God's Politics

God's Politics


Bob Francis: Bring ‘Em On

posted by God's Politics

Earlier this month marked four years since President Bush issued the following brazen pronouncement about our presence in Iraq: “There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring ‘em on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.” U.S. troop casualties at that time were about 200; now they stand at over 3,600, with thousands more injured and estimates of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, many of them children. And there is no end in sight.


One of the troops who knows all too well the real security situation in Baghdad is Capt. Jon Powers. As an artillery platoon leader in the Army’s 1st Armored Division, and later as the Battalion Commander’s Adjutant in Baghdad and Najaf, Capt. Powers led his soldiers through one of Baghdad’s most volatile sectors. It was there that he saw four friends die, and it was there that he “witnessed firsthand the devastation and lost opportunities that resulted from the Bush Administration’s mismanagement and lack of planning for post-invasion Iraq. He saw how his and his fellow soldiers’ idealism, dedication and patriotism were dishonored by a government that sent them to war without proper equipment, training or forethought.” It was also there that he saw, all too closely, the effects of this war on its most vulnerable victims—Iraqi children.


Rather than remaining paralyzed by inaction or apathy, Capt. Powers decided to do something about what he saw. He founded War Kids Relief, a non-profit dedicated “to help the children of war-torn nations recover from the disruptive effects of war and give them hope for a better future.” They seek to do this through a variety of initiatives, including creating a network of safe havens with existing orphanages, launching a family program to reintegrate children into family programs, improving education and training, and empowering the children’s caretakers. And they are also focusing some of their efforts here at home by “developing a curriculum on Iraqi culture and youth that will be based on the current national standards for geography to be introduced into American schools this fall.”


Jesus confounded his disciples in Matthew 19 by calling for the children to be brought unto him despite the disciples’ rebuke of those who brought them. Capt. Powers models this in his work with War Kids Relief, and I hope that we as a nation also model this when we draw up our budgets to help rebuild and repair what we have destroyed in Iraq. This is the sort of “bring ‘em on” that we need from our highest leaders—bring on the hurting, the broken, the forgotten, the injured. We don’t need pronouncements of arrogance—we need to ask for the needy and damaged to come, and then we must do what we can, responsibly and respectfully, do to make things right.


Say what we will about the justifications or lack thereof for this war, we must acknowledge that many innocent lives have been damaged and lost. Make no mistake: We have destroyed much, and it will be on our heads as a nation to repair and heal much, just as Capt. Powers does in his own small but powerful way.


It is refreshing to me that Jon is taking responsibility for the damage that our nation has done and trying to bring healing, hope, and a future to kids caught in a war they did not start. But what’s more, Capt. Powers has also taken personal responsibility: “If I can go back there and I can make a positive influence on a country that I helped partially destroy, then maybe I can sort of regain the whole reason that I went.”


So much in Iraq has already been tragically undone, but may we follow Capt. Powers in our efforts to make right. His example of honesty, humility, and healing action is one our administration would do well to imitate.


Jon’s work with War Kids Relief was featured on NBC Nightly News’ “Making a Difference” series and in a recent Newsweek cover story.

Bob Francis is the organizing and policy assistant for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(54)
post a comment
kevin s.

posted July 31, 2007 at 12:43 pm


Our military men and women are more than capable of handling these savages. If they had the balls to fight, and actually bring it on, they’d be very dead in short order. However, they choose to target women and children, schools and mosques. That’s the kind of people they are. Bush was not asking them to bring that on.
So why begin a story about an inspiring person with a de regeur regurgitation of the same Bush quote?



report abuse
 

MadHatter07

posted July 31, 2007 at 1:35 pm


kevin s You won’t be getting a response from Jim as he is more concerned with making Bush look bad in order to gain power in next year’s elections. I don’t think you will be hearing much about the Korean Christians being slaughtered by the Taliban either. Wouldn’t fit Wallis & friends goal of downgrading the threat posed to Christianity and the West by Islamofascism.



report abuse
 

james

posted July 31, 2007 at 4:16 pm


Well Kevin I can see you know very little about military tactics . The tactics being used against us is called guerrilla warfare .A tactic commonly used by smaller forces against larger forces .Conventional methods of fighting , like our soldiers use is of little effect against guerrilla warfare .Yes our military is capable , but we have to use the right tactics . Those savages have the balls and the intelligence to fight against us effectively ,by doing what they are doing . President Bush should have shown more intelligence than to say what he did.But I do agree that the story about Captain Powers should not have talked about the Bush quote.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 31, 2007 at 4:16 pm


“If they had the balls to fight, and actually bring it on, they’d be very dead in short order.”
which is, perhaps, why they choose not to, demonstrating the ignorance displayed by the administration to simple military strategy that even the “savages” as you so elegantly describe them, can figure out. bring ‘em on indeed.
“You won’t be getting a response from Jim as he is more concerned with making Bush look bad in order to gain power in next year’s elections.”
um… jim didn’t write this article. did you even read it?



