God's Politics

God's Politics


Jim Wallis: Not Another Dime

posted by gp_intern

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is known as the “conscience of the House.” He was the young civil rights leader who was beaten, nearly to death, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on the infamous “Bloody Sunday” that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. John Lewis is a civil rights and Christian hero. As the House of Representatives began debating the war in Iraq this week, here are John’s remarks on the House floor. His voice is one we need to hear.

Mr. Lewis of Georgia: “Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concern that on this very day 4 years ago, our Nation inaugurated a conflict, an unnecessary war, a war of choice, not a necessity.

The most comprehensive intelligence we have, the National Intelligence Estimate and the latest Pentagon report, tells us that Iraq has descended into a state of civil war. Over 3,000 Americans have died, and hundreds of thousands, some even say up to 1 million citizens of Iraq, have lost their lives in this unnecessary conflict.

And while we are telling our veterans of this war, the elderly, the poor, and the sick that there is no room in the budget for them, the American people have spent over $400 billion on a failed policy. We cannot do more of the same. Mr. Speaker, violence begets violence. It does not lead to peace.

President John F. Kennedy once said, ‘‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’’ My greatest fear is that the young people of Iraq and of the Middle East will never forget this war. My greatest fear is they will grow up hating our children and our children’s children for what we have done. Mr. Speaker, the Bible is right. Even a great nation can reap what it sows.
Nothing troubles me more than to see the young faces of these soldiers who have been led to their death.

Some are only 18, 19, 21, 22, 23. It is painful; it is so painful to watch. Sometimes I feel like crying and crying out loud at what we are doing as a nation and what this administration is doing in our name. Our children do not deserve to die as pawns in a civil war.

They do not deserve to pay with their lives for the mistakes of this administration. They never had a chance.

When I was their age, when I was 23 years old, I was leading the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, soon to speak in Washington on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, but then we were involved in a nonviolent revolution to transform the soul of America, to create a beloved community.

Forty years ago, I was there in New York City in Riverside Church when Martin Luther King, Jr., gave one of the most powerful speeches he ever made against the war in Vietnam. If he could speak today, he would say this nation needs a revolution of values that exposes the truth that war does not work. If he could speak today, he would say that war is obsolete as a tool of our foreign policy.

He would say there is nothing keeping us from changing our national priority so that the pursuit of peace can take precedence over the pursuit of war.

He would say we must remove the causes of chaos, injustice, poverty, and insecurity
that are breeding grounds for terrorism. This is the way towards peace.

As a nation, can we hear the words of Gandhi, so simple, so true, that it is either nonviolence or nonexistence? Can we hear the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., saying that we must learn to live together as brothers and sisters or perish as fools?

Tonight I must make it plain and clear that as a human being, as a citizen of the world, as a citizen of America, as a member of Congress, as an individual committed to a world at peace with itself, I will not and I cannot in good conscience vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(153)
post a comment
kevin s.

posted March 23, 2007 at 9:28 pm


We must remove the causes of chaos and injustice? Was Saddam a cause of neither?



report abuse
 

Joy Neece Fors

posted March 23, 2007 at 9:47 pm


Such words by our Congressman from Georgia, sting my conscience as we begin the fifth year of this unethical and illegal war….I wish the marching that I did with millions of others from around the world against this war policy could have made a difference in the implementing of this insane policy, but alas!—the marching was disregarded and the war of “shock and awe” began….I,too, am sick of heart…Oh, John Lewis, I am so sorry these words had to be said, but I thank you for saying them on the behalf of many of us who believe these words to be true……Joy Neece Fors



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 23, 2007 at 10:10 pm


He would say we must remove the causes of chaos, injustice, poverty, and insecurity that are breeding grounds for terrorism. This is the way towards peace. Kevin takes things out of context to support his myopic, delusionary and increasingly desperate world. Kevin is still trying to justify Bush’s immoral, illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq. If Kevin were really convinced with his own delusion and committed to conservative pseudo patriotism he’d sign up for the ‘surge’ in Iraq. But Kevin thinks he has better things to do. He hangs around here and whines at the final collapse of the corrupted, incompetent and fascistic Republican party. Give it up Kevin. Or at least give it a rest. Forget about politics for a while. Listen to some classical music. Meditate about peace. .



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted March 23, 2007 at 10:33 pm


A powerful message from a hero who literally put his life on the line for the cause of civil rights.



report abuse
 

Starrs

posted March 24, 2007 at 12:16 am


That’s right Rep. Lewis! I say we turn back time so those young people can die at the hands of Saddam and his gang instead! (fade to Peter Paul & Mary)



report abuse
 

Sarah

posted March 24, 2007 at 12:29 am


Starrs, I suspect that I was opposed to Saddam Hussein before some of the writers here were even born, back when the US gave him arms and materials and trained his soldiers. Even I say, though, that Saddam was no threat to us and the Iraqis, who suffered most at his hands, would say that they were better off then. The actions that were followed by arrest and torture and death were at least predictable, not random, and involved fewer people per month–and year–than our incursion.



report abuse
 

Robin

posted March 24, 2007 at 12:34 am


Why is the truth of Congressman Lewis’s words so difficult for so many to understand? Why do our elected leaders chose conflict and violence? We are told our leaders are intelligent men and women. Now we must ask. ” Where is their soul? ”



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 24, 2007 at 12:35 am


“If Kevin were really convinced with his own delusion and committed to conservative pseudo patriotism he’d sign up for the ‘surge’ in Iraq.” The chickenhawk argument is intellectually dishonest. Do you want our military do make all decisions regarding war?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 24, 2007 at 12:36 am


“Why do our elected leaders chose conflict and violence?” Because the alternative was to allow Saddam to prevent weapons inspectors from doing their job. The argument starts there, not at a platitude.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 24, 2007 at 12:51 am


Actually Kevin the inspectors were making inroads and finding nothing. They wanted more time, Bush did not want to give it. The argument starts there. p



report abuse
 

jesse

posted March 24, 2007 at 1:02 am


Does anyone want to recognize that the war technically ended years ago, and we’re only there now because the Iraqi govt wants us to help stabilize things?You may disagree with whether it was ethical to overthrow Saddam. I can understand that. But is it really unethical to help the Iraqi govt bring stability right now? If Mexico was experiencing lots of violence, would it be unethical for us to help them bring order?



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 24, 2007 at 1:02 am


Also the Iraq problem was not for our military to fix. If anything we have not been able to and that’s mainly our problem. p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 24, 2007 at 1:13 am


The question is and this is something we have not really addressed is whether we can help them in the long or short term? Can we curb the violence? Yes for the short term. Long term I doubt it. They will outlast us. Not only that but we should not have gone in in the first place so for me the argument begins there. It begins w/ fixing a poor decision in the first place. p



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 24, 2007 at 1:35 am


Let’s stop pretending that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with removing Saddam Hussein from power. Such a position is grossly hypocritical when we consider that the U.S. has a very long and continuing history of supporting despotic rulers when it suits our interests. Remember the old saying, He may be a S.O.B., but he s *our* S.O.B. The problem is, there have been so many of our S.O.B.s that we ve forgotten about whom it was originally said. Dictators Supported by the U.S. Government: General Sani Abacha, Nigeria Idi Amin, Uganda Colonel Hugo Banzer, Bolivia Fulgencio Batista, Cuba Sir Hassanal Bolkiah, Brunei P.W. Botha, South Africa General Humberto Branco, Brazil Raoul Cedras, Haiti Vinicio Cerezo, Guatemala Chiang Kai-Shek, Taiwan Roberto Suazo Cordova, Honduras Alfredo Christiani, El Salvador Ngo Dihn Diem, Vietnam General Samuel Doe, Liberia Francois Duvalier, Haiti Jean Claude Duvalier, Haiti King Fahd bin’Abdul-’Aziz, Saudi Arabia General Francisco Franco, Spain Hassan II Morocco Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez, El Salvador Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire General Efrain Rios Montt, Guatemala General Manuel Noriega, Panama Turgut Ozal, Turkey Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, Iran George Papadopoulos, Greece Park Chung Hee, South Korea General Augusto Pinochet, Chile Pol Pot, Cambodia General Sitiveni Rabuka, Fiji General Efrain Rios Montt, Guatemala Halie Salassie, Ethiopia Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Portugal Anastasio Somoza Jr., Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza Sr., Nicaragua Ian Smith, Rhodesia Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay General Suharto, Indonesia Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, Dominican Republic General Jorge Rafael Videla, Argentina Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq, Pakistan http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 24, 2007 at 1:43 am


Thank you neuro_nurse. p



report abuse
 

Bren

posted March 24, 2007 at 2:02 am


Thank you neuro_nurse for that powerful reminder of the long list of dictators supported by the U.S. for its own political reasons. The war in Iraq was never about Saddam Hussein but about getting more power over sources of oil; witness the first decisions made by Bremer & Co. when they began to “help” the Iraqis develop new infrastructure for decision-making. Thank you, above all, to Rep. John Lewis for his courageous speech and his stand. Not another dime to support this war. Amen, brother.



report abuse
 

Randy G

posted March 24, 2007 at 2:17 am


“He would say we must remove the causes of chaos, injustice, poverty, and insecurity that are breeding grounds for terrorism. This is the way towards peace.” The removal of chaos,injustice, poverty, and insecurity began with Saddam and may need to continue to other parts of the middle east that have absolutely no regard for peace. NONE! Our actions can be as pure as the driven snow but when Jesus said turn the other cheek he did not mean let them run over you. Our actions in Iraq are more than justifiable in many ways and on many levels. We need to completley understand what we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one said this would be easy to help another country find something close to what we have in this country. We are arrogant and spoiled with what we have here…this dialogue does not go on in Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia freedom of speech, religion or outright comptempt for the goverment in those countries will get you killed. We need to grow up and resmell the fires that burned for days after the World Trade Center was taken down by those religous, freedom loving middle eastern men. Do you really think the war in Iraq is about oil or retaliation etc? No it is about drawing a line in the sand for those nations who want to defy international law as Saddam did as Iran is doing as North Korea is doing. When you defy a law in free and just countries then there is a consequnce. So if Iran or Iraq or any other country defies what the majority of nations says is wrong is there nothing we should do. How many resolutions over how many years? Then why have international law at all if no one will enforce it. The representaive was eloquent just a little off. Peace may be the goal but the path that leads to peace is not always non violent…even the old testament supports that. Unfortunately that is not politically popular right now. But neither is actually standing for the truth!



