God's Politics

God's Politics


A Legacy of Peace /by Mary Nelson/

posted by God's Politics

While vacationing in northern Minnesota, we take an early morning walk down a country road. We note changing weather, the sound of birds, an eagle flying high, the beauty of a leaping dear across the field. After just about a mile, we turn around at a well-cared-for cemetery, a reminder to make the most of each day. We’ve been reading Herbert Brokering’s book, I Will to You: Leaving a Legacy for Those You Love, a whimsical calling forth of the words, memories, and traits that we want to pass on to our loved ones.


We reflect after breakfast of homemade whole wheat bread and Swedish coffee on what’s going on in the world, what’s important, the family. This summer spot is also the final resting place of our parents, reminding us of their legacy of care for others and God’s creation shared in words and lives.


Mom, so concerned about nuclear proliferation and America’s violent responses, at the age of 78 stepped into a boat with my brother in the chilly Puget Sound, protesting against the Trident nuclear submarine. “It’s because I love my country that I want to correct her,” she said to a journalist. When they arrested her on those waters and brought her to court, reporters asked, “Why did you, an American Mother of the Year, commit civil disobedience?” Without a moment’s hesitation, mom said, “I did it for the children of the world.”


Several years later, a doctor informed her of a fast-growing malignant tumor. She was just finishing her last book, A Grandma’s Letter to God. She shared this response:

Now I want to witness to what it means to trust you (God) in such a time, with such a problem. I want to tell the world what freedom there is in being able to say, “Whether I live or die, I am the Lord’s.” I love life, Lord, and if you should give me more time, I want to be about your business. I want to challenge my beloved country to put its trust in you, not in nuclear bombs. I want to challenge people everywhere to be stewards of what you’ve given them—and for those of us who have been given so much to share our skills and resources and love with those who have so little. What a world that would be—the kind you meant it to be! But, God, if this is the time you tap me on the shoulder, what anticipations are mine!

What a legacy. Each of us will leave some kind of legacy. Makes me want to use the time and opportunities I have left to be about God’s work of justice and community.

Mary Nelson is president emeritus of Bethel New Life, a faith-based community development corporation on the west side of Chicago. She is also a board member of Sojourners/Call to Renewal.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(62)
post a comment
Moderatelad

posted August 16, 2007 at 1:45 pm


Nice article -
But have you thought what would have happened if the US had been second or third in developing the Atomic Bomb? If the Germans had it – and after bombing Paris and London. Do you think they would have stopped there and said – OK the war is over. I do not think so. What if the Soviets developed it first. After bombing Berlin and Hamburg – do you think they would have said OK – time to stop. I think they would have gone on to threaten everyone in reach of their long-range airplanes as well as their allies the UK and US. (Rosevelt should’ve listened to Churchill)
The bomb was developed as an end to the war. Yes, we understood it’s potential – but we were the first to use it and we have made as sure as we can that we were the last. (but I believe Iran will be the next to use it if they develope it – too bad)
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Deryll

posted August 16, 2007 at 2:00 pm


lad
In the mid 70′s a friend of mine argued that the only way they (USSR) will be stopped is if the next time we’re (USA) ahead of them; we bomb the hell out of them (with nuclear weapons).
I believe that “we” and “they” are more the same than we are different.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 16, 2007 at 2:11 pm


Posted by: Deryll | August 16, 2007 2:00 PM
I believe that “we” and “they” are more the same than we are different.
I disagree. The ‘Soviets’ had a track record of taking over countries by force and absorbing them into the USSR. They were a minority gov’t ruling a vast majority that had no say in who was in power. When was the last time we added a star to our flag because we invaded another soverign nation.
Yes in some ways we are the same, but very few. We worked together against the Nazi’s but then entered into a ‘cold third world war’ within years of the second ending. The US and UK working with the USSR was like to old saying, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Once the war ended – Stalin made it very clear that we were no longer friends.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 16, 2007 at 2:15 pm


Posted by: Deryll | August 16, 2007 2:00 PM
Deryll – Deryll – Deryll
It’s ‘Moderatelad’ a simple cut and paste is all it takes. I do not want to get mixed up with someone else on this site. (I know – as if that might happen.
Blessings to all from – Moderatelad and only Moderatelad because that is who I am – Moderatelad.
.



report abuse
 

Bill Samuel

posted August 16, 2007 at 3:49 pm


Well, in the last century we haven’t been into formally incorporated areas into the USA. However, we have been into overthrowing democratic governments in favor of tyrants we expect to support U.S. interests and otherwise grossly interfering in democratic decision making in many parts of the globe.
Where are the roots of the hostility with Iran? In the U.S. overthrowing of Iran’s democratic government and installing the Shah. And also in the U.S. backing Saddam Hussein in his battle against Iran.
In any objective list of what countries can not be trusted with power, the USA has got to be way up there.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 16, 2007 at 4:08 pm


Posted by: Bill Samuel | August 16, 2007 3:49 PM
So – reading between the lines – you would have been supportive of the USSR developing the bomb first and having that advantage.
The Shaw is almost ancient history. While he was in power – the mideast was relatively peaceful toward the rest of the world. Since Carter lost presence of mind and allow him to be deposed – yeah, it has been a better climate over there for all involved? I have friends that lived in Iran prior to the fall of the Shaw. One of them – his parents sent him out of the country at 15 on an ‘educational vacation’ and told him never to come back. There were thousands of families that did that for their children. You’re right – things are better with the Shaw gone.
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