report abuse
 

Derrin Holloway - Kansas City

posted July 31, 2007 at 4:20 pm


Please tell me what the hurting children would have faced without the current Coalition Occupation? Are the children Kurds? Mustard gas, then. Are the children girls? Rape, stoning, oppression, and no education. Are the children Shiite? No opportunities for higher education, career, or government inclusion; only suppression at the hand of the the Sunni minority government, or acceptance in thug gangs and militias.
I agree that intelligence, defense, and politicos in the administration have left me disappointed. We have handled a bad situation (beginning on 09/11) shamefully at times (Abu Grahib, for instance). But we have foiled all attempts for another attack on our soil for 4 years, and we have lost only as many soldiers as we lost innocent victims on the day of the terrorist attacks. With sodiers from my family deployed now, on balance, I think our losses are from the right group in our population — professional soldiers and volunteers who have counted the cost.
God bless the Captain, and all who speak up for the little ones. Children are our greatest resource. Perhaps these children, with infrastructure in ruins all around them will reach out for a Savior. Or perhaps they will find that without anything of value they are reduced to basic human needs, and can cross the boundaries between Kurd, Sunni, Shiite, Turkmen, and Christian to find a friendly face in another child left homeless or alone in the mess. They have found a friend in Captain Powers.



report abuse
 

Hali

posted July 31, 2007 at 4:28 pm


kevin s. wrote
“these savages”
How very Christian of you.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 31, 2007 at 4:45 pm


Hali,
Many of the people figting in in Iraq are savages , evil is a word I find is better suited for them . They have no concern for using children and women as their method of delivering bombs . They also don’t particular care who is killed in many of their places they put their bombs .
That is a different warfare then what we did in the Revolutionary war , the French Resistance and many other types of historical guerilla warfare .
I doon’t think we should be in Iraq , but make no mistake about it , there are people there you would not want for your neigbors, a Captain powers would be laughed at for saying to be civil and reach out to the children of foreign nations we were at odds with . . That is a major difference between us and them , and most of the world . Its why they are dangerous and Its why we need to better at choosing what we do in the name of freedom and national security .



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 31, 2007 at 5:13 pm


You won’t be getting a response from Jim as he is more concerned with making Bush look bad in order to gain power in next year’s elections.
As if Bush needs any help in that regard.
Many of the people figting in in Iraq are savages, evil is a word I find is better suited for them.
And, deep down, you’re any better?



report abuse
 

MadHatter07

posted July 31, 2007 at 5:24 pm


This is Jim’s website/blog. He is the main person here and has his friends, with whom he agrees far more often than he disagrees. One of the things that I feel comfortable about stating is that Jim and his friends are willing to downgrade the threat posed by these savages to the people of Iraq, the greater Middle East, and the rest of the world. Yes, I know that those individuals like Rick Nowlin like to think that we are all the same. However, last time I checked, the American soldiers weren’t the ones going around slaughtering entire villages and kidnapping and executing missionaries, among the other things that Islamofascists are doing.



report abuse
 

Tony Dickinson

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:01 pm


A propos the last few comments. Does no one remember Fallujah? Selective memory is a very dangerous thing.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:03 pm


“Those savages have the balls and the intelligence to fight against us effectively ,by doing what they are doing . ”
What they are doing does not require intelligence. If we were indifferent to the destruction of innocent civilians, we could just as easily fight back in kind. If we bombed a mosque and fingered our enemies, would you support our tactic as smart and ballsy?
“How very Christian of you.”
You kill kids on purpose. You’re a savage. Christ called men vipers. Would you prefer that?
“And, deep down, you’re any better?”
Mick Sheldon is a Christian. Deep down, he has the spirit of God. Nonetheless, if we can’t differentiate between child murderers and non child-murderers by calling the former savages, please advise which term we can use inoffensively. Extra-grace required people doesn’t quite get at it for me.



report abuse
 

bren

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:07 pm


MadHatter, If you were to see the documentary–THE GROUND TRUTH–produced by U.S. Iraq War veterans, you would learn that American soldiers have indeed gone around slaughtering entire villages. It’s what they’ve been trained to do (according to the soldiers). In fact, all soldiers, no matter who they’re fighting for, are savage. Watch the film–and see how they are trained to be savage!
I have a different way of determining who are the ‘good guys’ in this scenario, if there are indeed any good guys. If the U.S. are the ‘good guys’ and the U.S. soldiers are truly going around doing good, why does the U.S. government treat the soldiers so badly when they come home, wounded? If someone feels suicidal, why does the system decide that that is a reason for him/her to stay in Iraq instead of going somewhere for treatment? Why is the government so resistant to acknowledging that Post-Traumatic Stress is real and needs LONG-TERM treatment? Why is no one doing planning to assist the many many soldiers returning without an arm, a leg, an eye? Why are so many vets now homeless? haunted? unable to live with themselves and especially unable to live with those who treat them as heros?
I urge you to watch this film produced by U.S. soldiers.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:42 pm