report abuse
 

Joy

posted March 24, 2007 at 2:33 am


Rep. Lewis In your words I hear the echo of words from another great man-Martin Luther. When asked to recant his beliefs he stood before the Emperor Charles V and all the establishment of the Roman Catholic church and the Holy Roamn Empire and declared “My conscience is captive to the word of God. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise.” Thank you for standing captive to the word of God and your own conscience and standing up to the strength of the American Empire.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 2:45 am


Great list, neuro. Every one on the list is a different story. But in a way, all the same.We had a reason for supporting those dictators. Corporate interests find it more convenient dealing with corrupt dictators to further their corporate bottom line. Corporations and dictators work in partnership looting the local material resources and removing wealth from these poor third world nations. The amount of wealth stolen by corrupt dictators and parked in secret offshore accounts is staggering. The world powers should be helping third world nations recover the wealth that rightfully belongs to their nation. Think for a moment, what would have happened to these nations if we had just left the dictators to fend for themselves all alone? And what if instead, we had supported local democratically organized political movements to unseat their dictator, stop the flow of stolen capital out of the country, help the locals to put together a stable government and build a trade relationship based on mutual interests, instead an Imperialistic, exploitative relationship? In the long run we’d all be better off. .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 4:41 am


The Dictator and the Televangelist July 11, 2003 Poor Charles Taylor. These are dark days for the Liberian dictator. Rebels control most of the country, he’s under indictment for war crimes, and George W. Bush has called for his ouster, though the White House hasn’t yet committed troops to the effort. Everyone, it seems, has abandoned West Africa’s most notorious warlord. Everyone, that is, except Pat Robertson. Indeed, the televangelist and GOP stalwart is loudly defending Taylor — a human-rights nightmare known for recruiting child soldiers to help him with the massacre and mutilation of thousands, whose regime is linked not just to the “conflict diamond” trade in neighboring Sierra Leone but to Al Qaeda and destabilization campaigns against its neighbors. Robertson, however, is having none of it. As he declared on his TV show, the 700 Club, last month: “‘This country has had a close relationship with the United States over the years, but of late — the last oh, four, five, six years — the United States State Department has tried as hard as it can to destabilize Liberia and to bring about the very outcome we’re seeing now. They had no endgame, they have no plan of what to do, they only wanted to destroy the sitting president and his government, and as a result, the place is being plunged into chaos.’” Why would Robertson defend such a man? Well, perhaps Robertson is simply standing up for a fellow evangelical. After all, Taylor is a born-again Christian, an ex-con turned Baptist preacher who frequently compares himself to Jesus (“Jesus Christ was accused of being a murderer in his time,” he told the BBC in defense of his human rights record). To be sure, Robertson’s ministry has a history in Liberia. Last year, his Christian Broadcasting Network held a massive, three-day rally in Monrovia, the capital city, an event described (rather puzzlingly) by one of Robertson’s ministers as “the atomic bomb of peace.” And in recent broadcasts of the 700 Club, Robertson has characterized Liberia’s civil war as a battle between Taylor’s God-fearing regime and fanatical Islamic rebels — a gross oversimplification, the Washington Post’s Alan Cooperman reports. There’s something else at work besides the Christian connection, though — something Robertson hasn’t mentioned in his broadcasts. As it turns out, Robertson and Taylor are business partners. Robertson’s mining company, Freedom Gold, holds the prospecting rights to a large swath of Liberian jungle, and over the years Robertson has poured millions of dollars into his investment. So far, that investment hasn’t panned out, but as Robertson told the Post, “Hope springs eternal”: “‘Once the dust has cleared on this thing, chances are there will be some investors from someplace who want to invest. If I could find some people to sell it to, I’d be more than delighted.’” This isn’t Robertson’s first foray into the world of African dictators and diamond mines. Depite recent condemnations of Zaire (now Congo)’s late strongman, Mobutu Sese Seko, Robertson cut a deal with Mobutu’s dying regime in 1994. As Bob Drury and Aram Roston reported for GQ, Robertson was so enthusiastic about his new diamonds-and-timber business that he diverted cargo planes intended to help alleviate the crisis brought on by Rwanda’s genocide to his mines in Zaire. “According to an investigation by the Virginia attorney general’s office, Robertson employed airplanes from one of his charitable, not-for-profit organizations, Operation Blessing, to improperly ferry supplies in and out of his diamond camps. The attorney general’s investigation found that while Robertson was appealing for donations to Operation Blessing to aid the victims of the Rwandan genocide on The 700 Club, Operation Blessing’s fleet of aircraft was in fact flying a total of forty-four hours for the charity while logging 272 hours for Robertson’s for-profit African Development Company. Virginia law-enforcement officials declined to prosecute when Robertson — who had contributed $35,000 to the attorney general’s election campaign — agreed to reimburse Operation Blessing for the flight time.” Given Robertson’s history, it seems likely that he will defend Taylor — a “sincere” Christian (despite the crimes against humanity charges) who just happens to have a lot of gold — to the end. All of which leaves just one question, Drury and Roston write. “What is Pat Robertson, self-professed Christian leader and American patriot, doing in bed with a dictator who may soon face an international war-crimes tribunal? In doing business with this warlord even as the noose tightens around Taylor, is Robertson guilty of something more than mere alleged contract manipulation? Some might even say that as a man of God, Robertson has committed an unforgivable sin.” Following the recent election of a new President in Liberia, the Nigerian government stated on March 25, 2006, that Liberia was free to collect Taylor so that he may face war crimes charges in Liberian courts. The Nigerian government announced on March 28 that Taylor had disappeared from his residence in Calabar, Nigeria. On March 29, 2006, Taylor was arrested in Gamboru, along Nigeria’s northeastern border with Cameroon. Nigerian authorities put him on a plane bound for Liberia and then handed him to the UN in Sierra Leone. On March 30, the Special Court requested permission to use the premises of the International Criminal Court in The Hague to carry out the trial of Charles Taylor, although the Special Court will still conduct the proceedings of the trial. The trial is provisionally scheduled to begin on 2 April 2007. I wonder if they’ll be able to get Pat Robertson to testify for Taylor’s defense. .



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 4:47 am


We must remove the causes of chaos and injustice? Was Saddam a cause of neither? kevin s. The great Republi-nazi apologist! How much chaos and injustice have we done in Iraq?



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 4:50 am


Kevin is still trying to justify Bush’s immoral, illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq. When you figure out that Kevin’s job here is to do just exactly that his words make sense, otherwise they are sometimes confusing!



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 4:51 am


Kevin: The chickenhawk argument is intellectually dishonest. I agree, Chickenhawks are intellectually dishonest. And morally bankrupt, too. .



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 24, 2007 at 4:55 am


“Why do our elected leaders chose conflict and violence?” Of course violence should be used as a last resort. Why does this administration pursue it actively? (1) Follow the money (2) http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 5:04 am


Because the alternative was to allow Saddam to prevent weapons inspectors from doing their job. The argument starts there, not at a platitude. kevin s Another of the long list of lies, I assume as I continue through this thread Kevin will roll out all of the lies?



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 5:06 am


If Mexico was experiencing lots of violence, would it be unethical for us to help them bring order? jesse It might be if we caused it and can’t fix it.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 5:10 am


CRP, Thanks for the link to what looks like a really good article on the ‘Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism’. It’s pretty long. I’ll print it out and read it before I turn in tonight. .



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 24, 2007 at 5:23 am


“I’ll print it out and read it before I turn in tonight.” Why not just cut and paste it like you usually do?



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 5:24 am


If I find anything appropriate in there, I certainly will cut and paste it. Just for you Kevin. .



report abuse
 

Bren

posted March 24, 2007 at 5:55 am


I recommend to people caught up in the question of whether or not the U.S. invasion of Iraq is/was helpful to Iraqis that you read an article in this week’s New Yorker, called Betrayed. This article tells of the Iraqis who were so thrilled by the U.S. invasion that they offered to act as translators, and describes also the many ways in which the Americans in charge have and are betraying these brave individuals who risk(ed) their lives to help the U.S. Did you know that so many Americans never leave the Green Zone that this has became the first war where people GAIN weight? You can find the article here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/26/070326fa_fact_packer



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted March 24, 2007 at 6:01 am


My wild guess is that the Iraqis were better off before the US invaded the country.



report abuse
 

Jordan Bryan

posted March 24, 2007 at 10:19 am


I know this has probably been argued over and over again, but I can’t help bringing it up once more. Our Lord Jesus Christ when he introduced the New Kingdom of Christianity said unequivocally, You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best the sun to warm and the rain to nourish to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that. “In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.” (Matthew 5:43-48 MSG). When Jesus introduced the New Covenant to humanity, he shocked and dismayed those who were comfortably living with the Old Testament ideas of revenge, violence, and a military overthrow of a foreign government that was oppressing the Jewish people. This is why Jesus Christ was ultimately killed: because surely God s Messiah could not teach His people to love their enemies instead of trying to defeat them in war! I challenge anybody to show me ANYWHERE in the New Testament where Christianity makes ANY room for violence, military, or war. Sorry, it s just not compatible with our Lord s teachings! Yes, it s everywhere in the Old Covenant, but NOT in the New. Sorry, I just don t see how Christians can support war in general in light of Our Lord s teachings, let alone a war with Iraq, a relatively secular nation that NEVER declared jihad against us or was a terrorist threat to Israel in any way shape or form!The only true threat Iraq posed to the United States was that they were going to stop selling all of their oil in U.S. dollars and begin selling oil ONLY in the currency of Euros within three months of our attacking them! President Bush declared mission accomplished, in May of 2003. Interestingly, the president also signed Presidential Executive Order #13303 in that same May, 2003 declaring that U.S. oil companies were free from any legal international litigation for [illegally] seizing control of Iraqi oil interests. Of course these U.S. oil companies would demand that all oil sold on international markets MUST be made in U.S. dollars once again. Yes indeed Mr. Bush, mission accomplished. Mission accomplished.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 24, 2007 at 2:15 pm


