"... In Iraq the majority of voters have chosen to create a government that is an Islamic Republic that embraces Shia law...".

I may have missed something... which is not surprising to me... but I want to check signals, here.

Is it the case that the Iraqi constitutional provision which gave some preference for Islamic law has now been supplemented with a specific provision of law in Iraq that spells out that constitutional provision in some detail?>

Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 27, 2006 5:42 PM

The answer to this question is that democracies do not spring up overnight. While everyone is aware that sectarian violence has been a problem in Iraq, I disagree that Saddam's regime was a more faithful representation of democracy.

Tony seems to question whether democracy can function when Islamic fundamentalism is manifest. This is a valid discussion. European nations are wrangling with the democratic implications of Islamic majorities. Should they be allowed to adopt Sharia law in those nations? Many of those countries (to say nothing of the EU) lack the institutional protection to prevent this from happening.

What will be the answer? Perhaps we can use Iraq as an example for how to construct this balance. But that cannot happen if we withdraw our troops as Mr. Campolo suggests.>

Posted by: Kevin s. | October 27, 2006 7:14 PM

"Surely the question is not whether democracy can function in the face of Islamic fundamentalism."

I agree. The question is not whether, but how.

"The question is whether we can enforce 'rule by the people' when the majority of those people do not want us there."

I think that is incomplete, unless you can make the argument the democracy will progress more smoothly without our presence in Iraq right now, which I don't think is a credible case.>

Posted by: Kevin s. | October 27, 2006 8:27 PM

I agree lis. This is the domino theory in reverse.

p>

Posted by: Payshun | October 27, 2006 8:44 PM

Also,

I did some research on the torture claim cited by Campolo in his last post. Campolo claims that Balmer surveyed a dozen evangelical leaders, who unanimously favored torture "when it suits them". In reality, Balmer sent his survey to eight organizations, asking for their official stance on torture. Only two responded, saying they agreed with the Bush administration policy on torture.

Can someone please explain to me how that is not completely disingenuous?>

Posted by: Kevin s. | October 27, 2006 8:46 PM

It's sad that the leaders of our country say they are spreading democracy but then deny funding or insist upon control of democracies in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. The US "wants freedom" but only freedom that is line with the administration's agenda. Most don't realize that Hezbollah and Hamas are elected into the political process in Lebanon and Palestine respectively. The Lebanese and Palestinians have a right to a democracy, yet we don't agree so we attempt to thwart their freedom. The real thing we are espousing is "US-friendly democracy", not freedom.

">http://everydayliturgy.blogspot.com>

Posted by: Thom | October 27, 2006 9:02 PM

Well Daniel America was not a democracy until 40 years ago. How can a country claim to be democratic but not even allow citizenship rights to people that were born on its soil?

The lie of slavery and other forms of American injustice created a myth of a fair and democratic nation but it really wasn't. If you doubt that then why could not poor whites vote?

p>

Posted by: Payshun | October 27, 2006 9:09 PM

Rev. Campolo wrote:

P.S. In response to those who wanted the source of my claim in last month s blog that a survey of several prominent evangelical leaders showed that they overwhelmingly supported the torture of prisoners - that source was Randall Balmer, a professor at Columbia University.

Rev. Campolo,

Your explanation leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

So far, I have found only one article by Randall Balmer on this topic, which can be found here:

http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm

You claim that Balmer contacted 12 Chrstian conservative leaders, but Balmer says he contact eight.

You claim that support for the use of torture was unanimous, but in fact only 2 groups responded.

You reported that these groups supported the use of torture "given the situation at hand", as opposed to some extreme hypothetical situation (for instance an atomic bomb set to go off in a US city), but the phrase "given the situation at hand" does not appear anywhere in Balmer's article.