Pamela Owens

posted August 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm


In 1983 I was pastor of a small church in rural western Michigan. It was a union of the historic peace church, Church of the Brethren, and the church which officially declared itself a peace church during the Vietnam war, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). We had taken the position in 1981, thinking rural Michigan might be a good place to raise our two young children while we waited out the Reagan years (but we didn’t realize they would last so long).
We thought we could just avoid the nuclear risk our country was generating. But then we learned that the engines, every single one of them, for the Cruise and Pershing missiles were being made in a manufacturing plant near Detroit that was still owned by the same engineering family which had pioneered in small engines for lawn mowers. It had been through “war conversion,” at a time we were seeking peace conversion. These were the very missiles the president was trying to place in Germany, pointed straight to Russia and ready for a first strike, with no time for Russia to tell the difference between an incoming missile and a big bird on its radar.
I felt called to go with a large number of other like minded people to participate in a week of civil disobedience that would take place as workers were coming to work each morning the first week of Advent, 1983. Bill and the late Jeanie Wylie-Kellerman were a part of the same group, and she was originally assigned to the next cell over from me. It was a marvelous group of believers in the peace of Christ as something to be worked for now.
Little did I know that I would be the person who would generate the “sound bite” that was the lead on the six o’clock news everywhere on the second day of the actions. As I was being pulled to the police bus after refusing to move from where I was sitting in the road on which workers must arrive to the plant, a reporter stuck a microphone in my face. “Why are you doing this?” he asked. I answered immediately just as Mrs. Nelson’s mother did: “Because I don’t want my children to die in a nuclear war.”
And I still don’t. We do not need more weapons of mass destruction like are even now being developed in this country.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted August 16, 2007 at 5:50 pm


What if the Soviets developed it first.
A friend of mine who is a Soviet expert (and strongly anti-nuke) said to me years ago, confirmed by other readings, that the Russians were far more afraid of us than we were of them. They had experienced foreign invaders, remember.



report abuse
 

Annie (UK)

posted August 16, 2007 at 6:51 pm


The bomb was developed as an end to the war. Yes, we understood it’s potential – but we were the first to use it and we have made as sure as we can that we were the last. (but I believe Iran will be the next to use it if they develope it – too bad)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | August 16, 2007 1:45 PM
It’s just as likely to be Israal to use it next. They already have it?



report abuse
 

Phana24JG

posted August 16, 2007 at 7:35 pm


The author is proud that her mother was opposing the brave men and women who keep and defend our freedom? How very sad. The MX Peacekeeper and Pershing missiles helped to end the Soviet Union, which slaughtered millions of people and kept hundered of millions under the yoke of Communism.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 16, 2007 at 8:36 pm


The bomb was developed as an end to the war. Yes, we understood it’s potential – but we were the first to use it and we have made as sure as we can that we were the last.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 16, 2007 at 8:36 pm


The bomb was developed as an end to the war. Yes, we understood it’s potential – but we were the first to use it and we have made as sure as we can that we were the last.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 16, 2007 at 8:38 pm


The bomb was developed as an end to the war. Yes, we understood it’s potential – but we were the first to use it and we have made as sure as we can that we were the last.
This can be easily refuted: Google up “Operation Northwooods.”



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted August 16, 2007 at 8:54 pm


Rick said
that the Russians were far more afraid of us than we were of them. They had experienced foreign invaders, remember.
Me
This is true . Russian History is that being divided among themselves and being constantly attacked and beaten by other countries smaller in total numbers but united in force . Its why they so paranoid during the cold war , and still are .
Its like they suffer from battered syndrome .



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 16, 2007 at 10:17 pm


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 16, 2007 8:38 PM
This can be easily refuted: Google up “Operation Northwooods.”
So you want to know about wood chips or wilderness camping?
OK – so even I know that almost every admin. since Kennedy has talked about the use of nuclear – big deal. It is always on the table and it should be for no other reason than to reconfirm that we should not use them.
I still believe that Iran will be the next – only slightly behind them is North Korea.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 16, 2007 at 11:50 pm


[So you want to know about wood chips or wilderness camping?]
You wonder why you aren’t taken seriously!
Also, it’s sad, but rather obvious if one would read the wikipedia article, why much of the world mistrusts the US. And why those, who claim (falsely I trust) that 911 was a plot by Israel and the US, can get people to listen.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 17, 2007 at 12:08 am


Posted by: | August 16, 2007 11:50 PM
Who ever you are…
I looked it up and the first two things were camping and wood chips.
Wikipedia is very unreliable so I do not put much stock into it. As for 911 – and you wonder why the Almighty uses ‘sheep’ at times to talk about us? Much of the world might mistrust us as you say – but who is the first group they come to when they are in trouble – US.
This is why I don’t drink the kool Aid.
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

Michelle

posted August 17, 2007 at 2:14 am


The world comes to us when they need money, goods or power brokers, rarely do people ask us to invade…oh excuse me…”free” their country in the name of democracy. That fantasy is just a media sound bite intended to pacify. The question is: is it the intent of the US government to spread world wide democracy for moral reasons or are “The Powers That Be” determined to spread their brand of capitalism, code named “democracy”? It’s been bandied around in the media for years that the USA policy of “conquering (a country) from within” focuses on manipulating moral weakness, political corruption and suppressed and poverty stricken peoples’ desperate desires for meaningless material possessions. You don’t need nuclear weapons to destroy and/or control a country and it’s people. Greed can effectively destroy the moral infrastructure of a country and still leave the buildings intact.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted August 17, 2007 at 8:20 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 16, 2007 5:50 PM
‘…that the Russians were far more afraid of us than we were of them. They had experienced foreign invaders, remember.’
The ‘Soviets’ were far more afraid of us than we were of them. – The little dogs for the most part are afraid of the big dogs. But if the roles were reversed – would the Soviets gone on to invade the UK and US – that is the question. Of all the wars that the US was involved in the last century – the only ‘land’ we requested for a foreign country was to burry our dead. We went on to assist them in establishing a gov’t of their own – although some on this site believe that was either immoral or we did it just to have a gov’t that was friendly to the US / West. These people at times sound like they would have cheered on the USSR in the quest to put nuclear missles in Cuba and that the expansion of the Soviet Block Nations so that they had most of the world under their influence would be better than what the US and their Allies have done. Too bad the ‘shoe banger at the UN’ didn’t achieve his goal – these people would have their perfect world.
Have a great weekend!
.