Are we not forgeting that every “Leftist,” as soon as they ascend to power instantly become Dictators. Hugo Chavez is hysterically hero “ized” by the American Progressives and Liberals (Democrats) and he is declaring WAR on Americans every time he opens his mouth. The Communism that you Lefties desire so badly to rule over everyone of us – even those that “vote” against it – has killed more human beings than any single way of life known to mankind. ALSO the incredible hypocrisy of calling a politician a “hero Christian” is sickening. If the “Religious Right” were to try to do that, every screaming Leftie (all Leftists) from all of the newspapers you own to all of the now ubiqutous Leftist internet zombies screaming all over the cyber-world would go berserk!!!!! If this politician-Christian is soooo concerned about what young people in the Middle East are going to think about his American-Christian politcal/religion, then he should imitate the originals a bit better and do what Christians did (in the Bible) in Christian political fashion. GO AND PREACH THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST TO THE NATIONS!!! Have Lefties ever thought to “do” Christianity and not just edit and pick and choose out of it, whatever will falsely lead the masses of tired and inebriated Americans to do your bidding for your Marxist aims and goals? I will never vote for a Democrat, the same way I will not follow a heretic Christian leader. I follow the hero Christians that really suffered for the faith. Marxists (now called Neo-Liberals and Progressives) have proven time and again to only martyr Christians, not become them. The civil rights march for Blacks to gain American constitutional civil rights . . .so, are you Leftists cliaming it was a Christian movement for Christian justice??? Please someone, put that in writing. There is a glaring manipulation of Leftists (Liberals and Progressives, Democrats) being are spouting off like a Christian when it only advances Darwinian-Marxism, high taxes, gay rights and abortion on demand as the party platform. I’m sure that is what the “haughty” in Sodom and Gomorrah were all about now that we can see things a bit clearer in the “light” of Gospel truth. There are so many Christian heroes on the Right, it is shame they are outlawed from being mentioned in politics or the social setting. I guess that “right” only exists from Democrats for Democrats. By the way, NOT VOTING FOR ANOTHER DOLLAR . . . Mr Christian politician, will cause the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. Their blood is on your hands.



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 24, 2007 at 4:51 pm


Jordan, Thank you for that. I just can’t understand how Christians can support war in general, but especially pre-emptive war. I’ve read posts here where Christians have used Daniel and Revelation to attribute certain characteristics to Christ, but have ignored the clearest writings that we have–the words from the mouth of Jesus.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 24, 2007 at 6:17 pm


Donny, Then don’t follow MLK Jr, Medgar Evers, Benjamin Bannekar (sp) or any other black Christian progressive leaders because guess what? They sure won’t vote conservative. Oh and one more thing you need to throw down your idol of conservative politics. It’s something you worship and God doesn’t like it when you worship more than one god especially when there is so little love involved. p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 24, 2007 at 6:22 pm


Donny, Oh and one more thing and this makes my blood boil. The blood of the dead in Iraq are on your hands. The millions that are displaced on your heads. The dead children that die every day from lack of medical care are on you. God bless and enjoy your bloody carnage. Enjoy it and revel in it you bloody fool.p



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 24, 2007 at 6:40 pm


Payshun: “The dead children that die every day from lack of medical care are on you. God bless and enjoy your bloody carnage. Enjoy it and revel in it you bloody fool. ” Now you sound like Donny.Rain Man: “Thank you for that. I just can’t understand how Christians can support war in general, but especially pre-emptive war’ If you believe that war can be Biblically justified, then there is no reason why a war engineered to prevent possible future events is unjustified. For example, if Canada has a nuclear bomb locked and loaded and is threatening to use it on us, we are justified in getting rid of it. The reason is that arming a nuclear device is, in itself, an act of war. Saddam was actively inhibitng weapon inspectors, an act which perpetuated a longstanding pattern of hostility toward the United States. That doesn’t mean we must support this war, but only that we may do so without violating Biblical principle.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 7:08 pm


The reason is that arming a nuclear device is, in itself, an act of war. Saddam was actively inhibitng weapon inspectors, an act which perpetuated a longstanding pattern of hostility toward the United States. Kevin S Another Republi-nazi apologist support for the lies of the neo-cons. You still should have a couple more, just throw in a few names. It makes Republi-nazi’s crazy to hear Clinton and then a little gay remark. Another emotion filled word is abomination just fit it in any way you can.



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 7:09 pm


Kevin and Donny try to sneak through the “Christian Just War” loophole. They’ll get busted. Warmongers always end up in hell. Do the crime, do the time. .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 7:31 pm


Do the crime, pay the time. .



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 7:33 pm


And that could take many lifetimes. .



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted March 24, 2007 at 8:09 pm


It’s something you worship and God doesn’t like it when you worship more than one god especially when there is so little love involved. And God will eventually take that idol down if He hasn’t done so already.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11953730)

posted March 24, 2007 at 8:29 pm


“The reason is that arming a nuclear device is, in itself, an act of war.” So, is it an act of war that the U.S. has armed nuclear (nucular, for those of you who speak bushian) weapons? Sauce for the goose?



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 24, 2007 at 8:41 pm


Kevin: “If you believe that war can be Biblically justified, then there is no reason why a war engineered to prevent possible future events is unjustified” That’s the key–I don’t believe that war can be justified now that Jesus has come, has given us a new nature, and was not unclear in His teaching.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 9:21 pm


That’s the key–I don’t believe that war can be justified now that Jesus has come, has given us a new nature, and was not unclear in His teaching. rain man Doesn’t matter how you deal with Republi-nazi lies you get one more. Kevin S isn’t honest, bait and switch, weave and dodge. If you can sound a little biblical then you can get away with any lie. The bible is just one more tool in the neo-con bag of tricks. I suggest instead of going to your faith or bible to address the Republi-nazi lies just say, “shut upa you face”.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 24, 2007 at 9:28 pm


So Donny–how are we better off under Republican “Christian” politics? What is Christian about the way the Republicans havw been running the country? Give us some evidence to support they are the political Messiah we have needed all this time. What makes them so much more Christian than the Clinton administration, for example? Be specific–if you really think that party is our savior, then tell us what makes them so much more righteous. Don’t forget to ignore the myriad of their scandals that are finally being exposed–oh yeah, I forgot. Those are just part of a “Left Wing Conspiracy.” The bushes have nothing to hide, that’s why they are so upfront about everything…if they truly had nothing to hide, they should be escorting Carl Rove into the courtroom right now to testify as to why all those prosecutors were fired. Go ahead–tell us why you worship the Republican Party! Don’t ignore this challenge, because if your thesis truly is that Republicans are more righteous than Democrats, I really need to be able to see the clear difference. Clearly I’m not truly saved if I am not a Republican, so my eternal destiny is at stake, here. Please enlighten me!



report abuse
 

justintime

posted March 24, 2007 at 9:54 pm


President John F. Kennedy, Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. Congressman John Lewis, ‘My greatest fear is that the young people of Iraq and of the Middle East will never forget this war. My greatest fear is they will grow up hating our children and our children s children for what we have done. Mr. Speaker, the Bible is right. Even a great nation can reap what it sows.’ Numbers 14:18, The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. .



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 24, 2007 at 10:21 pm


Kevin: “then there is no reason why a war engineered to prevent possible future events is unjustified. For example, if Canada has a nuclear bomb locked and loaded and is threatening to use it on us, we are justified in getting rid of it.” Isn’t this just nationalism talking? From a worldly perspective, I agree with you, but aren’t we (as Christians) called to a different standard? I do respect your opinions, by the way.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 10:23 pm


I really need to be able to see the clear difference. Squeaky I think you want to massage your ego arguing with the mentally disturbed.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 10:33 pm


I do respect your opinions, by the way. rain man So easily sucked into the trap, if you respected his thoughts you wouldn’t argue, you respect his writing ability. You are nibbling at the bait and sooner or later you take the hook!



report abuse
 

Starrs

posted March 24, 2007 at 11:04 pm


My post was snotty and unnecessary. Reasonable people can disagree, but this was not the spirit of my post. Sorry -



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 24, 2007 at 11:16 pm


Butch–a lot of people have responded to Donny. Yet I’m the only one who you attack. You have always been respectful towards me in the past, and now all you do is pick on me. What’s up? Why are you suddenly so rude? Please tell me what I have done to offend you so.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 11:25 pm


Please tell me what I have done to offend you so. squeaky I tell you what I think is the truth and you take is personally, teach or learn. When you roll out your feelings you can’t do either.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 24, 2007 at 11:29 pm


I’m doing the same with rain man, I could break down how Kevin is using him but I would rather he just see it. Kevin uses the Canada argument as another Republi-nazi excuse for the war. Rain man reacts, interesting and ingages the question now he is on the hook and may believe the next lie.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 25, 2007 at 12:13 am


I take it personally not because you tell me the truth, but because you insult me by calling me arrogant. Learn to speak the truth in love, if you think you must police the dialogue on this site. It’s really none of your business who I choose to engage in discussion.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 25, 2007 at 12:19 am


Squeaky, take this personally fool.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 25, 2007 at 12:55 am


Butch, the correct response would have been “I’m sorry I offended you, my sister in Christ.” I am always amazed to see the same rude dialog that I see on an atheist web site here on a Christian web site. Please–just don’t talk to me anymore if you can’t be respectful, Butch. Pretty sad, since we seem to agree on a lot of issues, that you should insist on building a wall between us.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 25, 2007 at 1:03 am


Kevin, I guess I could sound like Donny if and only if I said that the dead were on the hands of conservatives that support this war. as it stands his own words have judged him far harsher than I have. He seems to like bloodshed at the expense of good diplomacy. If that’s what he likes great, more power to him. But for him to say that we want more dead is just wrong. I won’t apologize for that especially when I have never said that the blood of those fallen are on your head or those that support this war. I did say it to Donny, and I don’t see how that’s wrong. The funny thing about condemning others is that sometimes those words come back to condemn them.p



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 25, 2007 at 2:47 am


“That’s the key–I don’t believe that war can be justified now that Jesus has come, has given us a new nature, and was not unclear in His teaching.” I don’t believe he was unclear in his teaching. However, he did not speak to the question of whether a government may go to war, and whether a Christian may participate in that government. I feel sometimes as though Christians will evoke a pacifistic posture in response to military efforts with which they disagree, without being consistent in their point of view. Butch, for example, pretends to agree with your point, and yet has threatened violence against me both here and (anonymously) on my own blog. He is opposed to violence, unless there is a disagreement with whatever it is he believes. If you consistently believe that war is forbidden, on account of Christ’s call for us to forgive our enemies, how then can you support (for example) the use of force by police officers?If you oppose the latter, then how can we maintain the rule of law? By my lights, this is where Romans 13 enters the equation.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 25, 2007 at 3:02 am


