User talk:Kenbmontgomery

To the editor and publisher of World Magazine,

We appreciate the work you do in providing a self-conscious Christian news publication. It is indeed refreshing to have a Christian perspective about news that the secular media reports, but also to be informed about many things of interest to Christians that aren’t reported by the mainstream press. We also find the work of Andree Seu encouraging, as she has the rare ability to put simple truths in a persuasive and personal form. However, we are concerned about the work of Mr. Gene Veith. His dedication to cultural analysis from a biblical worldview is surely important. It is because of our belief in the value of Christian cultural criticism, and our love for Mr. Veith as a Christian brother, that we here voice our concerns.

1.	Mr. Veith makes far too many hasty generalizations in his writing. For example, in a recent piece entitled “Euthanasia’s Roe vs. Wade,” Mr. Veith states, “Mrs. Schiavo has been disabled for 15 years due to a heart problem. Mrs. Schiavo cannot speak, but she is responsive, laughing and reacting to voices. Her husband, Michael, wants her dead so that he can marry his girlfriend, and since he is her legal guardian, he has the right to withhold medical treatment for her.” To say that “Her husband, Michael, wants her dead so that he can marry his girlfriend…” without providing one piece of evidence is surely irresponsible. Even if he did provide some kind of proof for this claim, it should nonetheless be qualified with something like ‘it seems’ or ‘it appears.’ How can a journalist judge motives like this with impunity? To provide another example: in the article “Whose Politics?” (a review on Jim Wallis' book "God's Politics"), Mr. Veith writes, “God is not a Republican, we are told in a bestselling book. He is more like a pro-life Democrat.” The author of the book is certainly correct in making the first assertion. But Mr. Veith implies in his second sentence that the author actually made the assertion, “He is more like a pro-life Democrat.” This is at best an unfair summary of Wallis’ thesis, and at worst a rhetorical sleight of hand that misleads the reader. 2. In one of his most disturbing articles, "Onward Christian Soldiers," Veith defended the statements of Lt. Gen. James Mattis. Mattis admitted that he enjoyed killing the enemy. Veith made no effort to analyze the "moral context" for Mattis's opinion: Veith writes, "[Mattis's] violence has a moral context. 'You go into Afghanistan,' he said, 'you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.'" What is the "moral context"? The 9/11 terrorists worked within a moral context. They were wrong, however. Veith goes on to argue that a soldier could literally take joy in his work: "those who have the Christian vocation of being a soldier may fight 'in good conscience.' Before God soldiers should be humble and repentant. But before the enemy, they should 'smite them with a confident and untroubled spirit.' Soldiers, Luther says, should go 'forward with joy!' As in other vocations, so in the military, there is nothing wrong with enjoying one's work [i.e., killing the enemy]." Along with misquoting Luther, what does he mean by fighting in good conscience? A soldier can legitimately carry out civil discipline through death as it is given to him by the magistrate, but "good conscience" does not necessarily entail "enjoyment." Veith needs to consider Proverbs 24:17--"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles."