychological theory, but sometimes a human soul is so twisted that they only salvation they can hope for must come from seeking God’s forgiveness and accepting the atoning work of Jesus Christ. . . This is the kind of “rehabilitation” that can easily be achieved from the confines of a jail cell.