Butch, the correct response would have been “I’m sorry I offended you, my sister in Christ.” I am always amazed to see the same rude dialog that I see on an atheist web site here on a Christian web site. Please–just don’t talk to me anymore if you can’t be respectful, Butch. Pretty sad, since we seem to agree on a lot of issues, that you should insist on building a wall between us. squeakyI think I understand your point but I don’t think you understand mine. These are really serious matters and I don’t feel we should bring our egos here. It is not about us, people are dieing, and our wealth and good name are being spent. You want respect and I want action, you have a place in your family and community get it there. If we had time I’m sure we would like each other. You want to engage Donny, go ahead but I think it takes our time and I’ll tell you that and why. If you don’t have the time to listen to me emphatically then spend it on Donny.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 25, 2007 at 3:23 am


Butch, for example, pretends to agree with your point, and yet has threatened violence against me both here and (anonymously) on my own blog. He is opposed to violence, unless there is a disagreement with whatever it is he believes. Kevin S. I don’t pretend anything; I firmly believe you are sick and dangerous. Sick to defend the neo-cons and dangerous because you are so adept with your words. I further believe you are here with an agenda and I guess you are paid to do this. So, I point out every time you post what I think the purpose is. And trust me if I threatened you on your site it would be in my own name not anonymously. Another lie that you can t support, just throw it in while Squeaky thinks I m being rude and you can get a little support. I’m not a pacifist and haven’t pretended to be one; I don’t think I can find any words attributed to Jesus that condones violence so any violence I do or condone is on my own. So, in my own name I call you a sick pup.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 25, 2007 at 3:30 am


Kevin S. (Kevin Sawyer) Interesting, I just went to your blog and could not post a comment anonymously or otherwise so let me say here what I wanted to say the there. You sick dangerous pup. Butch Ragland



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 25, 2007 at 4:45 am


Butch, I understand what you are saying–but the thing is, when you write someone off as “immune to logic”, you are denying that they are indeed complex humans, who are capable of thought and rational dialogue. You are painting them with a broad brush, that really isn’t unlike the brush Donny uses, just a different size, maybe. If you decide someone isn’t worth the effort to engage in discussion, you basically end up just preaching to the choir, and you don’t win any “converts” to the cause. We don’t want to just preach to the choir on these issues, but rather, we need to gain as much support for the direction we hope to go as we can. And that means putting forth the veiws in ways that are logical, that respectfully point out the error in the other person’s views, and that have a chance to win more supporters. Yes, the issues are important, but we don’t have time NOT to take time to get people on our side. I think I agree with you that Donny is one who is not reachable at this time, although I would hope the words people have said to him would help at least plant a seed of doubt within his convictions. If that has been accomplished, then it is worth it, as seeds tend to grow. I used to be a pretty black and white thinker myself, and a fundamentalist, to boot. Look at me now, all liberal and such! People can change. We need people to change, but they won’t if we continually marginalize them and stereotype them. You really can’t judge what is actually going on in someone’s heart or life from these nameless, faceless blogs (I can only assume you would be far more patient with a friend or family member who disagreed with you), and therefore it is a mistake to assume the worst about a person. I know of only one person who can make those kinds of judgements, and he died that we all might live.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 25, 2007 at 5:49 am


Butch, I understand what you are saying–but the thing is, when you write someone off as “immune to logic”, you are denying that they are indeed complex humans, who are capable of thought and rational dialogue. You are painting them with a broad brush, that really isn’t unlike the brush Donny uses, just a different size, maybe.Don t think I used the term immune but that is approx what I am saying. Some by their intellect or circumstances, genetic or life experiences cannot get it and I don t have time to figure out why or fix them. ButchIf you decide someone isn’t worth the effort to engage in discussion, you basically end up just preaching to the choir, and you don’t win any “converts” to the cause. We don’t want to just preach to the choir on these issues, but rather, we need to gain as much support for the direction we hope to go as we can. And that means putting forth the views in ways that are logical, that respectfully point out the error in the other person’s views, and that have a chance to win more supporters. Yes, the issues are important, but we don’t have time NOT to take time to get people on our side.I m not looking for converts based on this belief; that no one changes course until they get in enough pain on the path they are on. This is not without science and clinical practice. So, I say it is not the place to evangelize Donny and I personally don t think we can save anyone except by example. With that I do want to preach to the choir, find common ground and move together where we agree. There are places to plant seeds but I don t think it is here and now and we don t have time. PEOPLE ARE DIEING EVERY DAY, WE ARE SPENDING OUR FORTUNE AND OUR GOOD NAME. Butch I think I agree with you that Donny is one who is not reachable at this time, although I would hope the words people have said to him would help at least plant a seed of doubt within his convictions. If that has been accomplished, then it is worth it, as seeds tend to grow. I used to be a pretty black and white thinker myself, and a fundamentalist, to boot. Look at me now, all liberal and such! People can change. We need people to change, but they won’t if we continually marginalize them and stereotype them. I don t marginalize them in God s time but I do here and now in these circumstances. ButchYou really can’t judge what is actually going on in someone’s heart or life from these nameless, faceless blogs (I can only assume you would be far more patient with a friend or family member who disagreed with you), and therefore it is a mistake to assume the worst about a person. I know of only one person who can make those kinds of judgments, and he died that we all might live.I think I am called to judge them here and now, leave them to their family, church or therapist. The neo-cons are stealing our children, our liberty, probably our future. And I am so patient with family and friends that I get on my own nerves. Butch PS you don t have to agree but I have thought every piece of this puzzle through and have come to my position with careful consideration.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted March 25, 2007 at 6:13 am


i thought lewis’ statement was great for his side. he offered no plan for peace however, just nice talk. and neuronurse’s list of u s govt. supported dictators was well done but she didn’t tell us which of our esteemed politicians supported them not who opposed them. the comments here seem to have deteriorated into a soap opera style personality bash. pretty boring and sad really. read them again.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 25, 2007 at 6:18 am


Jerry what do you want to do here and now?



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 25, 2007 at 6:27 am


Butch,thanks for your response–I appreciate your clarification and your passion. I do agree with much of what you say. But (and you knew there would be a but), what I disagree with is that there is no time for civil rhetoric. Passionate and earnest dialog is something I wholly support. However, I don’t think there is ever a place for name-calling. And…well about Donny–you engage Kevin S because you wish to point out that his views are dangerous. It’s not that you are trying to convince him, but it is that you are trying to expose what you perceive as dangerous rhetoric. You could say the same thing for the reason others and myself have engaged Donny. Yes, it’s for him, but it is also to expose the danger of his stance, not only his political stance, but his stance as a Christian. I know people who would read his diatribes and agree with him(I might have 10 years ago, and my brother, sadly, still would), and it is also important to point out how wrong his view of Christianity is. I have seen first hand how dangerous it is, and know many who have been hurt by it, and I feel an urgency to stomp all over it whenever it rears its ugly head. So hopefully we understand each other better now–peace?



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 25, 2007 at 6:41 am


So hopefully we understand each other better now–peace? squeakyLet’s see if I have it? To you Kevin is another soul to be saved. To me he’s a Republi-nazi.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 25, 2007 at 7:19 am


I guess we don’t understand each other, then. I assume Kevin S is a soul who is saved. To me, he is a soul who Jesus died for, just as you are. To me, he’s a brother in Christ, just as you are. Is he to you? Are you really saying you can’t put politics and personal opinions aside and embrace someone who is in the family of Christ as your brother? Is the aim of your Christianity purely political? Or is the aim of your Christianity to be like Christ? If it is the latter, how have you been like Christ to Kevin S? Christianity isn’t some club where only those we agree with are allowed in. And you don’t get to pick and choose when and where and to whom you will be Christlike. And yes, we are called to correct each other, but we are called to correct each other with love. You may be right about a lot of things, and I even agree with you on many things, but without love, your words are but clanging cymbals.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 25, 2007 at 8:24 am


Squeaky, We have a basic difference in our faith; I don’t think it is my job to save Kevin or even you. I don’t think we are called to correct each other. This theology comes from my belief that there is no space between God and me for you. If you pray for me to God he will hear your prayers and act on me or maybe not, he has a plan. It goes like this; I act out of my faith and stand before God with my warts. I describe Kevin with a phrase I’ve coined “Republi-nazi” which are apologist for the neo-cons. You call it a name; I call it a descriptive term found in Wikipedia. I’ve recounted what I think neo-cons are doing to this country and many outside our borders. They are despots like the list of dictator s neuro-nurse provided above. I don’t want to play nice with despots or even be polite; God will deal with them and me. If I go along I’m like the Germans who went along with Hitler. I say when God says what were you doing Butch when your leaders called torture quaint, when they grabbed people off the street and called it “rendered”… I won’t go on with the list of crimes against mankind. I’ll say Lord; I said “stop that you rotten bastards”, please don’t punish me for using harsh language but well I thought what they were doing was really really bad and well I thought you (Lord) might not like it either. This is where I stand I can not do differently.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted March 25, 2007 at 2:19 pm


Do any of you Leftists realize that you will not get Islam to stop killing people by the Gospel of the Son of God? They kill people because they believe in Jesus as God. You cannot erase reality Mr. and Mrs, and Life-partnered Democrat. You can pretend that Muslims are just going to wake up one day and embrace Hollywood morality but it will never happen.The death of children, men and women are on the apathetic hands of Demoxrats. By the way, soldiers were once children and all of them are either men or women. Their blood is on the hands of the Democrats taking away the power of the American military to eat and clothe itself while the Mulsims continue to shoot, bomb and behead them. The hypocrisy of leftist politics (Democrats) is far greater than anything proposed by the GOP.Not one Liberal/Progressive will preach the Gospel to any Muslim anywhere, because in the heart of the American Left, Christianity is illegal, a hate crime and non-inclusive anyway. You cannot preach the Gospel if the ONLY place legal to do so is a few Christian Churches in the Unites States. While the Left hails Christians as heroes that desire to see Americans killed on Iraqi soil, they are activiely outlawing Christians from speaking in public in America. And somehow that represents Christians Martin Luther King et al? That used the public streets for justice? Sadly Evangelicals (comissioned by Christ Jesus) would be screamed at and water hosed off any American City street if they tried to march for the rights of children to hear the Gospel OF PEACE in American public school. Seems that the Left is very comfortable not having Christ preached to the nations. Democrats flail about trying to catapult more Democrats into office, reveling in the death of American soldiers for the fuel for their political Marxist machine, to take control of America. While not one Christian in the Democrat party will say one thing about the millions of humans slaughtered by Democrat Abortion Mills worldwide. While the destruction and altering of the Christ-like family by hate crimes legislation, passed by Leftist politicians, continues with only a few Christians remanining in politics (those existing exclusivley “on the Right”) to say anything Christlike against it, the Left aims to tax Americans out of a war of defense and into debauchery on demand.It’s time for God’s people to come out of the Democrat party. Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty . . .(except in public schools and Courthouses and soon private schools, because of Leftist Seperation of Church and State and homophobia hate crimes laws). . . they can be free at last.But carefully free at last. Because according to Leftist politics, non-Leftist “Christians” can ONLY speak about their freedom in Christ exclusivley in their own Churches. Otherwise they could be arrested, or be threatened with losing their tax exempt status for violating some anti-Christian law passed by a Democrat legislature in some Democrat ruled state where Judges do it from the bench.



