Friends, it is sometimes said, don\u2019t talk to one another about politics. I beg to differ, but I add a requirement: friends can talk about politics if they behave themselves, talk to one another with civility, and carry on their conversation to learen from one another. So, welcome to this new series on Wendell Berry, Citizenship Papers<\/em>. Questions are included, and they are serious questions. Friends, it is sometimes said, don\u2019t talk to one another about politics. I beg to differ, but I add a requirement: friends can talk about politics if they behave themselves, talk to one another with civility, and carry on their conversation to learen from one another. So, welcome to this new series on Wendell Berry, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[476,1743],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-kingdom-of-god"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nBerry\u2019s first essay in this book is called \u201cA Citizen\u2019s Response to \u2018The National Security Strategy of the United States of America\u2019.\u201d It concerns the response to 9\/11. And it advocates a uniform questioning of international policy.
\nIt suggests that the \u201cwe\u201d in the \u201cwe will not hesitate to act alone\u201d is not \u201cwe the people\u201d but \u201cwe, the President and his closest advisors.\u201d Was the American public sufficiently consulted<\/em>?
\nBerry contends that the definition being used (at the time, and still today) concerned \u201cpremeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.\u201d He suggests this definition: \u201cviolence perpetrated unexpectedly without the authorization of a national government\u201d (3). How do you define terrorism<\/em>?
\nHe contends the NSC has demonized the enemy and lionized the USA. We have plenty of our own evils to deal with.
\nMore to the point, he thinks there are self-defeating contradictions: peace through war and advocacy of globalization of the economy while we isolate ourselves in war. Can a lasting peace be accomplished as a result of military action<\/em>? Is it true to say that military action leads to more military actions<\/em>? Does military action lead to confidence in military action<\/em>?
\nHe advocates charity, civility, independence, true patriotism, and lawfulness.
\nAnd he contends that standing with Christianity implies pursuing peace, pursuing forgiveness, and pursuing love.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"