BoppWeBlog

No one reading this is unfamiliar with the tension between Israel and it’s neighbors.  A Jewish community in the middle of an Islamic region.

Currently we are seeing news about the strike Israel is making against it’s neighbors in Gaza.  Clearly this strike has been provoked by the constant bombardment of Israel missiles and suicide bombers.  It would be difficult to really look at the facts and blame the Jewish people turning to war.

The evil situation in the middle east is one that is extremely complicated, and will most likely require a complicated resolution.  Is war and violence the answer?  Or even part of the answer?  I believe alternatives are needed to really bring this region closer to peace.  Alternatives that are far more difficult than war.

The problem with violence

Military retaliation may be the quickest partial resolution to violence inflicted on the Jewish people.  However, it will only fuel the hatred it’s neighbors have for them.  This goes way beyond Hamas or the PLO.  These organizations are inherently violent and are unfortunately part of what may be a violent religion.  It’s the civilians that are gaining hatred for Israel.  Perhaps because their apartment complex was bombed, or witnessing their loved ones injured and killed (who may or may not be part of a terrorist organization).

I would imagine for every attack on Gaza, at least one new enemy will be created.  For example, with each attack in Gaza; Hamas and others like it are getting more support for their cause.  The five year old witnessing this war will be all to eager to prepare him or herself to be the next suicide bomber.  There is no shortage of these people in any of Israels neighboring nations.

The underlining question here is whether or not a problem of violence and terror can be fought with violence and war.  Can you stop someone from bombing you… by bombing them?  Unless everyone in Gaza is killed, and every enemy of Israel removed, there will be terror inflicted on the nation of Israel.  Someone will be in line to bring harm to the Jewish people.

Diplomacy may be the only really answer.  Peaceful action instead of war may be what is needed to bring peace.  This idea may seem so unreasonable and optimistic that it isn’t even worth consideration.  But if the goal is peace at some point in the future, then peaceful action must be used in replace of violence.

I certainly don’t have the answer as to what peaceful action needs to be done.  It will no doubt involve some major creativity.  It is easy for me to sit here watching the news and form my judgment of the situation.  And as I mentioned I can not blame Israel for taking violent action, but this doesn’t make it right or the most productive in the long run.

Peaceful force by Israel will no doubt require great sacrifice on their part.  Just as Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice to bring about a peaceful revolution.  I do not think the world will stand by watching the genocide of a peaceful Jewish nation.

The argument can be made that as long as the Koran is teaching it followers the art of holy war there will be violence and pain.  But that is beyond what I am prepared to discuss in this post.  It will no doubt require the power of God, and the triumph of the human spirit to bring about the revolution needed to solve a crisis like this.

I blame Israel no more than I blame it’s neighbors. I would consider myself on the side of God’s chosen people.  And it is on them that I call to take the higher, more difficult road.  Following the ways of our Lord and allowing his power to prevail.  Turning the impossible into reality.

In my deepest being I believe Peace can NOT be attained through Violence.

Last night I found myself standing over a dead 8 point whitetail. He had just been pulled out of a ravine, he was wet, and I proceeded to dress the deer before bringing it home. This buck was hit by my brother’s car just a few hours earlier. I didn’t have anything to do with the death of this deer. This buck died for reasons beyond my control. However, I have been in this situation before. Standing over a fallen deer with an arrow in it’s side from the bow in my hand. Thoughts racing through my head about how moments before, this deer was innocently wandering through the peaceful countryside only to have it’s life ended in one brief uncontrollable moment. I’m holding back the emotions, sadness, and remorse I feel so that I can get on with the task at hand and take care of the remains of this whitetail.

It is difficult to process these conflicting emotions. What is a person like myself, who claims to care about the environment, social issues, and the value of life supposed to think about hunting? On one hand, it doesn’t seem right to kill for sport, just for the sake of killing. But on the other-hand, in general, archery hunters seem to care more, and are personally attached to nature and the environment then their non-hunter counterparts. And what about that whole ‘overpopulation’ argument for hunting?

Working through this subject is far more difficult for me than one would think (from either side of the issue). It’s easy to be for or against hunting given only a little information. I have found most people, including myself to be in this category, an ignorance of sorts. In addition, I don’t think there really is a hard and fast right answer. There are extremes that are easily classified as wrong. And there are basic morals which most people will agree are right. But how these all work together can get pretty complicated (at least to me).

A few assumptions I have during this post are as follows… You will most likely not agree with me completely. I realize and am OK with this. I think it would be too difficult to write something like this if I were fixed on being ‘right’, and assume that what I have found is the ultimate truth. I would be cautious, and highly skeptical of anyone proclaiming this to be true about them-self. Another assumption is that you believe God values all life and creation, and has entrusted us to be the caretakers of this planet. Valuing our environment just as our maker does.

As I have mentioned, there are many areas of discussion surrounding this topic, and I’ll attempt to discuss the ones below, all the while getting into smaller areas of discussion along the way.

What is meant by the humane treatment of animals?

Many people don’t know the orgin of the beef or other meat that we consume. And as americans we eat far more meat that what is really necessary from a dietary standpoint. Beef, and other meats just happen to be the cheapest, most readily available food we have at our disposal. While there are certainly exceptions, a majority of the cattle in this country live in what I would call inhumane conditions. Because cows are so domesticated its difficult to imagine what the perfect living situation is for a cow. But so called ‘factory farming’ is hardly ideal. Massive farms farming massive amounts of animals with little or no care for the individual animals themselves. Between 10 and 20 percent of animals raised for consumption don’t make it to the slaughterhouse. But rather die from illness, injury, or stress. Most animals forces to live in crates barely larger than their own body. In addition, hormones are used to maxmize the benefit of each cow, but do more harm that good to the overall health of the cow. Not to mention the effects of these hormones and drugs on the human consumer.

http://www.hfa.org/

So how does this relate to hunting? Lets assume for a minute that the vegetarian debate is off the table, and assumption is made that for this given person, meat is part of his or her diet. The origins of what we consume is not common knowledge. Society has been sanitized to a certain degree not requiring someone who purchases leather, or any other animal product or bi-product to actually know how it arrived on the market. So is it then better for a man to respect, and feel the remorse of what life they are taking if they choose to consume meat. I would argue, at least in my mind that hunting exposes man to know what is being sacrificed. This then giving he or she the right to decide for themself whether they want to continue eating meat.

Need for violence, or respect for nature?

I’ve argued before how our culture in particular has suffered from the glorification of violence. So how does this effect the hunting population? Certainly there are many hunters who find pride in the taking of an animals life. Along with the glorification of violence is the desire for a gun. And what better way to rationalize owning a gun than taking up the sport of hunting. Let’s face it. Weapon are glamorous. They imply power, control, and authority, and these are quite appealing to the average man. With that said, many hunters undoubtably fall into this category, but there are exceptions. While I won’t condemn someone for rifle hunting, I have personally chosen to only hunt with bow for some of the reasons explained above. Not that archery is free of all the negatives that associated with a firearm. But it is difficult to be around people who are in love with guns. It kind of freaks me out, the way they hold, and praise this piece of steel. ‘The great equalizer’ gives men this kind of authoritative personality, and I find this a little annoying.

Wildlife Management

Still to write about…

And the issue of gun control.