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm


Butch: “So easily sucked into the trap, if you respected his thoughts you wouldn’t argue, you respect his writing ability. You are nibbling at the bait and sooner or later you take the hook!” I don’t know why I can’t respect someone’s opinions but respectfully disagree. I respect your opinions also, and I sense your (justified) anger about the war, but I think your name-calling is a little childish.



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 25, 2007 at 8:26 pm


Kevin: A few years ago, I would have agreed with your position on war. However, the idea of pre-emptive war goes beyond any biblical justification. If I was not a Christian, I would support the idea–protect what is yours at any cost. That’s good worldly thinking. This issue caused me to completely re-examine what I believe, and I choose to follow the words of Jesus as close as possible. One more thing: The best Christian witness I’ve seen recently was the response of the Amish community in PA that experienced the terrible school shooting. Their act of forgiveness was totally out of sync with American sense of justice, but was a courageous witness for Christ.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted March 25, 2007 at 9:25 pm


to butch; what i want to do here and now is; stop the islamic terrorists from killing. by continuing to pursue them in their homeland. and get the u s congress to address the issues of international islamic terrorism and freedom of speech for christians in this country. donny said it and you can’t live with it. and you have no reasonable argument against what he said. so continue your labeling and wordsmithing. follow your heart and stop trying to blame God for you. you must be really bored.



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted March 25, 2007 at 9:54 pm


squeaky: “I assume Kevin S is a soul who is saved. To me, he is a soul who Jesus died for, just as you are. To me, he’s a brother in Christ, just as you are.” Amen brother. Kevin and I disagree, sharply, all the time. But I’ve never seen any reason to doubt his faith in Christ. Our Savior has told me I should love Kevin–I’m not about to second guess Christ. Maybe there should be a blog where Butch and Donny can just go at it all day long.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 1:41 am


Interesting, people are dying and you guys are playing nice, I respect you do you respect me?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 26, 2007 at 1:45 am


Jerry, neuronurse’s list of u s govt. supported dictators was well done but she didn’t tell us which of our esteemed politicians supported them not who opposed themFirst: Hey babe, take a walk on the wild side: she is a he. (heterosexual & married so get past those stereotypes) Second, at the bottom of that list there is a link to the website from which it came. For each dictator there is a link to a short biography about them and what support they received from the U.S. If I may draw an inference from your question regarding which politicians supported them, let me make a preemptive strike: both Democrats and Republicans. My point still stands: the U.S. supports despotic leaders when we can profit from the association. There seems to be a serious diversion away from the true meaning of U.S. patriotism at work here and a very dangerous one at that. Muslims are not our enemy.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof There are over a million American Muslims. Some of them are even Republicans!Muslims For America has dedicated itself to working with the Republican National Committee, in setting up American Muslim Republican Caucuses all over America, state by state, in addition to building relations with the Democratic Party. http://www.muslimsforamerica.us/index.php To deny Muslim Americans the freedom to practice their religion in this country is directly contradictory to the principles upon which this country was founded and, therefore, un-American.They kill people because they believe in Jesus as God. Have you ever read the Koran? I have. Muslims do not believe that Jesus is God or a god. They accept him as a prophet and accept Christians and Jews as People of the Book, that is, those who believe in the Abrahamic God. Last time I checked, there were no laws against Christianity and no one other than extremist lunatics proposing legislation against practicing Christianity in this country. There are laws against forcing Christian beliefs and values on people who do not share them, but those are based solely on the right to religious freedom our forefathers had the wisdom to include in the First Amendment. Prove me wrong. Show me a law on the books that prohibits Christians from following OUR faith and practicing OUR religion. Cite your source; provide a link so I can see it for myself. Why don t you start with a conservative sacred cow: ACLU Cases Defending Religious Freedom http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html Christianity is not synonymous with legalism or allegiance to the Republican Party. In fact, Christianity is mutually exclusive of both. While it is true that Jesus said, I have not come to abolish the law Paul wrote extensively that legalism is not a means of salvation and that attempting to justify one s self by adherence to the law could only lead to condemnation. Donny and his ilk have exchanged their inheritance to God s Kingdom for their adherence to the letter of the law, (After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Galatians 3:3) – not only their adherence, but their insistence that others who do not adhere to their legalistic interpretations of scripture are not Christians which is not your call Donny, that is between the believer and God and you are not God. I don t think any of us would have the audacity to accuse Donny of immorality, impurity, licentiousness, sorcery, drinking bouts, orgies or the like (Galatians 5:19-21), even though to say that Christians are above committing those sins is contradicted by the behavior of many good Christian Republican congressmen, and even though Donny accuses us of nothing less. But those familiar with these verses will recognize that I skipped a few: hatred, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, act of selfishness, dissentions, and factions. Donny, all of your posts reveal your sinfulness in these areas.You scapegoat liberals/progressives/Democrats, homosexuals, Muslims, and the poor as the source of evil in the world without acknowledging your own sinful nature. (If you did acknowledge your sinful nature, you would know that the scriptures teach us that we are all sinners, and that you are no better than anyone therefore, you would recognize that by judging others you are only judging yourself) There is nothing spiritual about that. Your judgment is of the flesh, it is ugly, evil, and very dangerous.Those of you who are very familiar with these verses will recognize that I skipped one more. Idolatry. In equating conservatism and/or Republican allegiance with Christianity, you have placed your faith not in God, but in sinful men. You have placed human ideology above God s word. Donny, your posts do not defend the values of the Bible and Christianity, they contradict them. Your version of Christianity focuses on Old Testament legalism and only cherry picks the verses from the New Testament that defend your legalistic interpretation. How dare you challenge the faith and commitment to the Lord of people who do not share your political persuasion! You not only attempt to make yourself God s equal, you are proud of this ridiculous sinfulness. Where is the fruit in your life? In a previous post I describe how the Holy Spirit is working through me. It is not for you to determine the value of the work God has established for me. Your judgment of me is offensive not only to me and other Christians, but it is offensive to God! I have just one piece of advice for you: learn to use a spell-checker.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted March 26, 2007 at 1:55 am


“Civil rights advocate and Christian hero” Rep. Lewis apparently has a 100% rating from National Abortion Rights Action League. The “conscience of the House” has a problem with funding our troops to help the Iraqis but no qualms about using taxpayer money to fund abortion.Pretty lame.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:43 am


neuronurse; i’m so glad you are gender sensitive. so you can know your place. your endless comments about your knowledge and faith reminds me of a person who has an “I” problem. i find it very interesting that lewis was able to tell us what dr. king and j f k would think if they were here today. you and butch are soooooo fun to have around. please tell me your take on violent crime in america and how it relates to scripture and what your solution would be. i wouild also like to know your take on how to solve the car bombings around the world that involve children.



report abuse
 

E.D. Davidson

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:59 am


The speaker’s comments reflect someone with broad experience and exposure. My heart stirs when I hear comments about reorienting our national priorities from war to peace. However, what leaves me stymied is that they are not about war. We didn’t enter into this war for a moral cause. WE entered this war with the excuse of a moral cause, but I beleive the motivaton was profit. So, how do the methods of Gandhi and MLK help realign the nation’s priorities from war to peace when it isn’t about war at all? War and our presense to keep a lid on fighting and corral a civil uprising is merely an excuse to maintain a presence. In this way some continue to make money off the suffering and exploitation of others.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:08 am


Republi-nazi tactic, change the subject to anything but the Bush lies about the war where young men die almost every day. Remember throw in gays and Clinton and don’t dare mention Katrina or Federal Prosecutors.



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:18 am


“has a problem with funding our troops to help the Iraqis” With that kind of help…



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:23 am


jerry, Out of 924 words, I used the terms I, me, my in the following contexts: If I may draw an inference; My point still stands; I have; Prove me wrong; Show me; so I can see it for myself; Last time I checked; I don t think any of us; I skipped a few; I describe how the Holy Spirit is working through me; Your judgment of me is offensive not only to me; I have just one piece of advice for you. (A ratio of 1 use of I/me/my in 66 words. In 111 words, you used i 3 times, a ratio of 1:37 so who has the I problem?) none of which are what I (oops, I used it again and again!) would consider self-affirming I-statements.I don t see what your point is anyway. Neither do I understand your comment so you can know your place.As to the rest of your post, are you inferring that you, bush, or Republicans somehow have a solution to the problems you mentioned? Because terrorists attacks have increased dramatically since the invasion of Iraq, and I don t see any improvement in crime in this country that is attributable to anything bush & co. have done.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:30 am


I don t see any improvement in crime in this country that is attributable to anything bush & co. have done. neuro_nurse When the Republi-nazi’s change the subject please don’t try to change it back.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:36 am


jerry I’m curious at your age why aren’t you in the Armed Services?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:42 am


butch “When the Republi-nazi’s change the subject please don’t try to change it back.” I find it hard to agree with you when you use the term ‘Republi-nazi,’ but there is some truth to your post: jerry’s ‘response’ to my post was a diversion, not a cogent reply. Peace!



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:55 am


jerry, i get it your fighting street crime. i’m using lower case, trying to bond with my fellow christian. how many steet crimist have you taken off the street today.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 3:57 am


we/us 700 clubs like to say “take them out”.