Pulling the mask off the war Part I:
I relish the opportunity to post this one. There was a discussion on here a few weeks ago about supposed “positive” aspects of the war, one of which was that schools were being built (La-ti-da! How long do you think those schools will be standing?) So it’s interesting to see how one of the US soldiers grievances against the US Army was related to being lied about exactly that: he was led to believe he would be building schools, but actually was made to do something very heinous.
Reminds me of other local stories here in Oregon: how an autistic kid was actually signed up by the greedy army recruiters, and how a fried of mine’s daughter was told she wouldn’t go to Iraq because she was going into the Guard, and the National Guard wasn’t 1st response. Bunch of dirty filthy liars! Anyway, here’s the article:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/118455452361660.xml&coll=7&thispage=1
A friend of mine who’s a Homeless Marine read it and said “Well no wonder he went AWOL!” :)



report abuse
 

mark

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:44 pm


Derrin Holloway says:
“Please tell me what the hurting children would have faced without the current Coalition Occupation? Are the children Kurds? Mustard gas, then. Are the children girls? Rape, stoning, oppression, and no education. Are the children Shiite? No opportunities for higher education, career, or government inclusion; only suppression at the hand of the the Sunni minority government, or acceptance in thug gangs and militias.”
And he is partly right. But only partly. Saddam Hussein was a vicious dictator (as many of us recognised when Rumsfeld was still doing arms deals with him in the 80s). When faced with opposition of any sort he suppressed it without concern for the most basic of human rights. But he also pursued policies which gave near-equal rights to women in education and employment, allowed substantial freedom of religion, and ensured a high quality of sanitation and medical care for nearly all citizens. Yes, all of these rights were conditional – Saddam’s need to dominate always came first – but they were there.
The sanitation and medical care went as a result of Daddy Bush’s war and sanctions – most of the key facilities were destroyed by coalition bombs.
And now in the chaos that Baby Bush has left behind, the rights of women and of religious minorities have as good as disappeared in most of the country. Christians never used to be persecuted for being Christians in Iraq: they are now. Women were previously not forced into the roles approved by the islamists: they are now.
And the “coalition” occupation has not been able to prevent this from happening.
Mark



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:48 pm


Pulling the mask off the war Part I:
Published in The Oregonian
Iraq: Phony war takes billions monthly
Monday, July 30, 2007
It’s good to know that there will now be a “surge of information” from the White House regarding the Iraq war (“A surge of information to counter the defeatocrats,” David Reinhard, July 26).
Will they finally tell us about those aspects of the war that don’t get much press coverage — those behind-the-scenes struggles with the Iraqi leaders over control of their country’s oil production and sale? Will they tell us that the hydrocarbon law the Iraqis refuse to sign has very little to do with the sharing of oil revenues among the major groups of Iraqis, but much to do with the Iraqis’ sharing of oil revenues with multinational oil companies?
If readers want to know about this historic heist the Bush administration is trying to pull off in the chaos of its phony war on terror, they can go to http://www.iraqoillaw.com. There they can get not only a copy of this oil law, but also many articles explaining the history of it.
DIANE HILL Wilsonville



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:48 pm


Pulling the mask off the war Part II:
Published in The Oregonian
Iraq: Phony war takes billions monthly
Monday, July 30, 2007
It’s good to know that there will now be a “surge of information” from the White House regarding the Iraq war (“A surge of information to counter the defeatocrats,” David Reinhard, July 26).
Will they finally tell us about those aspects of the war that don’t get much press coverage — those behind-the-scenes struggles with the Iraqi leaders over control of their country’s oil production and sale? Will they tell us that the hydrocarbon law the Iraqis refuse to sign has very little to do with the sharing of oil revenues among the major groups of Iraqis, but much to do with the Iraqis’ sharing of oil revenues with multinational oil companies?
If readers want to know about this historic heist the Bush administration is trying to pull off in the chaos of its phony war on terror, they can go to http://www.iraqoillaw.com. There they can get not only a copy of this oil law, but also many articles explaining the history of it.
DIANE HILL Wilsonville