Both of the groups that Balmer cites as supporting torture dispute his claims:

But the quotes Balmer then provided did not support this. The Family Research Council responded to him "that torture is already prohibited as a means of collecting intelligence data." And the Institute on Religion and Democracy told him that "torture is a violation of human dignity, contrary to biblical teachings."

source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25019

Now for the important questions that need to be answered:

1. Is the Balmer article I cite above from The Chronicle of Higher Education the article you are referring to, or is there some other Balmer article. If it is some other article, could you please provide a direct link, or the name of the article, the publication, date, and page numbers, so we can look this up at a library?

2. Assuming that I do have the right article, could you please explain the discrepencies between your description of what Balmer found and what he wrote. In particular, how do 2 replies out of 8 surveyed constitute "unanimous"? What was the source for the "given the situation at hand" quote?

3. What is your response to the argument that the responses from the Family Research Council and Institute for Religion and Democracy were misconstrued?

We are all eagerly awaiting your reply.

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | October 27, 2006 9:15 PM

Oh, I almost forgot, one more question:

4. You specifically accuse Christian conservative groups of hypocrisy, based on their "situational" support for the use of torture. Are you aware of any Christian groups that have actively opposed "situational ethics" in the last, say, ten years, and have also supported the use of torture?>

Posted by: Wolverine | October 27, 2006 9:21 PM

Kevin,

Even if we do get other countries involved, will they be able to stomach the death of their own people for what is perceived to be an American war?

As long as this President is in office I am convinced they would not. If he showed some humility and contrition they could be reached and bridges could be re-established. But that's clearly not going to happen.>

Posted by: Daniel | October 27, 2006 9:42 PM

Get real folks.
Spreading democracy through the Middle East was not the real reason for Bush's immoral war.

Spreading democracy was just another lie used by the Bush administration to push America into invading a sovereign nation that was no threat whatsoever to America.

Bush claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11 and Al Qaeda was hiding in Iraq. These claims turned out to be lies.

Bush used the WMD mushroom cloud fear mongering story. This was proven to be a lie.

After these lies were questioned we began to hear the lie that Bush wants to spread democracy around the Middle East.
The man handpicked by the Neoconservative cabal to lead the new Iraq was Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted swindler who would have been perfect to head up another American authoritarian puppet regime, friendly to the American petroleum industry.

The real reason Bush invaded Iraq is greed for oil, pure and simple.
Do you think the Bush administration
believes in democracy?
Don't be silly.

Watch them try and steal the midterm elections.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 27, 2006 10:10 PM

"As long as this President is in office I am convinced they would not. If he showed some humility and contrition they could be reached and bridges could be re-established. But that's clearly not going to happen."

What does humility and contrition look like in this scenario? I think the notion of Bush hubris is overblown. If a leader goes into a country, I expect him to follow through, and I do not expect him to apologize every time he turns around. I think the notion that every country was just waiting to help us in this war is erroneous.>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 27, 2006 10:34 PM

"Watch them try and steal the midterm elections."

This bothers me. If the Republicans manage to retain the House and Senate, it will automatically be a stolen election. This is borne of a mentality that simply cannot BELIEVE that anyone would vote Republican.

Bologna. These are close races, and Republicans will win some of them, and that doesn't meant their stealing anything.>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 27, 2006 10:37 PM

This should bother you Kevin.
Because it's the truth.

The Republican party routinely practices election fraud to win.
This is how they put Bush in there to begin with.
They don't hesitate to lie, cheat and steal to win.
God will forgive them for this because it's for a greater cause.
The Democrats are immoral and don't deserve to lead America.

This is why we have the worst government in American history.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 27, 2006 10:44 PM

Kevin,

We have very different ideas about pride and humility and the value of each. I do not want a President who discovers that all the critical reasons for a preemptive war were wrong and then says he would've done it anyway. That's a very dangerous way to act toward the world.