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:12 am


Jesse: Regarding your post about “funding our troops to help the Iraqis”–do you know that recent polls indicate that over 70% of Iraqis want the US forces to leave?



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:14 am


Jerry: What is your take on how scripture relates to pre-emptive war?



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:20 am


“I don’t want to play nice with despots or even be polite; God will deal with them and me. If I go along I’m like the Germans who went along with Hitler. I say when God says what were you doing Butch when your leaders called torture quaint, when they grabbed people off the street and called it “rendered”… I won’t go on with the list of crimes against mankind.” Butch raises one of the real issues that is fueling the passion in this debate: the rise of US fascism. I haven’t seen it go this far in this country for a long time.Now, some of the neocons don’t really believe that God loves US Americans more than other people in the world, but they cynically play up the rhetoric for their own personal gain and ego-gratification. But some really do believe such things and–as Butch says–that makes them dangerous. And a great danger is that both groups of neocons (cynics and fascists) appeal to many, many dispossessed and/or bitter Americans who yearn for a solution to their problems. Well one thing that fascism does well is demonize the other… Butch is right about this–the stakes are high and the time for contemplation was at the beginning of this war. Write your representative, organize opposition, protest. Do something now.



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:29 am


I’ve been arguing for some time that the way to resolve the Iraq clusterf**k would be to bring in in NATO and partition the country with a loose alliance based on oil profits. It worked in Kosovo (and they don’t HAVE any oil). But it’s one option I hear no-one talking about. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that our government have so alienated the US from the rest of the modern world that NATO refuses to cooperate and share the cost. If so, then our policies have even weakened NATO. If NATO cannot be vitalized quickly, then the only thing left to do is get out of the county and let it fall apart. Vietnam II. And all of you who voted for these nuts bear some responsibility.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:32 am


do you know that recent polls indicate that over 70% of Iraqis want the US forces to leave? rain man Interesting statistic, 70% of Americans was in favor of the war now 70% of Americans are opposed. Clearly you can’t trust what people think, they will switch at the drop of a hat. I speculate that those islamist are fickle. If they had water, electricity, phones and TV 70% would think we are great.



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:41 am


“Interesting statistic, 70% of Americans was in favor of the war now 70% of Americans are opposed. Clearly you can’t trust what people think, they will switch at the drop of a hat.” Yep. The neocons tell people what they want to hear because people vote for them. Those who supported this war in the beginning but aren’t now really need to contemplate their responsibility for this mess and finally decide what they believe in.And for those of us who saw this coming years ago, the next time a catastrophe in the making rears its ugly head, we need quit being scared and make our voices heard despite how “unpatriotic” our dissent sounds.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:57 am


-the stakes are high and the time for contemplation was at the beginning of this war. CPR CPR will you stay with me and dodge the cluster bombs that will come in. I did contemplate the war prior and said don’t do it. Then when it was clear the collective will was to go to war, I suggested we go in very gently and do as little physical and human damage as possible. I say this now to go backwards and look for a way out. We can’t bring back the lives and the lives we’ve touched (in Iraq) but we can fix the infrastructure. Create a green zone and build a water treatment plant and a electricity facility, run pipes and wires to the edge of this green zone. Instead of protecting military sites, protect water and electricity. Give this water and electricity away. This is a start.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted March 26, 2007 at 5:00 am


Neuro-nurse, Fortunately, our government is not in the habit of making decisions purely based on opinion polls. If the Iraqi govt wanted us to leave, we would.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 26, 2007 at 5:15 am


Donny, I have one statement to make to you. God bless you, actually here is more (I lied) be joyful in the power and fullness of the spirit. Loose your worship of conservatism and replace it w/ the love of Jesus.Neuro_nurse, You rock. Thank you for a very cogent and real reply. p



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 26, 2007 at 5:28 am


“You call it a name; I call it a descriptive term found in Wikipedia.” Even though it isn’t there.” If I was not a Christian, I would support the idea–protect what is yours at any cost. That’s good worldly thinking.” Regardless of your opinion regarding pre-emptive war, it is not tantamount to protecting what is your at any cost. China has continually violated intellectual property rights. We haven’t gone to war with them. That’s obviously just one of many examples.For me, we must measure the costs of war against the benefits. That is a cold way of putting it, and many here obviously do not think the Iraq war is a fair exchange. Let’s start with a non-Canadian hypothetical. If Iran points a nuclear missile at Israel, and we know it will kill millions of people, are we justified in using military action?Would Jesus literally sit idly by and allow it to happen? Where does he speak to the idea that he would? He speaks of forgiving enemies, but I do not see where he expressly forbids action taken on behalf of another.For a governmental official, that is precisely the sort of decision they are making, even as it pertains to our nation’s interests. George W. Bush’s status is fairly well determined. He will die a wealthy and prosperous man whether he goes to war or not. The situation is the same for any president. He or she will not defending himself, but rather defending our citizens.Of course, this leaves us free to argue the relative merits of a particular conflict, but I think it illustrates why it is erroneous to conflate Christ’s teachings on peace with a mandate for governments to be peaceful.



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 26, 2007 at 5:36 am


Butch, Clearly your idea could be implemented, and should have been done long ago. There is still a larger issue on how to stabilize the country, and I don’t see any solution except for partition.



report abuse
 

AGW

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:01 am


Why does Al-Quada need to attack us when Jim Wallis and the rest of the Democrats are doing their job for them?



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:03 am


We must be actually getting somewhere to bring out such a long tome from Kevin the resident Republi-nazi. “Of course, this leaves us free to argue the relative merits of a particular conflict, but I think it illustrates why it is erroneous to conflate Christ’s teachings on peace with a mandate for governments to be peaceful. kevin s.This is one of your best crafted paragraphs. “free to argue.. particlular conflicts” As if there are several conflicts to choose from? So we change the subject to some vague particular unnamed conflict or conflicts. Somehow pre-emptive war is like China and intellectual rights? This is one of your best Republi-nazi apologies or is this a dodge? The “non-canadian hypothecial”, one of the most famous bait and switchs, as if the “non-candian hypothecical” is a well understood theory of international deplomacy, is it in Wikipedia? Now in the future just mention “non Canadian hypothecical”, add a link to this discussion and you are in. The Bush is already rich and will be rich when he gets out of office excuses his behavior since he didn’t need the money. Let’s just ask him to pay for it. He can take 3-5 trillion out of petty cash or borrow it from China on his signature alone. Kevin you are simply the best at what you do, you sick pup.



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:03 am


“Why does Al-Quada need to attack us when Jim Wallis and the rest of the Democrats are doing their job for them?” What does this have to do with the price of cheese in Paris?!



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:09 am


There is still a larger issue on how to stabilize the country, and I don’t see any solution except for partition. CRP This is going to be the status when we leave; the Kurds have setup an autonomous area now. They will not be able to maintain it when we leave because Turkey will not allow it, so we will abandon the Kurds again. Iraq was many areas when the British cobbled it together and they have never liked it and will not go back save our military holding it together.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:17 am


Well there is this notion that we really can’t stabilize the country. But that’s just what I think. p



report abuse
 

HASH(0x119a5114)

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:23 am


Well there is this notion that we really can’t stabilize the country. Pay Find a time in history when an insurgency was put down, for every one you find I’ll show you 10 that weren’t.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:25 am


butch said Find a time in history when an insurgency was put down, for every one you find I’ll show you 10 that weren’t. Anonymous | 03.26.07 – 12:28 am | # Find a time in history when an insurgency was put down, for every one you find I’ll show you 10 that weren’t. Anonymous | 03.26.07 – 12:28 am | #



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:48 am


Yep. Occupations don’t work. Too late now. We either partition, bring in NATO and and make it work, or we get out.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 7:03 am


Yep. Occupations don’t work. Too late now. We either partition, bring in NATO and and make it work, or we get out. CRP I don’t think we will leave so lets look for a better way?



report abuse
 

rain man

posted March 26, 2007 at 2:14 pm


“but I think it illustrates why it is erroneous to conflate Christ’s teachings on peace with a mandate for governments to be peaceful.” Perhaps that is why there is no such thing as a “Christian” nation.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm


“but I think it illustrates why it is erroneous to conflate Christ’s teachings on peace with a mandate for governments to be peaceful.” Perhaps that is why there is no such thing as a “Christian” nation. rain man That was written to keep us from discussing Iraq in any real way! Republi-nazi’s need for us to think going to Iraq made sense and is somehow justified for Christians. And I agree that we are not and no state is a religious state in fact our Constitution forbids a religious state. Sorry I digress.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm


“Of course, this leaves us free to argue the relative merits of a particular conflict, but I think it illustrates why it is erroneous to conflate Christ’s teachings on peace with a mandate for governments to be peaceful.” Even more erroneous are the arguments (I’m not accusing kevin s. of doing so) that the Iraq war is somehow a ‘holy war’ supported by scripture. Payshun Thanks! You seem to have a much more gentle spirit than I, and I appreciate your moderating influence.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 26, 2007 at 9:10 pm


“Perhaps that is why there is no such thing as a “Christian” nation.” I would agree with this. Neither is there really such a thing as a “sinful” nation. I do think, however, that Christians can influence politics for good.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 26, 2007 at 9:46 pm


Neuro What gentleness you see comes from the Holy Spirit. Be glad you are not in my thoughts. p



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm


jesse, “Civil rights advocate and Christian hero” Rep. Lewis apparently has a 100% rating from National Abortion Rights Action League.” Would you please explain what that means? Upon what criteria were the congressmen rated? The following House Republicans also received a 100% rating from NARAL for 2005: CONNECTICUT Rob Simmons Christopher Shays Nancy L. Johnson DELAWARE AL Michael N. Castle ILLINOIS Judy Biggert Mark Steven Kirk NEW HAMPSHIRE Charles F. Bass NEW YORK Sherwood Boehlert Republican runners-up: Jim Kolbe & Sue W. Kelly 50%, James A. Leach & Charles W. Dent 60%, Ron Paul 75%, Wayne T. Gilchrest 90%



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 26, 2007 at 10:18 pm


Payshun, “Be glad you are not in my thoughts.” Why? kevin s. “Neither is there really such a thing as a “sinful” nation. I do think, however, that Christians can influence politics for good.”Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the LORD; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him. Isaiah 1:4 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49 Actually kevin, I agree with you. I m married to a Southern Baptist, so the idea that the U.S. is a sinful nation is a frequent topic around our house. I agree that Christians can and should influence politics, but not in a way that disregards the values and beliefs of non-Christians. Christian values do not include subjugating others to our will.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 26, 2007 at 10:31 pm


I would agree with this. Neither is there really such a thing as a “sinful” nation. I do think, however, that Christians can influence politics for good. kevin s Now you are trying a new tact, pretend you are not a Republi-nazi. How long do you think you can stay on the wagon, most try to make it through a weekend. How’s your knee?



report abuse
 

jesse

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:28 pm


Neuro-nurse, You’ve got to work pretty hard to get a 100 percent rating from NARAL, which includes voting against parental involvement laws and partial birth abortion bans, and for federal funding of abortion. Wallis apparently thinks you can do such things and still be a “civil rights advocate and Christian hero.” I do not.I wouldn’t characterize the Republicans you list with those terms, either.