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:50 pm


Pulling the mask off the war Part III:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/325316_impeach29.html
It’s time to impeach Bush, Cheney and the public knows it
JOHN NICHOLS
GUEST COLUMNIST
Recently the Bill Moyers Journal on PBS devoted a full hour to the subject of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney — the first such attention by a national network.
The remarkable thing about the response was not its size or intensity. After visiting more than a dozen states to address the issue, I have come to understand the depth of the public’s desire for accountability.
But it was only after Moyers invited conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein and me to lay out not merely the specific grounds for impeachment but the historical rationale for applying the “heroic medicine” — the Founders’ preferred cure for a constitutional crisis — that I fully understood the extent to which Americans recognize that this is about a lot more than the high crimes and misdemeanors of a regal president and his monarchical vice president.
The stakes are enormous: If Bush and Cheney are not held accountable, this administration will hand off to its successors a toolbox of powers greater than any executive has ever held — more authority, concentrated in fewer hands, than the Founders could have conceived or would have allowed.
Among the thousands of responses after the program aired in mid-July, there was a steady theme: This is no longer a partisan issue. Inside the Beltway, the calculus these days rarely gets beyond the next election; but outside it there are tens of millions of Americans worried about the next generation — indeed, about the fate of the republic. To be sure, there are Bush haters among their number, fierce partisans who — in an echo of the Republicans who a decade ago went after Bill Clinton — have adopted a “by any means necessary” approach to the goal of cutting short the Bush/Cheney tenure.
But the national conversation in which we engaged after the Moyers program aired suggested that they are a minority of the 54 percent of Americans who tell pollsters it’s time to open impeachment hearings on Cheney’s misdeeds, and the only slightly smaller number who favor the process for Bush.
The Washington elites still try to dismiss the impeachment movement as an ill-considered reflexive reaction to a president Americans don’t like and a vice president they fear — or, worse yet, as some sort of partisan payback. But the plain truth is that most of those who responded to the Moyers discussion recognize that the point of impeachment is not the transitory crimes of small men but the long-term definition of great offices.
Fein, an official in the Reagan Justice Department, and I come from different points on the ideological spectrum, but we agree that the Founders intended impeachment less as a punishment for officeholders than as a protection against the dangerous expansion of executive authority. If abuse of the system of checks and balances, lies about war, approval of illegal spying and torture, signing statements that improperly arrogate legislative powers to the executive branch, schemes to punish political foes and refusals to cooperate with congressional inquiries are not judged as high crimes, the next president, no matter from which party, will assume the authority to exercise some or all of these illegitimate powers.
The burgeoning movement for impeachment is a rational response to a moment when polls tell us that roughly three-quarters of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. This administration has not just let Americans down; it has frightened them. A great many understand, intuitively or explicitly, that we are experiencing a constitutional crisis and that impeachment proceedings are the proper tonic. Unfortunately, key Democrats continue to mistake the medicine for the disease.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still keeps impeachment “off the table”; she and her advisers fear that if they allow Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to open impeachment hearings, it will rally the Republican base in defense of Bush and Cheney. History suggests she’s wrong: Opposition parties that have pursued impeachment in a high-minded manner have, in every instance, maintained or improved their position in Congress and have usually won the presidency in the next election.
Pelosi should step out of the way and let her colleagues restore the rule of law. More than a dozen have shown their desire to do so by co-sponsoring Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment against Cheney.
Clearly, impeachment is not just around the corner; even Sen. Russ Feingold’s “relatively modest response” to the crisis — censure resolutions against Bush and Cheney –faces an uphill struggle. At this late stage, it will be difficult to turn the need for accountability into action on Capitol Hill. But even an impeachment effort that falls short lays down a historical marker; it tells Bush and Cheney and all those who succeed them that an executive branch that imagines itself superior to Congress and the rule of law will arouse popular fury.
Bush, it is said, has begun to worry about his legacy. The rest of us should, too. No matter how unsuccessful we may think his tenure has been, it will leave a mark on the republic. If that mark is of a presidency without limit or accountability, Bush and Cheney will have changed the country far more fundamentally than any of their predecessors.
John Nichols is chief Washington correspondent for The Nation. Reprinted with permission from the Aug. 13-20 issue of The Nation (www.TheNation.com



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:56 pm


Pulling the mask off the war Part III:
More on Moyers/Nichols/Impeachment-
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24293



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:58 pm


Pulling the mask off the war Part III:
More on Moyers/Nichols/Impeachment-
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/64432/detail/



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted July 31, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Rick Nowlin

posted July 31, 2007 at 7:29 pm


Mick Sheldon is a Christian. Deep down, he has the spirit of God. Nonetheless, if we can’t differentiate between child murderers and non child-murderers by calling the former savages, please advise which term we can use inoffensively. Extra-grace required people doesn’t quite get at it for me.
You missed the point — theologically speaking, were we not posessed by the Spirit of God we would be, by definition, savages. You were once one yourself, as was I. To say that you are on a higher moral plane than someone else just because you don’t murder children thus is not only arrogant but hypocritical. What Mick said was uncalled for.



report abuse
 

jerry

posted July 31, 2007 at 7:30 pm


somehow the james’ of the world can’t seem to see the bombing of innocents by the terrorists. the progressives seem to be blind about who is setting car bombs, and IEDs.
read darren holloways post and answer his first paragraph.
yes, this is jim’s blog. i dare say he hasn’t the interest in responding to anything that doesn’t fit his political agenda. bet his next post will be a monologue about the last democratic event he attended and how impressed he was.
listen to the opinions expressed here and think about the next election. lots of hostility and pent up anger. it should be a lot of fun. i can here the liberals crying now. why? because they are going to shoot themselves in the feet and that will hurt. osama, obama, yo mama (hillary).
why can’t everyone just get along?