report abuse
 

George

posted August 17, 2007 at 8:40 am


I never thought I would say this, but I secretly admire those, who like this lady, spoke out against what they saw as madness. I was one of those who went to sea in those submarines and regularly drilled for the Armageddon nightmare. With the wisdom that comes with age, I now reflect on that era and thank God that we didn’t blow ourselves to pieces.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 17, 2007 at 11:50 am


Kevin Wayne suggested: “Google up “Operation Northwooods.”
Moderatelad responded: “So you want to know about wood chips or wilderness camping?…
I looked it up and the first two things were camping and wood chips….Wikipedia is very unreliable so I do not put much stock into it.”
To Moderatelad -
Thinking that perhaps you followed a different procedure,here’s how one “googles” the phrase “Operation Northwoods”: Enclose the 2-word phrase with quotation marks in the Google search field, click on “search.”
Unless Google searches work differently on your computer, you will come up with pages and pages of references to information on the US government plan named “Operation Northwoods,” some with links to access original Operation Northwoods documents on the US National Archives website. In the first several pages I skimmed, I found nary a reference to wood chips, camping, etc. Curious.
As for Wikipedia – yes, you’re right that it’s a suspect source. In the first 4 pages of Google results I skimmed, however, it’s listed only once as a source; much, much more is there.
To Moderatelad and, actually, all readers here:
How about we try to have and contribute to thoughtful discussion, instead of seeking opportunities to be snide?



report abuse
 

PSF

posted August 17, 2007 at 11:52 am


Sorry – previous post was by me, PSF.



report abuse
 

PSF

posted August 17, 2007 at 12:03 pm


Hmm, re-reading my 11:50 post, I think that someone could unfortunately perceive it as or accuse it of being snide itself…which is not my intent there. I sincerely don’t see how, if one googles the only way I know how to google, you come up with wood chips and camping, so I hoped to offer a clear description of the procedure for correctly/usefully googling a phrase, since poster Moderatelad apparently didn’t get there…otherwise, his comments simply come across as intentionally, unhelpfully snide.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 17, 2007 at 2:19 pm


Posted by: PSF | August 17, 2007 12:03 PM
‘…accuse it of being snide itself…’
nothing snide about it for me. Direct – to the point – just fine by me.
Have a great weekend!
.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 17, 2007 at 2:42 pm


Posted by: Annie (UK) | August 16, 2007 6:51 PM
“It’s just as likely to be Israal to use it next. They already have it?”
Are you proposing that Israel be disarmed? Your anti-sematism is showing.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 17, 2007 at 3:02 pm


OK – so even I know that almost every admin. since Kennedy has talked about the use of nuclear – big deal. It is always on the table and it should be for no other reason than to reconfirm that we should not use them.
Or we could have not used it at all, since even Gen. Eisenhower said there was no need when Japan was ready to surrender.
My point in bringing up the Northwoods thing was to say that there are always ay-holes who will favor naked aggression of this type even in the supposedly conscientious USA. So if you want to say “we” made sure The Bomb was never used again, I would agree- as long as the “we” includes people of conscience, ie., the Anti-Nuclear movement. A movement of which I have been proud to a be a Christian contributor to for 25 years.
Thanks to PSF for making the point for me re the availability of abundant info on Operation Northwoods. I didn’t even get mine from Wikipedia! :)



report abuse
 

Annie (UK)

posted August 17, 2007 at 3:19 pm


Posted by: Annie (UK) | August 16, 2007 6:51 PM
“It’s just as likely to be Israal to use it next. They already have it?”
Are you proposing that Israel be disarmed? Your anti-sematism is showing.
Posted by: Bill | August 17, 2007 2:42 PM
I’m not anti-Semitic nor anti-Islam. I’m just stating the obvious point that Israal is more likely to use nuclear weapons before Iran does. Personally I would prefer that neither of them had the capability.
As a matter of interest do you actually know what the dictionary definition of Semitic is?



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 17, 2007 at 3:36 pm


Posted by: | August 17, 2007 3:02 PM
‘whoever you are’
‘…Eisenhower said…’
But he was in the European Theater during WWII and many in the Pacific had a different view. I believe that they were more reliable on this topic.
‘…always ay-holes who will favor naked aggression…’
But thankfully we have those ‘holes’ to balance things out. It is easy to do nothing and call it peace. We need both groups so that whatever the decision – it was fully and openly discussed and all options were considered.
‘…includes people of conscience, ie., the Anti-Nuclear…
Do not suppose that people that would consider using a nuclear divice are not ‘people of conscience’ – that is a very dangerous area to go into. Sometimes the most ‘conscience’ people can be ones that consider what needs to be done so to protect the majority that could be affected.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 17, 2007 at 3:37 pm


Are you proposing that Israel be disarmed? Your anti-sematism is showing.
I propose it not only be disarmed but dismantled. There are many Jewish groups that actually agree with this.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm


But he was in the European Theater during WWII and many in the Pacific had a different view. I believe that they were more reliable on this topic.
Excuse me? Ike was general of the entire US Armed
Forces. And there are plenty of other good arguments agaisnt using the Bomb at all other than him. Google them up
Do not suppose that people that would consider using a nuclear divice are not ‘people of conscience’ -
I can and I do.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 17, 2007 at 5:00 pm


Moderatelad,
The Sha(h) is not ancient history. History lingers in Eastern cultures. People remember wrongs done to them centuries in the past.
The large portion of the world which has never accepted rule of law as a precedent for their political systems, Richard Maybury calls this area CHAOSTAN, is made up of lots and lots of people subjected to various arbitrary rulers. None of these rulers is in principle any better than any of the others. Some are just less bad in practice. Bombing the innocent subjects of such rulers only fuels the stranglehold these tyrants have over their subjects. Imposing and deposing tyrants puts the blood on the USG’s hands.
Moderatelad, what ethical principles do you adhere to? What are your first causes? Do you think protection of US interests is justifiable at the expense of innocents abroad? Do you think it is right to protect our prosperity by bullying competitors out of the game? Do you think there is a limited amount of wealth in this world? Do you believe in God? Have you no shame!?!
To the anti-communist militarists,
The Soviet Union fell because their economy didn’t work, and because of internal party politics. NOT because the USG outspent them on weapons. Even if this were not true, was it the USG’s responsibility to seek the demise of the Soviet Union? Why? According to which principle?
The brave men and women who keep and defend our freedom could do a much better job of it if they were behind our borders. We don’t have to defend the whole world. Just invite them to come live here under our laws and according to our peace. Any activity, all historical military activity that extended beyond US borders was illegitimate. All restrictions on peaceful immigration are illegitimate. All restrictions on trade hurt primarily the restricting nation. Every fearful impulse is devoid of love.
I could safely recommend that the state of Israel disarm because I believe all states to be illegitimate. Instead I say it’s none of any Christian’s business, except in concern for the innocents.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 17, 2007 at 5:40 pm


Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 17, 2007 5:00 PM
Do you think there is a limited amount of wealth in this world? Do you believe in God? Have you no shame!?!
You know I would like to respond to much of what you said. But I have and never would put into question one’s faith or use the ‘shame’ idea.
It is clear that you have already assesst my character and passed judgement – so there is no reason for further discussion. Yes I know that some of my comments are a little pointed but never accusing the other person.
Have a great weekend – bye!
.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 17, 2007 at 5:47 pm


I went too far. Please forgive me. I am earnestly interested in your answers to the other questions.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 17, 2007 at 5:50 pm


“I propose it not only be disarmed but dismantled. There are many Jewish groups that actually agree with this. ”
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 17, 2007 3:37 PM
Kevin,
Thank you for the honesty of your reply. I expect many more of the Sojo group agree with that too. I do not believe that the elimination of Jews from Israel would be a good thing at all. They are a threat to no one who does not want to drive them into the sea.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 17, 2007 at 5:52 pm


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 17, 2007 3:47 PM
Do not suppose that people that would consider using a nuclear divice are not ‘people of conscience’ -
I can and I do.
Well – meet your first person of conscience that would consider if there was a need to use a nuclear divice put would only use it as a last – last resort.
I would exhaust all diplomatic channels – put sanctions together to difuse the situation. But if all that does nothing – then and only then do you use millitary force and I would use hit hard and fast to remove their ability to fight back and min. the loss of innocent life.
I would even be willing to support covertly an underground movement in that country of nationals in the effort to over throw the opressive gov’t. (oh yeah – Nancy P would really be in support of that one – NOT)
have a nice weekend -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 17, 2007 at 6:26 pm


Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 17, 2007 5:47 PM
I went too far. Please forgive me. I am earnestly interested in your answers to the other questions.
In all sincerity – forgiveness is offered and please accept my apologies if I have offended you!
I wish we could meet at the coffee shop and sit down eye to eye and talk – I know that we could have a great time talking about any number of topics and polking fun at each other. (remember – I’m the fat one)
‘…wrongs done to them centuries in the past.’
OK – so we are going to be held responsible for all the things that we done by people who are long since dead? Most of the world moves on and looks forward as to what could be. They seem to be the step-child that always wants what they believe is due them. We can not play into that game – we will loose and in the long run – no one wins.
‘…has never accepted rule of law as a precedent…’
That has be eveident for decades – but are we to allow them to set or change the standard that most of the civilized world for centuries has accepted and lived by? They want to live by 7th century law and limitations – fine. Just leave the rest of the world alone. Live your way within the boundries of your countries. Realize that when you enter another country – you now have to adjust to their laws and somehow make your lifestyle and habits fit with the rule of law. (I sorry – in the US – Islamic believers can not practice ‘honor killings (murder in my book) if your daughter goes out without a chapperone – it can not happen and you will be tried for murder if you do)
Moderatelad, what ethical principles do you adhere to?
You might want to sit down – just kidding…
Peace through strength
Trust but verify
War is the last act
Everyone has value. (they can always be used as a bad example – LOL)
Go the extra mile
Turn the other cheek (but you don’t have to let them slap you silly)
Consider their point of view
Love thyself last – Shakespear
Do you want to fight to be in the spotlight – or do you want to run the spotlight. (my Dad pulled that one on me)
Do you think it is right to protect our prosperity by bullying competitors out of the game?
Not if we are protecting the lives of the people in that country that we help establish that company or whatever it is. By protecting their interests we are protecting our. Getty said that he became a billionair by helping others become millionares. We can assist other countries in putting together a free market like ours or better and then they can prosper.
Do you think there is a limited amount of wealth in this world?
NO – the only limit is people ideas and dreams. Who 50 years ago would have through that someone like a Bill Gates could amass such a fortune without mining our natural resources.
Do you believe in God? Have you no shame!?!
We’ll just pass over these – have some great one liners but maybe another time.
I need to take my daughter to the Corn Feed at the local church – I think that we could come to an understand about the rest and if I get back not too late I will try to answer
You are a dear brother Mr Nathanael – and I pray only the best for you and yours…even if we don’t agree.
I am so glad I am not Pres of the US. (and there is affirmation for Sojo and Friends – LOL)
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 17, 2007 at 8:37 pm