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:29 pm


No such thing as a sinful nation? Hmm…if all people are sinful…and all nations are made up of people…then all nations are sinful…



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:38 pm


“No such thing as a sinful nation? Hmm…if all people are sinful…and all nations are made up of people…then all nations are sinful…” Yes, but a nation cannot sin, because a nation is not a person. However, the Bible does, in fact, contain instances of God judging entire nations, so you could interpret both ways.That said, the main point was that it is impossible for a nation to be a Christian, which is manifestly true.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:41 pm


jesse Neither partial birth abortion bans nor for federal funding of abortion were among the NARAL criteria. The following were the ratings criteria for senators: Clinic Violence Prevention Programs Global Gag Rule Owen Nomination Brown Nomination Pryor Nomination Roberts Nomination These were the criteria for House Representatives: Women in the Military (access to emergency contraception) Birth Control Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/CAC-cong-record-on-choice-2005.pdf



report abuse
 

jesse

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:51 pm


Neuro-nurse, The military vote for 2006 had to do with using military hospitals for abortions. The rest of his record on abortion is here: http://www.issues2000.org/GA/John_Lewis.htm



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 26, 2007 at 11:54 pm


butch “Now you are trying a new tact, pretend you are not a Republi-nazi.” Enough – please. kevin s. “it is impossible for a nation to be a Christian, which is manifestly true.” It seems to me that, in general, most of the people who post here respect your point of view, liberals and conservatives alike. In light of some of the posts to which I’ve responded on this and other threads, I am glad that you made that statement. Peace!



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 27, 2007 at 12:01 am


Neuro I know you won’t agree but I believe if a man is down, kick him. If he survives he can rise above it!



report abuse
 

squeaky

posted March 27, 2007 at 12:14 am


“Neuro I know you won’t agree but I believe if a man is down, kick him. If he survives he can rise above it!” Sed the Good Samaritan…



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 27, 2007 at 12:16 am


jesse, I’m certainly not an abortion advocate. From a public health perspective, I believe that attempting to legislate against abortion is doomed to failure and will not reduce the number of abortions performed in the U.S. Comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives will. HIV transmission was expected to explode in Thailand at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, but the Thai government stepped up to the plate and got involved in public health education, especially among sex workers (where NGOs that receive fund from the U.S. are now restricted from intervening thanks to bush & co.). As a result, HIV transmission has dropped to an incredibly low rate. Christians cannot expect to stop unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs by moralizing the issue. Virginity pledges and abstinence-only education not only don t work, the risk of contracting an STD has been found to be higher among adolescents who have taken virginity pledges. (Bruckner, H., Bearman, P., 2005. After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 271-278) As for the rest of the John Lewis on the Issues page that you referenced, I found more things for which he should be lauded than those for which he should be criticized. Thanks, I have a lot more respect for the man now!



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 27, 2007 at 1:10 am


Sed the Good Samaritan… squeakyIf nothing else, once I choose a battle I “stay the course” and don’t “cut and run”.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 27, 2007 at 1:20 am


Perhaps that is why there is no such thing as a “Christian” nation. rain man That was written to keep us from discussing Iraq in any real way! Republi-nazi’s need for us to think going to Iraq made sense and is somehow justified for Christians. And I agree that we are not and no state is a religious state in fact our Constitution forbids a religious state. Sorry I digress. butch This was posted earlier because Kevin tried successfully to move the discussion off the War to a hot button issue. I’m not trying to control the discussion but Republi-nazi tactics is to move the discussion away from the war.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 27, 2007 at 3:49 am


Because I have an anger problem and some of my thoughts are not all that nice. p



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 27, 2007 at 4:57 am


Because I have an anger problem and some of my thoughts are not all that nice. Payshun Without knowing specifics there are times to be angry and to suppress or deny that is a problem in itself.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 27, 2007 at 6:38 am


“Roberts Nomination” For the record, what is your problem with the Roberts nomination?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted March 27, 2007 at 6:41 am


“Neuro I know you won’t agree but I believe if a man is down, kick him.” What the hell is wrong with you?



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 27, 2007 at 6:50 am


“Neuro I know you won’t agree but I believe if a man is down, kick him.” What the hell is wrong with you? kevin s You missed the last part; if he survives he can rise above it. And you know exactly what I’m about.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 27, 2007 at 6:59 am


“Roberts Nomination” For the record, what is your problem with the Roberts nomination? kevin s An unusual way to change the subject, “Roberts”? Gay marriage works better but you are the expert.



report abuse
 

butch

posted March 27, 2007 at 7:04 am


For the record, what is your problem with the Roberts nomination? kevin s Republicans don’t go on the record under oath but they will meet behind closed doors if no one takes notes.



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 27, 2007 at 5:31 pm


What other solution options to the Iraq mess do others have? So far we have: (1)Providing quality utilities within the green zone (Butch) (2) Repairing relations with NATO so that they will share the cost of partition (CRP) (3)…



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 27, 2007 at 5:42 pm


Solutions folks. Quit bickering.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 27, 2007 at 6:57 pm


kevin s. For the record, I made no statement suggesting I had a problem with the Roberts nomination, I simply listed the criteria by which NARAL rated congressmen. I won’t throw my hat in the ring for that one. Peace!



report abuse
 

Herman_Newtic

posted March 27, 2007 at 8:20 pm


I appreciate Rep. Lewis’ commitment to our country and peace. I also appreciate Mr. Wallis’ commitment to our country and peace. Both men serve to illuminate aspects of collective/political behavior that may be lost without their perspectives. I do not agree with their positions regarding the Iraq war. I have yet to hear/read any cogent analysis on what war would meet the positions held by Lewis and Wallis. That is my issue. If they could just give us a blue-print of what war they believe would be justifiable in our current world order; what war they would support morally and financially. Frankly, I can’t think of a more “just” war than the one we undertook in Iraq. Republicans and Democrats alike, from intelligence committees in both houses agreed that Hussein had WMD’s. Everyone knew of the murderous genocidal regime of a madman who cared nothing for human life. Yet no one did anything as millions of Kurds and Iraqi’s were raped, tortured, buried under hot asphault and murdered. Interestingly, no out cry was ever heard emananting from Mr. Wallis or Rep. Lewis while this hell existed over Hussein. So I ask, if what Hussein was doing to children, women, and men in Iraq was not enough to prick the consciences of Wallis and Lewis, to lead them to cry out over Hussein with the same fervor they cry out against President Bush, what would be?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 27, 2007 at 8:55 pm


Herman_Newtic,Everyone knew of the murderous genocidal regime of a madman who cared nothing for human life.” Sorry, too many times in the past this country has supported and defended murderous despots of the same caliber as Saddam Hussein (see list I posted 03.23.07 – 7:40 pm on this thread). We can’t have our cake (support muderous dictators when we profit from the association) and eat it too (condemn them when they step out of line). That, my friend, is hypocrisy.



report abuse
 

CRP

posted March 27, 2007 at 8:57 pm


Herman_Newtic, I can’t speak for Wallis or Lewis, but I think the intervention in the former Yugoslavia was one example of how to use military force (always a necessary evil at best) to prevent further suffering. (I also think that the same could be said for the air strikes that the US conducted against Libya and Iraq.) I think that Iraq is a dismal failure due to its methods. I learned decades ago in History 101 that you never, ever, try to occupy a middle-eastern country…



report abuse
 

Carl Copas

posted March 27, 2007 at 9:48 pm


“Herman_Newtic”????!!!! a cousin of Dee_Kunstrukshun no doubt.



report abuse
 

Herman_Newtic

posted March 27, 2007 at 10:42 pm


Neuro_Nurse, Because we supported Hussein in the past we cannot at some point in time not support him? How do you logically hold this position? By your position, a country that supports at one time a genocidal maniac cannot then at a later time, due to a change in administration, political power, or even another Great Awakening/Reformation, is then prohibited from fighting against that that country. Sin is sin, whether we stand against it early on or later on. And murdering innocent men, women and children is a sin. Supporting it or looking away is also a sin. But trying to stop it, whenever that occurs, is in my opinion, never a sin and never untimely.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 27, 2007 at 11:37 pm