report abuse
 

Hali

posted July 31, 2007 at 7:43 pm


kevin and Mick,
No need to defend yourselves. If you think that dehumanizing people is acting as the best Christians you can be, then so be it. There are people somewhere in the world who think exactly the same of us and feel just as justified.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 31, 2007 at 8:31 pm


Hali ,
“Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.”
You are telling me with your snide remarks you can’t see evil when a person is planting explosives on a child to destroy a grocery store in downtown Bagdad . Not knowing who is inthere , only to promote intimidation and fear . Thats evil . How very UN Christian of you not to know this .
Rick said
And, deep down, you’re any better?
Pretty amazing Rick . Evil is used throughout the Bible to describe acts much less then murder. You do not see evil in having children laced with explosives ? Your afraid to use evil to describe racism ? Un called for ?
I had to look up in a dictionary . You can’t tell what evil is ? Somehow I doubt that . What is this a liberal don’t do , Paul describes non believers as evil Rick . I was talking about baby killers ? I thought I was beginning to understand where you are coming from , .
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious:
For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 31, 2007 at 8:39 pm


That was my rant above
And Kevin appreciate your comments , must be as Winston Churchill once remarked about us being separated by a common language .
It sounds like the dogma of humanism to me and not a Christian thought process.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 31, 2007 at 9:40 pm


Mick — Hali said it perfectly. My own pastor has said he doesn’t even want to think about what he might do should the Holy Spirit leave him. See, you’re comparing yourself with them, which is improper to do.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 31, 2007 at 10:14 pm


Rick ,
You are parcing my meaning . I am no way comparing those folks to me ? Your Pastor is right , but I bet he would see it differently in the context I stated it . Rick ask your Pastor ifhe recognizes evil when he sees it . That is just spirtual discernment . But we know for sure what they are doing , they are killing children purposely to intimidate others to bow down to their ruling authority .
If I was being “judgemental ” I would see your point . I don’t even support this war . further I would say people who bomb health clinics in the name of God are evil . They are being controled by evil Rick . If you think of it ask your Pastor .
When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love. Where evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men must seek to bring into being a real order of justice.
Martin Luther King



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 31, 2007 at 11:15 pm


You are parcing my meaning. I am no way comparing those folks to me? Your Pastor is right, but I bet he would see it differently in the context I stated it. Rick ask your Pastor if he recognizes evil when he sees it. That is just spirtual discernment.
Hey, I know a few things about “spiritual discernment” — and one of those is “seeing the speck in your brother’s eye and ignoring the log in your own.” We ourselves may not be killing children in the same way, but what other kinds of injustice are we doing or enabling? My pastor has buried a few teenagers shot in gang wars, one just last week, so yes, he understands evil. I’m only asking you to be a bit more comprehensive when you refer to people as “savages.”



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 31, 2007 at 11:20 pm


Mick said:
If I was being “judgemental ” I would see your point . I don’t even support this war . further I would say people who bomb health clinics in the name of God are evil . They are being controled by evil Rick . If you think of it ask your Pastor .
Me:
I can see your point. I don’t agree but I can see your point. The problem w/ it is that God still sees these people as his children. I realize they do evil things. As such their humanity is intricately tied to their actions. But is that their identity? You and Kevin would say yes, Hali, Rick and I would say no. They are still God’s beloved and those that kill do wretched acts.
I am not my actions even though my actions reflect my beliefs, fears, insecurities, hopes, dreams and greed. A question remains, can you see the humanity in them or not? Jesus saw the humanity in the Pharisees even when he was calling them white washed tombs and vipers. I wonder if using the word savage reflects that vision or not.
p



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 31, 2007 at 11:48 pm


“If you think that dehumanizing people is acting as the best Christians you can be, then so be it.”
Humans can be savage. I notice you didn’t call out Bren for calling our troops savage? Perhaps that fits your worldview a bit better, eh?
“To say that you are on a higher moral plane than someone else just because you don’t murder children thus is not only arrogant but hypocritical.”
Not really. To the extent that these non-Christians manifest the absolute worst of a sinful lifestyle, they are certainly an object lesson. Nonetheless, in absence of their conversion, I hope for their destruction, at the hands of Christians or no.
I defy you to sit down with a non-Christian friend, look them in the eye, and say, you are the same as a murderous rapist because you don’t have God. Let me know how that goes.
When God wanted to emphasize the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, he used rapacious murderers, not people who forgot to wear socks.
Good grief.