Moderatelad, Thanks. Let me know any time you plan on being in the RTP of NC. ndsnow@ncsu.edu
Re: The shah, Iran, etc.
We should leave the area and leave them alone to blow each other up. And trade with them. This goes for every place in the world. Leave them alone and engage in unilateral free trade. Let them place tariffs on our goods if they like. Let them tax their own exports. But we should do neither in regards to any other nation regardless of their actions.
We should expect every place in the world which does not respect the rule of law to be consumed perpetually with wars, famine, and corruption. We should do nothing about this, in regards to the states involved. We should open our borders unilaterally to any individuals from anywhere who can pay their own way (as Christians we can help here) and are willing to live under the rule of (common, not arbitrary) law.
The truth is WE ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE for everything the USG has ever done. Mostly because the USG continues to do it! It has not renounced international intervention. For every subsidy we grant to a foreign power we hurt its competitor and create an enemy. Free trade only admits the meritorious, but subsidies are based on privilege. Stop all state intervention internationally.
The only way to help other countries establish free trade and rule of law is through trade. And it won’t always work, because, as Rick likes to point out, people are evil. But there is a spontaneous sort of order which emerges when political mechanisms are kept out of play. If a firm wants to assume the full risk of building a factory in a foreign country, fine. But don’t let it appeal to the USG to bail it out when a local tries to nationalize it or whatever.
Honestly, I think the best way to pressure foreign governments into more humane behavior is to invite their people to come live here. If the state has its tax base disappearing it will be forced to change its policies eventually. And I believe there’s room enough for all right here.
Re: Getty and Gates. The only true way to wealth is through gains realized in trade. The way every true entrepreneur has gotten wealthy is by giving someone else something they wanted at a price lower than they were willing to pay. There have been some political entrepreneurs who have gained privileged protection of their markets from the state. These people don’t believe in expanding wealth, or were not willing to try to compete, and so they have reduced the amount of wealth in the world.
I have no idea what “Corn Feed” is, but I hope y’all had fun.
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Todd Ray

posted August 17, 2007 at 9:09 pm


Do you think protection of US interests is justifiable at the expense of innocents abroad?
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 17, 2007 5:00 PM
A challenging question. If the answer is “yes”, then I ask if there is a kind of economics that one uses when contemplating and executing this “protection of US interests.”
Is there an actual number of innocents that it is okay to kill? Or is it a percentage?
I suppose it is obvious that you could kill too few innocent civilians, because the protection of US interests might not be accomplished. But is there a number of innocent civilians, that, if killed, we might start to get uncomfortable with ourselves? Maybe a number of innocents that is actually “too many?”
Or is it a matter of how many innocents can you afford to kill– a kind of return-on-investment– before there is a diminishing return, and you start to weaken or even harm US interests?
How many innocent civilians can a good country like ours kill before it becomes too many?
Are the bombings of Japanese and German civilian centers in WWII a useful guide in establishing the moral standards for this peculiar “economy?”



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 18, 2007 at 12:18 pm


As you might have gathered from my earlier post, I do not believe that protection of US interests abroad is ever justifiable, even if it merely imposes a devaluation of property to the foreign owner. Loss of life it completely out of the question. The simple fact is that the USG should not have any interests overseas, and it should have an extremely limited set of interests domestically.



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted August 18, 2007 at 1:18 pm


Kevin,
Thank you for the honesty of your reply. I expect many more of the Sojo group agree with that too. I do not believe that the elimination of Jews from Israel would be a good thing at all. They are a threat to no one who does not want to drive them into the sea.
Posted by: Bill | August 17, 2007 5:50 PM

Food for thought: there were Jews and Arabs getting along famously in that region for centuries. Until the Zionists came in.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm


Well – meet your first person of conscience that would consider if there was a need to use a nuclear divice put would only use it as a last – last resort.
My last answer was truncated due to lack of time. A fuller answer would be: Yes there are those defending the country that are of conscience of a sort. But they can only have the lower conscience of the spiritually unconverted. The higher conscience of Christ comes through conversion, which understands that love does no harm and that to destroy God’s creation is usurping the creator. Occasionally, God does allow those of lower conscience who are not converted to have some higher enlightenment- or the poor would not be fed in many cases.
I might add here: believing the Muslims would wipe out the Church but for Carnal weapons of warfare is certainly not of the higher conscience.
There has been no commandment by God to go to war since the New Testament. And there never was a commandment by God to go to war do defend anything else than Old Testament Israel. Or any war Yahweh himself didn’t start.
I would exhaust all diplomatic channels – put sanctions together to difuse the situation. But if all that does nothing – then and only then do you use millitary force and I would use hit hard and fast to remove their ability to fight back and min. the loss of innocent life.
If anyone ever really did go by this, there would be a lot less wars than there have been. But it’s still of the lower conscience. Ron Paul is the only candidate who’s actually for an even better poilcy: the US never goes to war unless we are attcaked. That’s still not of the higher conscience, but that and his policy of no Selective Service would get us closer to the best of all situations.
I would even be willing to support covertly an underground movement in that country of nationals in the effort to over throw the oppressive gov’t. (oh yeah – Nancy P would really be in support of that one – NOT)
Neither would any sane person who remembers Reagan’s failed attempts at this in the 80′s in Central America.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 18, 2007 at 1:42 pm


One more aspect fo the higher conscience I neglected to add: It’s of those who have answered Jesus’ call to die to themselves and carry the Cross. It’s actualy impossible for any Government to follow that. But if a Christian is going to advocate poilcy anywhere, then they are required to act as a reprensentive of the perfection to come. That’s what carrying the Cross is.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 18, 2007 at 6:07 pm


Kevin,
I am also a Ron Paul advocate, for now. Drop me a line. ndsnow@ncsu.edu
The appropriate policy for a Christian to advocate is one which provides greater liberty and restricts law to its common law origins.
NS



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 19, 2007 at 2:48 pm


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 18, 2007 1:33 PM
US never goes to war unless we are attcaked.
So – if the enemy is on ships in the middle of the Atlantic and we have exhausted every avenue that we have to bring things to a stand still so that we do not have to go to war. We know that they are coming and their plan is to attack us hard and fast so to disable us. We have to wait for them to toss the first bomb and hit us before we are allowed to defend ourselves – did I get your logic correct?
Later -
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 19, 2007 at 6:55 pm


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 18, 2007 1:33 PM
Neither would any sane person who remembers Reagan’s failed attempts at this in the 80′s in Central America.
So all the underground movements that my family in Sweden supported in Europe during WWII – you would be opposed to doing – correct?
Just want to make sure that I am on the same page as you because right now – we are about at a point where the US can do nothing in face of armed aggression from another country.
Later -
.