In the past few years I have seen a grand total of zero moments where the President showed humility. He just can't be bothered with such a wishy-washy kind of thing. And it breaks my heart.>

Posted by: Daniel | October 27, 2006 10:55 PM

Thanks, Tony, for drawing attention to the plight of our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq who have suffered enormous pressures and severe persecutions since the American/British invasion. Very little of this is mentioned in the general news reports or in most Christian circulations, at least to my knowledge. Organizations aware of the situation of Christian minorities in Islamic countries warned of this before the invasion. That Saddam Hussein presided over a more secular Iraq and by force kept control over other influential Islamic groups provided a certain protection for the centuries old Christian presence in Iraq. While he was by no means any kind of "benevolent dictator,"(the pro-war forces left us in no doubt about that) what has been unleashed by his sudden removal is proving to be much more horrific for many Iraqis. Again thanks, Tony for pointing this out.>

Posted by: Sheila Shannon | October 27, 2006 10:59 PM

Kevin, "The most critical reason, to me, is that Saddam refused weapons inspections over and over. That's irrefutable."

Prove it Kevin.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 27, 2006 11:02 PM

"He seems utterly incapable of showing humility or shame. I actually think there's something wrong with him in that respect, like a particular part of his personality and character never matured or developed in that way. I suppose that's not too surprising, given his privileged and coddled upbringing."

I think he has shown humility, and I disagree that he needs to show shame (Clinton certainly did need to show it, but did not). I think, if you look at Bush's history, he rejected his coddled upbringing for quite a spell. I know that it has now become the prevailing narrative that Bush is a cowboy who is unwilling to change under any circumstance. There is some truth to it, but he is more multi-dimensional than people give him credit for.>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 27, 2006 11:21 PM

Clinton certainly did need to show it, but did not

He did not indeed. I think there's something about elitism and amassing power that reduces humility and accountability and fosters a sense of entitlement.>

Posted by: D4P | October 27, 2006 11:28 PM

Has Bush ever demonstrated genuine Christian humility?
I can't think of any examples.
But I can think of many examples of his arrogance and hubris.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 27, 2006 11:38 PM

I can't remember any other Clinton lies besides the infamous "I did not have sex with that woman."

But you can always tell when Bush is lying.
His mouth will be moving.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 27, 2006 11:40 PM

Hubris is a common trait amongst authoritarian type personalities.
Even when the evidence is clear, authoritarians will seldom admit they could be wrong or might have made a mistake.
That would reveal human weakness and undercut their authority.

I've noticed this trait is very common among Republican Party leaders and follower types.
Authoritarian personalities seem to gravitate toward the Republican Party.
I wonder why?
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 27, 2006 11:56 PM

Justintime,

To answer your question, it's pretty simple. Power and the fact that some rich white men feel like they want more of it to protect their source of power.

p>

Posted by: Payshun | October 28, 2006 12:11 AM

I agree, Payshun.

For Bush to resign and take Cheney with him would be the best thing for America.
It would save us from the long drawn out impeachment process.
And it would give someone else an opportunity to negotiate a withdrawal from Iraq.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 12:40 AM

Was Campolo's (or Balmer's) assertion that most evangleical organiztions favor torture "prophetic?">

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 1:00 AM

Jusatin - how do you know Bush has an authoritarian personality?]]> 2006-10-28T14:53:08-05:00 justintime 0 66.233.53.152 I need to get some outside work done so won't be around much today.
.>

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 1:07 AM

justintime, "Hubris is a common trait amongst authoritarian type personalities."

Anonymous, You would know.

justintime, You're right, I do know.
My qualifications are that I'm the opposite of an authoritarian personality.
I question authoritarians whenever they exercise their authority.
I've learned how to spot an authoritarian in a crowd without even having to listen to them speak.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 1:28 AM

Justin - I know all about the authoritarian personality. I have a graduate degree in psychology.

It is always a dnagerous thing to diagnose at a distance. In any case, I see little in Bush's behavior to indicate that he has an authoritarian personality.

The "authoritarian personality" has been seized upon by lots of people these days as an explanation for behavior they disagree with, but really has little value as an explanation.