report abuse
 

Paul Wheeler

posted August 1, 2007 at 7:27 am


I have to ask a question that needs to be asked. What would YOU do if a larger country invaded your country? Would you act like those so called savages? What if someone more powerful than us invaded us? Would you fight with whatever means available? I think you would. I think I would too.
Our government keeps telling Iran to stay out of Iraq, which borders them. If a strong country invaded Mexico or Canada, do you think we would get involved? No matter how evil we say the Iranian government is, what would we do in the same situation?
The armchair warriors who got us into this fiasco forgot one important fact: the different religious factions in Iraq hated each other hundreds of years before our country existed. Why would they all suddenly “get along” because we want them to? Saddam was an evil man, but he was the only thing keeping the different factions in Iraq from fighting.
We are one of the only free countries who aren’t being told the truth about this war by our corporately owned media. Read books from both sides of the political equation. Do your homework. get the real truth. You might be surprised.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 11:29 am


Not really. To the extent that these non-Christians manifest the absolute worst of a sinful lifestyle, they are certainly an object lesson. Nonetheless, in absence of their conversion, I hope for their destruction, at the hands of Christians or no.
That’s not going to happen. All you do with that sentiment is create more hate, bitterness and resentment — and, in the process, more terrorism.
I defy you to sit down with a non-Christian friend, look them in the eye, and say, you are the same as a murderous rapist because you don’t have God.
I’d be theologically correct in saying that.
When God wanted to emphasize the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, he used rapacious murderers, not people who forgot to wear socks.
That’s not why God destroyed that city — it was due to its collective arrogance and rejection of God, which manifested themselves in some of the citizens’ sexual practices. Having studied that chapter in Genesis, I also know that the city that Lot ran to also was on God’s “hit list” for the same reason.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 1, 2007 at 11:51 am


“I have to ask a question that needs to be asked. What would YOU do if a larger country invaded your country? ”
Different scenario because our present leader is not Saddam Hussein. I certainly wouldn’t use my children as human shields. At any rate, most of the hostitility is being orchestrated, if not perpetrated by outside forces.
“Our government keeps telling Iran to stay out of Iraq, which borders them. If a strong country invaded Mexico or Canada, do you think we would get involved? ”
Which is why you cannot take a morally neutral view of the situation.
“Saddam was an evil man, but he was the only thing keeping the different factions in Iraq from fighting.”
I hear this a lot, and I agree to an extent. However, and I asked this before, can we simply act out a foreing policy that assumes that people are literally incapable of making peace. What does this say about, for example, Darfur?
“We are one of the only free countries who aren’t being told the truth about this war by our corporately owned media.”
Bologna.
“I’d be theologically correct in saying that.”
But you would never say it. Are you consistently out of line with your faith, or are we talking about two different things?
“That’s not why God destroyed that city — it was due to its collective arrogance and rejection of God, which manifested themselves in some of the citizens’ sexual practices.”
Like rape, for example, which was my point.
I stand by my statement. Willfully killing children is an act of savagery.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 1, 2007 at 3:08 pm


somehow the james’ of the world can’t seem to see the bombing of innocents by the terrorists. the progressives seem to be blind about who is setting car bombs, and IEDs.
Posted by: jerry | July 31, 2007 7:30 PM

No, I rather think the point is that the US is seeing their chickens coem home to roost as far as our misguided foreign policy. While I understand the need to highlight all injustice, I alos know it won’t help to brand all muslims as terrorists in retalliation. That would be a sin also.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted August 1, 2007 at 4:54 pm


Kevin said:
Not really. To the extent that these non-Christians manifest the absolute worst of a sinful lifestyle, they are certainly an object lesson. Nonetheless, in absence of their conversion, I hope for their destruction, at the hands of Christians or no.
Me:
Don’t you love being omnipotent and in such a great seat to offer judgement? I am not saying I don’t share your view for wanting death and destruction heaped upon them. I feel the same way about the Jungaweed and other paramilitary groups. That said I know that’s a sin and not a warm feeling that should be encouraged. Do you know that feeling is a sin Kevin?
You do realize that view is hypocritical especially since all of us are called to love the unlovable?
K said:
Humans can be savage. I notice you didn’t call out Bren for calling our troops savage? Perhaps that fits your worldview a bit better, eh?
Me:
I did not read Bren’s comments so no calling her out would not have happened. Second how does that take away from dehumanizing people God loves?
There is nothing wrong w/ calling their behavior savage. It is. But again condemning them as savage goes against what we as Christians should be doing. We are called to free people from there pain or brokeness or lead them to one that can.
p



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 1, 2007 at 5:49 pm


Interesting conversation . I had to look up the word evil and savage . to see if it had grew in a definition . Indeed it is a word that carries a deeper meaning for the left of the compass believer then the dictionary holds .
I am sure those in Iraq would see Americans who have killed their love ones as evil . Or the Native Americans in this country viewed Settlers , pioneers , and explorers as “invaders”
I do apologize , did not mean to hurt anyones walk with the Lord . In my circles it has more of the dictionary meaning . It also is listed in the Bible , throughout used by people in the Bible quite often and God uses it .
It alos says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, …
Was not at all comparing all muslims as evil , I thought we were directly talking about those who put bombs on a little children and have them walk into crowded markets in order to intimidate the citizenery .
Anyway , it is interesting to see some stereotypes of concervatives given , or for that matter I have seen some stereotypes of liberals given on this blog , and the the description of ignorance , hateful , and a list of other negative characteristics are given to a group of people and it seems just fine .
Cultural characteristic actually .
A word is blown up to mean more then what it is , and people use theology to attack the person outside of their belief group . Claiming they are standing up for others , while actually supporting a political philospy of no war .
Interesting