report abuse
 

jurisnaturalist

posted August 19, 2007 at 8:57 pm


Moderatelad raises a valid question. How much risk is too much risk?
Suppose you and I meet. You notice that I am armed. You also have a gun, but you feel threatened by the fact that I do, too. Are you justified in shooting me in self defense?
What if I have my gun in my hand?
What if I’m pointing it at you?
What if it’s cocked and the safety is off and my finger is on the trigger?
No one has yet encroached on anyone else, no natural rights have been infringed, but neither do either of us feel safe.
There’s a large potential gray area. Richard Maybury calls it an ambient level of encroachment. Sort of a “stay out of my bubble!” kind of feeling, which can be different from culture to culture. (Why the differences among cultures? Does it have anything to do with the relative quantity of common law principles present in its legal structure?)
How far would you let the gun owner go before feeling uncomfortable, or as though your ambient level of encroachment had been violated?
The Christian concept of a Just War does insist that we have to wait for someone else to drop the bomb on us before we can retaliate. It does not say anything, as far as I know, about how well prepared one may be for defense, but I would not be opposed to a high level of preparedness at all times, if the USG brought all the men home, distributed the weapons among the citizens, and pointed all the guns out I think we’d be much safer.
The only reason that Great Britain was vulnerable to Germany in WWII was because its military was everywhere else in the world but in Britain!
Nathanael Snow



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 20, 2007 at 5:45 pm


So – if the enemy is on ships in the middle of the Atlantic and we have exhausted every avenue that we have to bring things to a stand still so that we do not have to go to war.
It appears to me you are looking for every conceivable “if, and or but” in order just to make an argument.
I would assume that proven intent like that would be the same as an actual carrying out of the attack. I don’t know how the legalese in military parlance works in this case, but that’s what I would figure.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 20, 2007 at 5:53 pm


So all the underground movements that my family in Sweden supported in Europe during WWII – you would be opposed to doing – correct?
Were’nt those nonviolent and how could you compare them to Reagan? If you mean resistance movements to help Jews escape, that’s great. If you mean covert funding of armed resistance movements, no, no, 1,000x times no! Nixon did that covertly with Pakistan against Bangledesh. Regan did that in Nicuruagua. Forget it.
And WWII seems like a bad example, since the US itself was openly at war and directly invovled. Apples and oranges.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 20, 2007 at 7:37 pm


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 20, 2007 5:53 PM
Were’nt those nonviolent and how could you compare them to Reagan? If you mean resistance movements to help Jews escape, that’s great. If you mean covert funding of armed resistance movements, no, no, 1,000x times no!
I did not make the Reagen connection – that is another topic. It was not just helpig the Jews. The underground movements were assisting the Allied Forces supplying them with intel etc. Taking on the Nazi’s bombing trains and convoys etc. Sabotaging supply lines and transmitting messages in coded form. Without these ‘resistance’ people the war would have lasted longer and many more people on both sides would have died. So – I guess your answer might be that these Sweds that help out the resistance people were not Christians because of their actions?
Later -
.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 2:02 am


So – I guess your answer might be that these Sweds that help out the resistance people were not Christians because of their actions?

I’m going to answer your question with a question:
“Some trust in chariots and horses, we trust in the Lord God.”
Ever read that? it’s smack in the middle of the OT, which those of your ilk like to waive around as your justification for your situational ethics.
Now here’s another question:
When did the 1st murder happen in the Bible? Before or after the fall? Well I assume you’ve gotten past Sunday school and you know it was after Adam & Eve disobeyed.
Now here’s yet another question:
What does the Church possibly have to offer the world, if it’s just the old solutions that the world has been offering and have simply failed to bring lasting order and peace to the world? Or a model of OT Israel? Answer: not a damn thing! But thankfully, we have something to offer. We are representatives of the peace to come. We serve a Master who’s way of dealing with his enemies was to die for them. Or as The Apostle Paul put it:
Col 2: 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
I gotta say here, M-lad: your ethics don’t seem to have much of a rudder to them. You seem to take up whatever position is necessary for the moment, just to make an argument. You insist that you are for war as a last result, then when I mention a more consistent way of doing that, a la’ Ron Paul’s position, then out of the other side of your mouth, you say “we are about at a point where the US can do nothing in face of armed aggression from another country.” Actually, in RP’s case, he would have supported going to war against Al-Qaeda, but not Iraq. So your little jab on the lines of “oh no you’re limiting our little toys we can have to go against the big bad evil doers” is really quite irrelevant to the conversation. Now of course, I personally don’t support armed aggression by a Christian, and certainly not if such things include killing- because it’s of the lower conscience. Nevertheless, if we are going to advocate public policy at all, then the most non-aggressive stance the US could take would make sense, along with getting rid of forced conscription into the military.
And I might add, the long list of despicable policies the US (and for that matter nations throughout history has involved itself in would come to an end under this policy as well. Those include: the Monroe Doctrine, the Wilson-era policies of military adventurism, supporting questionable regimes such as the Shah of Iran, Park in South Korea, Marcos in the Philippines, and the aforementioned Reagan and Nixon-era stuff. I’m sure others here could give several more relevant historical examples. But you can’t tout this ‘war only as a last result” ideal and then out of the other side of your mouth, support military interference in foreign affairs. Doesn’t work.
I might add here- that kind of ethic doesn’t seem like it has much weight coming from someone such as yourself, who justifies the Crusades, of al things! O.O
On and on, you pretty much dance around the issues. You glowingly praise the US for (supposedly making sure that we never used the Atom Bomb again, and then (again, out of the other side of your mouth) dismiss out of hand (or ignore) information like Operation Northwoods. “Big deal” is all you can say. News flash: this is Sojourners and the people who subscribe to their world view find it a VERY big deal when there are those in power in the USA who recklessly ignore the kind of conventional morality we would at least expect from secular folks and would forge ahead to dastardly deeds that would make whatever hobgoblins about armed aggression you want to prattle on about seem tame by comparison. Consider that they have lied to us before- telling us that a “missile gap” existed between the Soviet Union and the US when in fact that was false. Don’t think so? Google up Eisenhower’s last speech as President, wherein he warned us of the Military Industrial Complex. Find out the background of that warning. Find out about how and why George Kistiakowsky, who helped out with the Manhattan Project, later became an anti-nuclear advocate- his years as a science advisor to Ike were pivotal in that change.
But you know, maybe I’m wasting my breath here. It doesn’t seem like the discussion of any relevant information in defense of our ideal fazes you much. You will rattle on and on in your arrogant, “I’m here to correct you poor misguided souls with the truth” attitude (YES- I do agree with others who’ve made that charge.) You aren’t here to learn, that’s abundantly clear.
I’ll end this with one other question, one that you avoided earlier: have you ever heard the phrase “the Blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church?” Google that one. I found a great essay on it full of deep Biblical thinking on reformationtheology-dot-com, even though I’m sure those who run that site wouldn’t endorse my pacifism, let alone much of my theology. But I have to ask: why do you sit here on a Peace-issues website trying to throw in our faces how great war is? We’re here to learn about other alternatives, and we like or objectives thank you very much. Perhaps you need to move on to a place where the ethics are more to your liking? Dunno, seems to make sense to me. I don’t waste time on a John Hagee blog- if there even is one- trying to put them down for what they think.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 2:06 am