And John Dean is hardly an expert on the subject. As far as I can see, he's just another liberal whiner.>

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 1:49 AM

"I'm the decider.
I'm the one that gets to decide that.
Not you." George W. Bush

John Dean doesn't claim to be an expert on the authoritarian personality.
But he has studied the work of the experts and references them in his book.
You have to admit that Dean has extensive experience working with authoritarian personalities.
Dean is far from a liberal.
He did jail time for defending Richard Nixon's crimes.
And he doesn't whine about it.
He considers himself a Goldwater Conservative and was a close friend of Barry Goldwater.
The title of Dean's book, "Conservatives Without Conscience" is a tribute to Goldwater who wrote "The Conscience of a Conservative".
You should read Dean's book first before you denounce him.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 2:14 AM

Kevin, "I think virtually all men want to protect their source of power, be it through work, politics, political debates. That said, there are plenty of white men in the Democratic party who have a thirst for power."

To be sure.
I hope we watch the Dems more closely than we were watching the Republicans.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 2:19 AM

Justin - I have read De3an's book. I am not denouncing him, just commenting on my take on his outlook.

Whatever he claims to be, he comes across to me as a liberal whiner.>

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 2:27 AM

At this time I don't care what Rev. Campolo thinks about democracy in Iraq, and neither should any honest Christian, left or right.

As far as I can tell he has smeared conservative Christians based on a sloppily written article, and Campolo himself can't even get the "facts" from that article straight.

I don't know if the original sliming was intentional or not, but his refusal so far to reconsider his accusation that conservatives broadly support torture is causing me to lose respect for him with every day that passes.

If Campolo were to opine that 2+2=4 my first reaction would be to grab a calculator and check his math.

Could somebody please show me where I'm wrong?

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | October 28, 2006 2:34 AM

D4P - Not a bad outlook if one is trying to understand oneself, but dangerous if trying to understand anyone else.

Anyone can assemble a list of traits and call it a personality type. Whether such a thing really exists is a matter for research, and I have real doubts about the quality of research in perosnality generally, or the authoritarian personality in particular.

People do all sorts of outrageous things for all sorts of reasons, most of them not having anything to do with their early life experiences or persistent personality traits. Attempting to understand their conduct by assigning some sort of label is a useful exercise when one is talking about a well-defined disease process like schizophrenia, but as Paul Meehl noted, we too often attribute the cause of perfectly normal behavior to disease processes, when we know an individual has some particular diagnosable problem.

The truth is that even psychologists can't predict behavior with precision, even when an individual has a well-recognized and adequately diagnosed syndrome. Attempting armchair personality evaluation at a distance is likely to be even less precise.>

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 2:43 AM

Since Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here", (i.e. I am the ultimate decider) I suppose he too was an authoritarian personality?>

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 2:53 AM

Wolverine, "I don't know if the original sliming was intentional or not, but his refusal so far to reconsider his accusation that conservatives broadly support torture is causing me to lose respect for him with every day that passes."

Tony Campolo references Randall Balmer's book, which I haven't read.
And the Philadelphia Inquirer article was a little thin on the evidence I'll have to admit.
I do think Balmer has a point about some of the Christian Right leaders condoning some forms of torture.
Certainly they did not objecting to torture per se, but not objecting is condoning.
Some Christian Right leaders
actually approved of some forms of torture and I remember pointing this out to you, although you refused to accept it and you argued about it.
I showed you that Ms Walker, a leader in the Christian Right, was actually responsible for one of the key Pentagon documents that, in my opinion, led to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.
You refused to accept this as well.
I also remember that you refused to accept the fact that torture has already been defined in the Geneva accords.
You argued endlessly about the definition of torture and you supported the Bush administration's rewriting of the rules on torture.

All this leads me to agree with Balmer and Compolo, that indeed, there are Christian Right leaders that condone torture and there is at least one member of the Christian Right, Wolverine, that refuses to accept the Geneva Convention on what constitutes torture.

So if I were Tony Compolo, I would stand by the statements he made in his previous post.

And if I were you, Wolverine, I would do some serious soul searching on the subject of torturing human beings, relative to the teachings of Christ.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 3:16 AM

Gordon, "Since Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here", (i.e. I am the ultimate decider) I suppose he too was an authoritarian personality?"

