Jesus, Foucault, and the War on Terror

Jesus famously said that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword and then was killed (figuratively, as it was the symbol of capital punishment, as one reads in Romans 13) by the sword. Jesus took on himself the end for those who live a life of revolution against an enemy too powerful to be overthrown.

Foucault said that power is knowledge, believing that bound up in our truth claims is the influence of those in power. This gets worked out in the Christian tradition, as well, when Emperors become Christians. All of the sudden, you have to rework some things you believe. I don't think this is a bad thing; I think it's necessary. So, faithful Christians developed the just-war theory when Christian emperors started fighting and leading wars. The power of the ruler influenced the praxis of the Christian.

This got me thinking: Can there only be a war on terror defensible for the Christian because those (more or less) in the right (in my opinion) are stronger than those (more or less) in the wrong? In other words, how does the power of the secular frame the discussion of terror? If the power structures were reversed and the radicals had the power (as they do in some countries), then would Jesus' words make more sense? Is the reason that weapons of mass destruction have been so important in the discussion (whether with Iraq or Iran) is because this is the war that the powerful knows how to fight? If the war on terror is going to be a long war, would it be wise to find some new ways to fight, perhaps ways that will prove useful if there are changes in power? What would Jesus say to a church in a powerless country?

Disregarding or Discarding Religion?

This morning I watched part of Morning Joe, hosted by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. I usually like it, although it gets a little irritating at times. But this morning just showed how thoughtless some public commentators are becoming. They interviewed Mitt Romney after which Joe says something to the effect, "I cannot wait for a day in this country when a person's religious views are not questioned." Now, he meant it as a defense of religion, but when his coworkers went on to talk about religion in the same category as race and gender, I knew it was bad. A person's race and gender really is inconsequential to many important questions of how they govern, but if a person's religion is inconsequential, as well, then religion really has been relegated to the realm of spiritual or personal and just doesn't matter that much. Brilliant, brilliant analysis and commentary considering the biggest issue in the world right now is deeply concerned with religion.