So – I guess your answer might be that these Sweds that help out the resistance people were not Christians because of their actions?

I’m going to answer your question with a question:
“Some trust in chariots and horses, we trust in the Lord God.”
Ever read that? it’s smack in the middle of the OT, which those of your ilk like to waive around as your justification for your situational ethics.
Now here’s another question:
When did the 1st murder happen in the Bible? Before or after the fall? Well I assume you’ve gotten past Sunday school and you know it was after Adam & Eve disobeyed.
Now here’s yet another question:
What does the Church possibly have to offer the world, if it’s just the old solutions that the world has been offering and have simply failed to bring lasting order and peace to the world? Or a model of OT Israel? Answer: not a damn thing! But thankfully, we have something to offer. We are representatives of the peace to come. We serve a Master who’s way of dealing with his enemies was to die for them. Or as The Apostle Paul put it:
Col 2: 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Continued-



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 2:08 am


Continuing my resposne:
I gotta say here, M-lad: your ethics don’t seem to have much of a rudder to them. You seem to take up whatever position is necessary for the moment, just to make an argument. You insist that you are for war as a last result, then when I mention a more consistent way of doing that, a la’ Ron Paul’s position, then out of the other side of your mouth, you say “we are about at a point where the US can do nothing in face of armed aggression from another country.” Actually, in RP’s case, he would have supported going to war against Al-Qaeda, but not Iraq. So your little jab on the lines of “oh no you’re limiting our little toys we can have to go against the big bad evil doers” is really quite irrelevant to the conversation. Now of course, I personally don’t support armed aggression by a Christian, and certainly not if such things include killing- because it’s of the lower conscience. Nevertheless, if we are going to advocate public policy at all, then the most non-aggressive stance the US could take would make sense, along with getting rid of forced conscription into the military.
And I might add, the long list of despicable policies the US (and for that matter nations throughout history has involved itself in would come to an end under this policy as well. Those include: the Monroe Doctrine, the Wilson-era policies of military adventurism, supporting questionable regimes such as the Shah of Iran, Park in South Korea, Marcos in the Philippines, and the aforementioned Reagan and Nixon-era stuff. I’m sure others here could give several more relevant historical examples. But you can’t tout this ‘war only as a last result” ideal and then out of the other side of your mouth, support military interference in foreign affairs. Doesn’t work.
I might add here- that kind of ethic doesn’t seem like it has much weight coming from someone such as yourself, who justifies the Crusades, of al things! O.O
On and on, you pretty much dance around the issues. You glowingly praise the US for (supposedly making sure that we never used the Atom Bomb again, and then (again, out of the other side of your mouth) dismiss out of hand (or ignore) information like Operation Northwoods. “Big deal” is all you can say. News flash: this is Sojourners and the people who subscribe to their world view find it a VERY big deal when there are those in power in the USA who recklessly ignore the kind of conventional morality we would at least expect from secular folks and would forge ahead to dastardly deeds that would make whatever hobgoblins about armed aggression you want to prattle on about seem tame by comparison. Consider that they have lied to us before- telling us that a “missile gap” existed between the Soviet Union and the US when in fact that was false. Don’t think so? Google up Eisenhower’s last speech as President, wherein he warned us of the Military Industrial Complex. Find out the background of that warning. Find out about how and why George Kistiakowsky, who helped out with the Manhattan Project, later became an anti-nuclear advocate- his years as a science advisor to Ike were pivotal in that change.
But you know, maybe I’m wasting my breath here. It doesn’t seem like the discussion of any relevant information in defense of our ideal fazes you much. You will rattle on and on in your arrogant, “I’m here to correct you poor misguided souls with the truth” attitude (YES- I do agree with others who’ve made that charge.) You aren’t here to learn, that’s abundantly clear.
I’ll end this with one other question, one that you avoided earlier: have you ever heard the phrase “the Blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church?” Google that one. I found a great essay on it full of deep Biblical thinking on reformationtheology-dot-com, even though I’m sure those who run that site wouldn’t endorse my pacifism, let alone much of my theology. But I have to ask: why do you sit here on a Peace-issues website trying to throw in our faces how great war is? We’re here to learn about other alternatives, and we like or objectives thank you very much. Perhaps you need to move on to a place where the ethics are more to your liking? Dunno, seems to make sense to me. I don’t waste time on a John Hagee blog- if there even is one- trying to put them down for what they think.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 2:21 am