Sure, Democrats can be authoritarian leaders.
I liked Truman's style of taking responsibility for his decisions.
And he had a certain kind of humility that I find lacking in most Republican leaders nowadays.

Although psychologists may not be able to predict human behavior with precision, certain "charismatic" leaders have the ability to predict the behavior of crowds pretty well.
And when they deliver their messages through the mass media they can be frighteningly successful in attracting followers.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 3:28 AM

Justin -

I'm sure you know the principle of Occam's Razor - that when presented with alternative explnations, the simplest is usually the most likely to be true.

My point was that pop psychology requires a lot of information if it is true at all, and is generally quite contrived. It is much more likely that the things we don't like about Bush (or perhaps the things we like about him) don't require complex explanations like an "authoritarian personality". Doesn't mean we have to like him or agree with him, but why commit ourselves to questionable hypotheticals in trying to understand him?

One doesn't have to be an authoritarian personality to enjoy the exercise of power, unless one wants to hypothesize that all people who exercise power are authoritarian. That would be a very difficult hypothesis to support.>

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 3:50 AM

Tony, I agree with your basic premise that the justification of bringing democracy to Iraq is illusory. However, while I do agree with your first point, I must argue that the will of the people is often disregarded in this country too. This is a risk of a representative democracy, which we (and, theoretically, Iraq) have.

As for your second point, it is important to point out that it is a *constitutional* democracy that seeks to defend the rights of minorities, and even then, it can be a slow and iffy process. For example, here in the US, segregation abrogated the rights of a minority (African Americans) for decades. It took judicial intervention (which is the sort of thing that today the Bush administration gives the derogatory label "Activist Judges" since it runs contrary to its opinion and agenda) -- along with a great deal of effort by the people (led by people like MLK Jr.) and finally some federal legislation -- to halt.

Even today, the US majority denies or limits (depending on the state you live in) the rights of another minority by refusing gays and lesbians the hundreds of rights (over 1,000 federal rights and several hundred state rights) afforded by the secular laws of marriage. Can we criticize Iraq for enacting Shia law while at the same time our own government tries to use Christian law to justify its own oppression of the rights of a minority? (Both the US and Iraq additionally justify this repression in the guise of tradition as well. Westerners often forget that the status of women as second-class citizens stretches back through the millennia, and its legal demise in the west -- a mere century ago -- was a long, hard battle.)

Returning to your basic premise, I seriously doubt that George W Bush had democracy in mind when he decided to invade Iraq. Certainly, he never made that argument prior to launching his assault; he only began to use this justification when he failed to find WMDs there. In fact, one may argue that his defense of democracy here in America is often tepid, at best.

Although the problems with Iraq's democracy are far worse than those here at home, we may consider them more a matter of degree than kind, and so the hyperbole of the example of Iraq's problems with democracy may serve as an illuminating allegory for our own.>

Posted by: Rick | October 28, 2006 3:53 AM

Justin -

I overlooked your question about George Lakoff. Much of what he says is quite useful, although he and I are on rather opposite poles politically. I do think he paints a too stark picture of the failure of the left to adequately frame its message - I'm inclined to think they have done a rather good job (as the argumnetation on this channel amply demonstrates), but people are not stupid and much of the agenda of the left is foreign to most of the electorate's values. I see Jim Wallis trying to do some of this "re-framing", but failing for the same reason.>

Posted by: Gordon | October 28, 2006 4:26 AM

Campolo misstates the number of groups surveyed and the number of responses

As I explained earlier in this thread (at 3:05 pm), his reporting in this area was not necessarily incorrect, but rather misleading.>