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 1, 2007 at 5:50 pm


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 1, 2007 3:08 PM
No, I rather think the point is that the US is seeing their chickens coem home to roost as far as our misguided foreign policy. While I understand the need to highlight all injustice, I alos know it won’t help to brand all muslims as terrorists in retalliation. That would be a sin also.
So – what misguided foreign policy did the US have that caused 911? It was so soon after the election (or was it a selection for you) that the Bush Adm really had not set a policy yet.
I have not heard anyone from the Bush Adm label all Muslims as ‘terrorists’, and I don’t believe that you will hear that statement. But the sad truth is that our reality is the majority of terrorists are Muslims.
Have a great day –
.



report abuse
 

bren

posted August 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm


There is a difference between calling an act or a behaviour ‘savage’ and calling people ‘savages’. Because a person does something savage does not mean that that that person is beyond redemption/beyond God’s love.
I go back to my earlier urging to people to see THE GROUND TRUTH. Watch, and listen to, American soldiers describe their actions in Iraq and how what they did left them feeling anything but heroic. And how out of American leaders’ mouths they hear words describing them as heroes, but there is precious little action that acknowledges that these men and women returned hurting, even if limbs are intact. If we can’t act as though we believe what we say, what does that say about us?
Life is not an either/or situation: either I am a hero or I am a savage; either this is black or it is white. Again, what I heard the soldiers say is: man, this is ‘way more complex than we were told!



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 1, 2007 at 10:43 pm


But you would never say it. Are you consistently out of line with your faith, or are we talking about two different things?
Never mind that. I don’t think that we should be in the habit of calling people nasty names, which is what you’re doing.
I thought we were directly talking about those who put bombs on a little children and have them walk into crowded markets in order to intimidate the citizenery.
But, ultimately, it gets around to the average Muslim. Reminds me of the black child from Roots who said to the white couple his clan befriended, “You good white people.”



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 1, 2007 at 11:22 pm


“There is a difference between calling an act or a behaviour ‘savage’ and calling people ‘savages’.”
Websters dictionary defines a savage as “an uncivilized human being”. Again, I stand by it.
“I go back to my earlier urging to people to see THE GROUND TRUTH.”
Why wouldn’t I just talk to the people I know who were over there? They are more likely to be unbiased than those who were selectively recruited for a political documentary.



report abuse
 

Paul wheeler

posted August 2, 2007 at 8:00 am


“So – what misguided foreign policy did the US have that caused 911? It was so soon after the election (or was it a selection for you) that the Bush Adm really had not set a policy yet.”
You’re kidding, right?
That’s why I said earlier, read books about our history in the Middle East. We put the Shah in to run Iran in the 50s, we supported a minor thug in the late 60s named Saddam Hussein, we played Iraq against Iran in the 80s war (giving some support to both sides), supporting Saddam up till he invaded Kuwait in 1990. The Rulers of Saudi Arabia are at least partially propped up by our military support – Read “House of Bush, house of Saud” to see our history in that country.
This statement also touches on my earlier remark that our mainstream media doesn’t give us the whole story. They are perfectly happy to pass on the laughable Bushism, “They hate us because we’re free!” They (the radical Muslims) see us as heathens, sinners and Israel supporters, and we all know they don’t like Israel!



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 2, 2007 at 1:22 pm


Paul,
They hate us for our support of Israel, and for our freedom (including the freedom to act lasciviously). In their own words, that is why they hate us.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 2, 2007 at 2:11 pm


They hate us for our support of Israel, and for our freedom (including the freedom to act lasciviously). In their own words, that is why they hate us.
That’s not the whole story. They hate Israel because it is a constant reminder of Western colonial domination that started in the 1800s. And yes, they hate our lasciviousness — but then again, a majority of American Muslims voted for Bush in 2000 for that reason.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 2, 2007 at 2:17 pm


“And yes, they hate our lasciviousness — but then again, a majority of American Muslims voted for Bush in 2000 for that reason.”
Correct. They are correct to hate our lasciviousness. They are incorrect to bomb us for it. I don’t think the idea that Israel is simply emblematic of our propensity to meddle in their affairs accurately conveys the situation either. Muslim extremists are anti-Semitic.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 2, 2007 at 2:47 pm


Anyone here remember what a Semite actually is? :)



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted August 2, 2007 at 5:00 pm


Yeah, we’ve had that discussion. I’m going with Webster’s on this one.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted August 2, 2007 at 6:59 pm