Gotta try to include this, because it’s relevant: The phrase “the Blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church?” Google that one. I found a great essay on it full of deep Biblical thinking on reformationtheology-dot-com, even though I’m sure those who run that site wouldn’t endorse my pacifism, let alone much of my theology. Here’s an example of it, in sound refutation of Mod’s inststance that the Crusades were necessary to preserve the Church:
“It is incontrovertible that Christ had to suffer and die to accomplish redemption and life. But it is equally clear that, throughout the New Testament, Christians are commanded to follow in the example of Christ – particularly in the realm of willing suffering. In his first epistle, Peter admonishes us, “For even unto this were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judges righteously: Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed” (I Peter 2:21-24). And a little later on, he exhorts us, “Inasmuch then as Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God (I Peter 4:1-2). These and other similar passages ought to assure us that, just as Christ’s suffering and death very really accomplished our life and righteousness; so through our own suffering at the hands of the wicked, God has designed for this Christ-bought life to be worked out practically in our own souls. Christ alone effectually accomplished this incorruptible life-out-of-death; but the application of it in the lives of his followers is produced by an analogous suffering which is effective to work in us the death-conquering life of Christ. Just as the apostle Paul exhorted the early Christians: “we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).
A suffering that is analogous to the suffering of Christ is necessary, therefore, to work out in each soul the life which Christ has won for his disciples – but what of evangelism? Is the suffering of Christ necessary for the spread of the gospel throughout the world of unbelievers? In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul made a very remarkable statement: “And you, that were formerly alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now has he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: If you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; of which I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church” (Colossians 1:21-24). This astounding assertion is nothing other than that, what the sufferings of Christ were lacking for the goal of bringing life to the nations, the analogous sufferings of the saints, as they proclaim the gospel, are sufficient to fulfill. What could Paul have meant? It is not as though the sacrificial death of Christ was insufficient to accomplish new life, and that the ministers of the gospel have to add their own sacrificial deaths to the purchasing power of Christ’s redemptive work. It would be blasphemous even to consider such a possibility. But Paul’s statement must mean something: it would appear that the only option we have which would both do justice to this text and not devalue the infinite work of Christ is to understand that in this statement Paul is teaching us that, just as Christ’s death was necessary and sufficient to accomplish redemption; so the suffering and martyrdom of his witnesses is necessary and sufficient to carry out to the nations the application of that substitutionary, life-giving accomplishment of Christ. In other words, Christ had to suffer in order to purchase our eternal life; and now we as his witnesses have to suffer in order to spread the effects of that fully-accomplished redemption.
Without suffering and martyrdom, the great effects of Christ’s great success will never be fully realized. We are graced with the ministry of a necessary, bloody witness to the nations, so that all of God’s children, from every people, tribe, tongue, and nation, might be gathered together to God. By God’s design, the blood of his Son is the only source of life for the Church; but the blood of the martyrs is the seed by which the Church grows. It is the blood of the martyrs that gives an undeniably powerful testimony of the truth of Christ’s life, joy, and peace, operative no matter how adverse the circumstances. It is the willing, joyful self-sacrifice of the martyrs that God uses as the primary means of evangelizing the lost and dying regions of a world opposed to him. By their suffering, which is a following in the footsteps of Christ’s suffering, God has chosen to apply what Christ accomplished. The blood of the martyrs truly is the seed of the Church.”



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 21, 2007 at 8:29 am


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 21, 2007 2:06 AM
So – you will not answer my question but believe that you can still ask questions – cute.
I would like to discuss your questions because some of them promote thought – good.
When you give me a decent answer to mine I will consider answering your.
Have a great day -
.



report abuse
 

Keivn Wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 3:05 pm


When you give me a decent answer to mine I will consider answering your.
If the blog owner ever let’s them through I will.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 3:09 pm


Actually, i guess they were let through: here’s my basic answer to your last question:
Now of course, I personally don’t support armed aggression by a Christian, and certainly not if such things include killing- because it’s of the lower conscience. Nevertheless, if we are going to advocate public policy at all, then the most non-aggressive stance the US could take would make sense, along with getting rid of forced conscription into the military.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 21, 2007 at 3:14 pm


This was part fo the Essay on the Blood of the Martyrs, it’s very important to the overall argument, but I forgot to include it before:
But if the blood of the martyrs truly is the seed of the Church, then without it, the Church does not grow. Without martyrdom, the Church would never have taken root in the world of Tertullian. Without martyrdom, the Church would not have spread to the Auca Indians in South America, or to China or Burma or the islands of the South Seas. The blood of the martyrs is a necessary means for the worldwide application of Christ’s great redemptive accomplishment. This is the full force of Tertullian’s insight.
So that’s pretty much my answer to you, Mod. The flesh can always comeup up with great ideas on supporting war efforts that gets the job done, in a limited worldly sense. Following Christ is still the onyl real way anything will ever change in the long run..



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 21, 2007 at 3:24 pm


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 21, 2007 3:14 PM
Great food for thought – let me chew on it awhile and I will get back to you.
Have a great evening – I am going to my daughters first High School Girls Soccer game. She is a 7th grader and made the JV team! (yes – proud papa here. I am also wondering what side of the gean pool she came from. I sports – my best position was ‘left out’ – hey…I have been left on something…?)
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

carl copas

posted August 21, 2007 at 4:57 pm


Mod-lad,
good luck to your daughter and her soccer game. a 7th grader and on the JV team??!!! you have every right to be proud.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted August 21, 2007 at 8:55 pm


Posted by: carl copas | August 21, 2007 4:57 PM
Isn’t it your son in Iraq – how is he doing?
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 22, 2007 at 9:36 am


Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 21, 2007 3:14 PM
Without martyrdom, the Church would not have spread to the Auca Indians in South America
The above expamle is ‘martyrdom’ in what I believe purest form. We, the Christians, went to South America to being the Gospel to the Auca’s. They in the fear, murdered the very people that were trying to help them in many areas and were trying to show them Christ’s love in a tangable way. I love the movie – End of the Spear – I would encourage everyone to see it.
Not sure how is applies to immigration and it is not ‘apples to apples’ when it come to dealing with terrorist.
Blessings -
.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted August 22, 2007 at 3:26 pm


Not sure how is applies to immigration and it is not ‘apples to apples’ when it come to dealing with terrorist.
Well this isn’t the immigration discussion, this one is on the Anti-Nuclear movement. And no, it’s not “apples and oranges,” we are talking aobut how Christians are to play out their calling in the real world.



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.