Posted by: D4P | October 28, 2006 6:16 AM

Wolverine,

Balmer and Compolo claim there are leaders of the Christian Right that tolerate, condone, even advocate torture.
I checked out this claim and confirmed it beyond any doubt.
I showed you what I found out but you deny it.
I'm convinced you will continue to deny this truth in the face of any evidence presented to you.
But all of your nitpicking, obfuscation, rationalizing, arguing, denial, pronouncements of irrelevancy and personal attacks on Compolo will not erase the chilling fact that some leaders of the Christian Right really are blind to the immorality of torture and assassination.
The longer you argue against this truth, the less credibility you have as a follower of Christ.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 7:10 AM

It is impossible to judge the success of the newly established Iraqi government at this point. Once the war is over and Iraq is on its own, then we can begin to talk about the success of democracy in Iraq. During this lawless period of rampant violence and disorder, people do suffer, so it is nonsensical to talk about how the Iraqi nation or Christians in Iraq are doing.>

Posted by: Jon | October 28, 2006 8:10 AM

Joseph writes:

"For those of you who support and vote for Bush, when will you realize you have chosen a brainless frat boy who turned the country over to a a fat vicious creep who specializes in political slime and bullying and who couldn't get himself elected to a decent Town Council."

In all honesty, Joseph, that you and Bush's critics find it necessary to frame things in such negative language (e.g "brainless frat boy" and "fat vicious creep") implies that your criticisms are without a solid foundation, otherwise you'd be able to levy constructive criticism without having to resort to the use of loaded language. While such framing is common among the likes of Justintime, Anne Coutler, and Rush Limbaugh, a danger emerges when rhetoric replaces legitimate criticism to the point that the latter can be written off as another instance of the former. Sincere genuine criticism gets lost amid the rhetoric of the angry, who see fit to make assertions which are groundless (e.g., Dr. Campolo's claim that the RR "overwhelmingly supported the torture of prisoners"). Were there a genuine desire to get beyond the polarization, the contributors as well as commenters would be avoiding this kind of rhetoric instead of engaging in it constantly. According to Jim Wallis, there's a new dialogue going on. From where I stand, this blog looks more like what was described by the Who: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.">

Posted by: Timbo | October 28, 2006 8:54 AM

well Kevin you are right. I could really go inside and do an armchair diagnosis of what make people feel so drawn to power.

Maybe tomorrow but yah we all worship it and that's the problem which is why all these leaders really need to study Christ's footwashing to learn how to loose power and become servants again.

p>

Posted by: Payshun | October 28, 2006 9:09 AM

But I should not be directuing my venom toward you as much as others such as kevin et al neo cons who cheered when they stole the 2000 election by unconstitutionally using the U.S. Supreme Court vs Florida Supreme Court ** instead of the House of Representatives ?!!>

Posted by: Deno Reno | October 28, 2006 10:08 AM

Timbo heres Policy talking points replace "stay the course "for" flexibility" Replace " War on Terror " with " Victory " replace "borders" with "fences"replace "Death Toll" with "Security" Neocons take notice of the Major Strategic Shift in policy by using the above terms ! Just glad to Help!?!>>

Posted by: Deno Reno | October 28, 2006 10:37 AM

Timbo, "Interestingly enough, Justin, a quick look at your comments reveals a grand total of zero evidence to support your claim, let alone to show that you have "confirmed it beyond any doubt."

Timbo, if you want to check out the evidence I came up with you can read this thread, following Tony Compolo's original blog: "Duplicity on the Right".

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/10/tony-campolo-duplicity-on-right.html

Read this and decide for yourself whether there are any leaders of the Christian Right who are blind to the immorality of torture and assassination.

Let us know what you think after you read it.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 2:53 PM

Gordon,

I know, that is what Kevin and Wolverine argue.
But that argument is just a distraction away from the real question, which is:

"Are there are any leaders of the Christian Right who are blind to the immorality of torture and assassination?"

My research turned up quite a bit of evidence for this.
When I presented my evidence, it was met with "nitpicking, obfuscation, rationalizing, arguing, denial, pronouncements of irrelevancy and personal attacks on Compolo".