Herman_NewticSupporting it or looking away is also a sin.I absolutely agree. However, your absolution is only applicable if U.S. support for repressive dictators is a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it is not. Egypt: This vital U.S. ally receives $2 billion a year in U.S. aid. President Hosni Mubarak is particularly appreciated by the Bush administration for his harsh response to his own Islamic extremists, who are just thrown in jail or worse. Recently, under pressure, Mr. Mubarak agreed to seek reelection in a contested race, the first in his 24-year rein. But in a finger jabbed in the administration’s eye, he allowed only candidates with no popular following to run, and made sure they gained little attention from the government-controlled media. Not surprisingly, he won 88.6 percent of the vote, a total that would shame even the first Mayor Daley of Chicago, who could coax thousands of votes out of graveyards. Last week, it was reported that Ayman Nour, the runner-up in the vote (with a mere 7 percent) now faces criminal charges. Supporters claim Mr. Nour, who was also arrested before the election but released because of U.S. pressure, is victim of a smear campaign intended to end his political career. The President personally called Mr. Mubarak to congratulate him for an “important step toward holding fully free and fair competitive multi-party elections, and both supporters and opponents of the government have told us that it has occasioned a vigorous national debate in Egypt on important issues.” What’s a rigged election between friends? Saudi Arabia: It’s commonly regarded as one of the globe’s most repressive nations. The royal family rules with an iron fist and bottomless corruption; women have almost no rights; religious minorities are ruthlessly suppressed; extremist religious police terrorize the nation, the price the royal family willingly pays for keeping themselves out of the mullahs’ crosshairs. The blatant double standard diminishes already battered U.S. credibility around the world, making it even harder to garner international support for things that genuinely need to be done — like slowing Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons and pressing for Israel-Palestinian peace.Besser, J. D. (Oct. 28, 2005). Democracy, when convenient; by letting Egypt and Saudi Arabia off the hook, the administration encourages other dictatorships. Baltimore Jewish Times, 286(9), p. 44. In Karimov’s Uzbekistan, no dissent is allowed. Media are state- controlled, and opposition parties are banned from elections. Millions of people, including children, toil on vast state-owned cotton farms, receiving some $2 a month for working 70-hour weeks. Their labor has made Uzbekistan the world’s second-largest cotton exporter. More than 10,000 dissidents are held in Soviet-style gulags. Many are pro-democracy advocates, but anyone showing religious enthusiasm is also swept up. Most are Muslims, but Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are routinely persecuted, too. I saw this happening in a country regarded as a strategic friend by the United States, which was looking for well-placed allies after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Karimov had delivered for President Bush, allowing the United States to take over a major former Soviet airbase at Karshi-Khanabad to help wage war in neighboring Afghanistan; the several thousand U.S. forces stationed there were the first Americans permitted to serve in former Soviet territory. As a reward, Karimov had been Bush’s guest for tea in the White House in March 2002. It was clear by the time I arrived in Tashkent a few months later that the United States was handsomely rewarding Karimov’s cooperation. Hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid were flowing to the country — after the U.S. government, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, repeatedly certified that the Uzbek government was making progress on human rights and democracy. According to a press release distributed to local media by the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent in December 2002, the Karimov regime received more than $500 million in U.S. aid that year alone. That included $120 million for the Uzbek armed forces and more than $80 million for the re-branded Uzbek security services, successor to the KGB. In other words, when the prisoner was boiled to death that summer, U.S. taxpayers had helped heat the water.Murray, C. (September 3, 2006). Her Majesty s man in Tashkent. The Washington Post, p. B.1. See also: Slaughter in Uzbekistan. (May 17, 2005). The Washington Post. p. A.20. Diehl, J. (Jan 31, 2005). How Bush could fight tyranny. The Washington Post, p. 21.



report abuse
 

Herman_Newtic

posted March 28, 2007 at 2:24 am


Neuro_Nurse: I agree as well that our alliances with other countries has included those who are repressive to say the least. Second, my point is not one of forgiveness or “absolution,” it is rather one of action in the face of horrible sin. We should support those actions that seek to alleviate the suffering of innocents. We failed to act with Idi Amin, we failed to act with the killing fields of southeast asia, we failed to act with the Balkan war, and millions of innocent men, women and children were murdered. To say the because we supported other repressive regimes either in the past or presently gives us no authority to intervene on behalf of those suffering untold atrocities is to engage in selective rationalization at the expense of those who suffer. If we have divested ourselves of any moral authority to intervene in Dafur, Rawanda, North Korea, etc., b/c of our past support of Hussein or the House of Saud or Mubarik, then who has any moral authority anywhere to protect the slaughter and genocide of innocents? Question: what illegitmate regimes were we supporting just before we entered WWII? Should we have not intervened because of the support?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 28, 2007 at 3:20 am


Herman_Newtic My objection to your earlier post is the attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq based on Saddam Hussein s brutal regime, and the suggestion that that was the purpose of the invasion. In the first place, the presence of a brutal dictator in a country is not among the just war criteria.Second, what criteria should the U.S. establish for removing a dictator from power? North Korea was/is much more of a military threat to the U.S. than Iraq ever was.There are a lot of dictators out there, why start with Iraq? Because N. Korea could fight back? Because there is oil in Iraq? (Hey, I m just taking a few stabs here) Because the Project for the New American Century, many of the members of which are now in the bush administration, had been calling for the invasion of Iraq years before bush took office? Why, when it had been established during the Clinton Administration, that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were a threat to the U.S. did the bush administration fail to take any action against that organization prior to September 11th? (and yes, Clinton had launched several attacks against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda: Clarke, R. A., 2004, Against All Enemies ) Could it have been in anticipation of the New Pearl Harbor? http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf#search=%22Pearl%20Harbor%20site%3Anewamericancentury.org%22 Finally, I will stand by my statement that it is complete hypocrisy to target one brutal dictator while giving monetary and military support to several others.what illegitmate regimes were we supporting just before we entered WWII?As German bombs fell on London and Nazi tanks rolled over US troops, Sosthenes Behn president and founder of the US based ITT corporation, met with his German representative to discuss improving German communication systems. ITT was designing and building Nazi phone and radio systems as well as supplying crucial parts for German bombs. Our government knew all about this, for under a presidential order, US companies were licensed to trade with the Nazis. The choice of who would be licensed was odd, though. While the Secretary of State gave the Ford Motor Company permission to make Nazi tanks, he simultaneously blocked aid to German-Jewish refugees because the US wasn’t supposed to be trading with the enemy. Other US companies trading with the Third Reich were General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Davis Oil Co., and the Chase National Bank. President Roosevelt did not stop them, fearing a scandal might lead to another stock market crash or lower US moral. Besides, the same companies that traded with Hitler were supplying the US with its armaments, and some corporate leaders threatened to withdraw their support if Roosevelt exposed them. Henry Ford was a good friend of Hitler’s. His book — The International Jew — had Inspired Hltler’s Mein Kampf. The Fuhrer kept Ford’s picture in his office, and Ford was one of only four foreigners to receive Germany’s highest civilian award. As for Sosthenes Behn, at the end of the war, he received the highest civilian award for service to his country — the United States of America. http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm#hitler http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-ch6.html http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 28, 2007 at 4:44 am


Wow I did not know all of that Neuro and I agree completely. I personally think we went after Iraq because we thought we could do the war on the cheap and that mattered more than actually stopping a brutal dictator. You are right we did not go there to stop a brutal dictator we went there for pride. We thought we could export democracy.p



report abuse
 

Butch

posted March 28, 2007 at 4:53 am


Herman_Newtic is one more republi-nazi twisting any information back to Iraq is the thing to do. And, I do admire your will to keep giving information which I am learning a great deal from but you waste your time on the Republi-nazi’s.



report abuse
 

Butch

posted March 28, 2007 at 5:27 am


You are right we did not go there to stop a brutal dictator we went there for pride. We thought we could export democracy.p Payshun No No No we went for power or money, all the other reasons are excuses. You can look at all the dictators we supported or installed and find within that country resources we wanted to control or it was a power thing like Somolia where we were trying to keep Cuba out.



report abuse
 

Butch

posted March 28, 2007 at 6:29 am


Newt tonight said a big mistake in Iraq was the excessive use of force which goes to my point of giving Iraqi’s their needs. If we messed up Iraq then we have to fix that and our guns won’t do it. We have to provide water, electricity, phones, etc. by whatever means. Continuing to make excuses for this mess will not lead to finding solutions and just a few words like “I take responsibility” won’t do it.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted March 28, 2007 at 8:00 pm


Butch, The problem is that those excuses became the reasons for war. Exporting democracy became the clarion call for those that supported it and remains one of the more compelling (misguided, foolish) defenses of it. p



report abuse
 

Herman_Newtic

posted March 28, 2007 at 9:00 pm


Neuro_Nurse: Thanks for your response but my question was not meant to ask for a history lesson on what repressive regimes we supported as we entered WWII. It was to simply contrast your position that b/c we supported a repressive regime in the past we could not oppose that same regime in the future. Yes we supported other repressive regimes at the time of WWII just like we support repressive regimes now. However, according to your position as I understand it, we have/had no moral authority to oppose any other repressive regime. I’m just asking for a clarification of your position. Butch, have another beer, or perhaps you should have a few less if your going to engage in stupidity. The Democratic party was in power at the time we entered and completed WWII. Why is that somehow I’m a republican nazi (actually I’m a Democrat) if I question Neuro’s position on Iraq? This may be too hard of a question given your penchant for ad hominem attacks…



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted March 28, 2007 at 10:27 pm


Herman_Newtic “[A]ccording to your position as I understand it, we have/had no moral authority to oppose any other repressive regime. I’m just asking for a clarification of your position.” Do you want my opinion? Do we have the moral authority to oppose a repressive regime? Yes, absolutely. Does that give us the authority to invade a sovereign nation because it is governed by a despot? Absolutely not! Is it now, or has it ever been the role of the U.S. to play international police officer? If so, then how can we target one particular dictator without casting a much wider net to include all despots?If we are the international police force, then who represents the international judiciary? We can t be cop and judge at the same time not according to our legal system. Can we, or do we accept the U.N. as having either of these roles?Oliver, M. (Feb. 21, 2003). Blix casts doubt on US ‘evidence’ on Iraq. The Arab American News, p. 6. Tyler, P. E., Barringer, F. (March 11, 2003). Annan says U.S. will violate charter if it acts without approval. New York Times, p. A.10. LaFranchi, H., Bowers, F. (May 13, 2003). Frustrated hunt for banned weapons; with suspected sites in Iraq largely turning up dry, the US emphasis shifts to intelligence and detective work. Christian Science Monitor, p. 01. Tyler, P. E. (September 17, 2004). U.N. chief ignites firestorm by calling Iraq war ‘illegal.’ New York Times, p. A.11. I won t belabor the point by reminding you of the 9/11 Commission findings. I m not a diplomat or a politician I wouldn t want either job. I don t have answers to how we should have dealt with Saddam Hussein. What I firmly believe is that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, and pointing out that the U.S. removed a brutal dictator from power does not justify either the invasion or the subsequent loss of life, resources, and respect for the U.S. in the eyes of the world. Deontological ethics, the theory of duty or moral obligation implicates that a person s behavior can be wrong even if it results in the best possible outcome. Teleological ethics, or consequentialism claims that the ends justify the means.The teachings of the Catholic Church, and as I understand it, most Christian churches categorically oppose teleological ethics. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1749-1761). Even IF the intention to remove Saddam Hussein from power was the reason for invading Iraq, and even IF it was done with the best intentions (neither of which I believe), the ends do not justify the means. It was wrong.



report abuse
 

Herman_Newtic

posted October 17, 2007 at 8:08 pm


Neuro,
My question still stands for which you have yet to provide an answer: Under what circumstances can the U.S. legitimately invade a country?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.