Kevin said:
They are correct to hate our lasciviousness
Me:
If you really think they hate us for that then you are missing the point. They hate us because we do bad stuff. They hate us because we don’t always regulate how our corporations treat the poor. They hate us for a bunch of different things.
p



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 2, 2007 at 7:21 pm


I don’t think the idea that Israel is simply emblematic of our propensity to meddle in their affairs accurately conveys the situation either. Muslim extremists are anti-Semitic.
Sorry, but you’re wrong about that. For 18 centuries, before Islam even existed, Jews were welcome to live in Palestine, and to this day Muslims consider Jews and Christians “people of the Book.” It was only in the 19th Century was there a focus on Jews returning there, which is when the problems started; Louis Farrakhan even said that Israel was created “in violation of the Jews’ own law.” A former pastor of my church, a full-blooded Syrian (but who was born and raised here), gave out a paper giving the Arab view of the conflict with Israel, and since more than a few Arabs — including about one-third of Palestinians — are nominal Christians, calling there merely “anti-Semitic” won’t fly. Even the late Yassir Arafat referred to the Jews as “our cousins.”



report abuse
 

bren

posted August 2, 2007 at 7:53 pm


Kevin asks: Why wouldn’t I just talk to the people I know who were over there? They are more likely to be unbiased than those who were selectively recruited for a political documentary.
Actually, the soldiers in THE GROUND TRUTH were over there and it was they who decided to make a movie about how, and why, the changed their minds about the war. They are no more, or less, biased than the average soldier not in the film. So why not talk to someone who may say something new? Or who might surprise you with what he has to say?
If a person only speaks to people who will only support his/her position, that person must feel that s/he already knows everything. Although I have met the occasional person who thinks he knows it all, the evidence doesn’t support his conviction. Perhaps this person just doesn’t want to consider the possibility that he might be wrong, or that there is more to this story than originally he had thought. Encountering a new thought may just change your life!



report abuse
 

Aaron Cavanaugh

posted August 3, 2007 at 1:49 am


Hi,
Why are we in Iraq?
So if someone asked you why we were in Iraq what would you tell them?
I would have said to fight the terrorists.
Then I would ask myself who are the terrorists?
I would say Osama Bin Laden?
I would then ask myself is Osama Bin Laden in Iraq?
I would say no.
Then I would ask myself why are we in Iraq?
You know I am reading this book about the beginnings of America. Thomas Jefferson talked about all men are created equal. Yet what the colonial army did was offer 300 acres of land (voting rights) and one negro slave as payment for serving in the army. Yet Jefferson talked, even openly, about letting slaves go. But when some other people objected to the freeing of slave in the Declaration of Independece, Jefferson quickly dropped the idea. He kept slaves and never let them go. He gave lip service to the idea.It seems like as long as it doesn’t affect us personally Americans are content to look the other way and go with the flow. Americans are doing that again with the war in Iraq. Although it’s not about independece. It’s not about the terrorists. If we were fighting to free people we would be putting the one billion dollars we are spending a month on the war into education. Education is the only real way to free any society. America would have never been free if it hadn’t been for the educated people in the House of Burgesses who listened to Patrick Henry. America would have never been free if the Virginia Declaration of Rights had never been printed.
That’s my rant for now.
Thanks. God Bless.
Aaron.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 3, 2007 at 2:16 am


Bren said
I go back to my earlier urging to people to see THE GROUND TRUTH.
Bren this really had an effect on you . I just put it my list at Netflix , I will let you know what I think of it . May be a little while .



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 3, 2007 at 4:21 pm


Yeah, we’ve had that discussion. I’m going with Webster’s on this one.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 2, 2007 5:00 PM

Well, here’s Webster’s… :)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/semite
Sem·ite
Pronunciation: ‘se-“mIt, especially British ‘sE-“mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language



report abuse
 

jerry

posted August 3, 2007 at 8:13 pm


kevin wayne; who said all muslims are terrorists?
who said all blacks are dope dealers? who said all norwegians are bachelor farmers? what is your problem. you are, as i suspected, a guy who is so full of his self’s ideology that you can’t even agree that muslims are killing muslims. to you its the u s army and bush that is doing the killing. please pull your head out and take a deep breath, read the wall street journal and accept the fact that muslims are killing anyone they want to kill. until the liberals/progressives accept this fact we will be vulnerable to the muslim attacks. if youi know some really nice muslims who love this country and want to be here and be americans, ask them why their clerics don’t condem the muslim killing muslims? ask about the koreans being killed and terrorized. wayne…think.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 3, 2007 at 11:17 pm


if youi know some really nice muslims who love this country and want to be here and be americans, ask them why their clerics don’t condem the muslim killing muslims? ask about the koreans being killed and terrorized. wayne…think.
As if we Christians do that consistently. Heck, we still have some Christians who still call Martin Luther King Jr. a communist. Besides, the killers are the ones with the biggest voices — they have no compunction about killing their critics, as you know.



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.