It's only too obvious that Kevin and Wolverine don't want to accept that the answer to the real question is:

yes.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 3:49 PM

Me too G.!! I hope I'm wrong but I've predicted that U.S. Forces in Iraq will sustain in excess of 100 Mortal casualities before the end of the Month of OctoberRamadan always stirs radicalism there; and our youngest and finest military are paying the price so we can claim to have exported Democracy to the Middle East while we import their OIL to the U.S.A.>

Posted by: Deno Reno | October 28, 2006 4:16 PM

For the record, here's my last post from the original Campolo-Torture thread:

This thread appears to be winding down. There's no guarantee that anyone else will post here, and it will likely be removed before too long.

Before it does vanish into the ether, I just want to reiterate my main concern.

Tony Campolo said there was a study out there in which 12 leaders in the Christian right explicitly approve of the use of torture.

Not implicitly, by supporting an administration frequently accused of using torture, but directly. Not hypothetically (as in the notorious "ticking time bomb scenario) but given the situation at hand."

Now there are those who are persuaded that the military, under this administration, is prone to abuse prisoners. That's debatable, and I'll admit that a reasonable person could reach that conclusion based on the evidence out there.

And if that proves to be the case, then Christians probably should be more vocal in calling for the administration to change policies. And if it refuses to do so we may need to reconsider our support.

But the evidence out there is subject to more than one interpretation, and furthermore, I see some tendency among opponents of the administration to grab onto "evidence" that amounts to little more than rumor and innuendo.

As long as there is a genuine debate and genuine grounds for reasonable doubt that President Bush approves of the use of torture, it is grossly unfair to equate support for Bush with support for torture, period.

Now justintime did manage to find evidence that a Christian attorney in the defense department did take part in drafting a very poorly-reasoned legal memo arguing that the President effectively had the power to authorize the use of torture with few if any repercussions.

While that's not the same as approving torture (there are still legal* and prudential concerns that the memo's authors did not address and would not necessarily be expected to address) it's fair to say that at least one professed born-again Christian treated torture very casually. In so doing, she served her President, her nation, and her God -- all three -- very badly.

Justintime, to his credit, appeared to disavow Campolo's claims, so in my view at least he's off the hook. He found one, but Campolo said that there were twelve. Someone out there owes us another eleven. I'm not holding my breath.

*That should have read "moral and prudential concerns". My mistake.>

Posted by: Wolverine | October 28, 2006 5:31 PM

"a fat vicious creep who specializes in political slime and bullying and who couldn't get himself elected to a decent Town Council."

Dick Morris?>

Posted by: Kevin s. | October 28, 2006 6:59 PM

"Are there are any leaders of the Christian Right who are blind to the immorality of torture and assassination?"
Yes there are.

Pat Robertson,Chairman, Christian Broadcasting Network speaking about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:
"I don't know about this doctrine of assassination,
but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him,
I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.
It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war,"

Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council released the following statement:
Senator Durbin seems to be more concerned about the welfare and comfort of terrorists
than the well being of our men and women in uniform and the citizens of this country.
Senator Durbin owes America an apology. [for having criticized torture at Abu Ghraib]

Gary Bauer, President of American Values on torture:
The prisoners in Cuba were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan in the wake of the vicious Al Qaeda attack on our homeland.
It is a testament to the values of Western Civilization that they are still alive.

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition released a statement declaring:
...We encourage all of our supporters and affiliated churches to contact their elected representatives and let them know we support President Bush's efforts to update our methods of interrogating terrorist detainees in order to provide greater protection for our troops and the innocent...

Mary L. Walker, U.S. Air Force's General Counsel
headed up the team of lawyers who wrote the Pentagon's treatise on presidential torture powers.She bears responsibility for its content.
Ms. Walker is a long-time Republican political appointee first brought to Washington during the Reagan administration to help oversee the looting of America's natural resources, as principal deputy in the environmental division at Ed Meese's Justice Department.
Ms. Walker is a devout Christian - much like her fellow Reagan alum and environmental despoiler, Interior Secretary James "I don't know how many generations we've got until the Lord returns" Watt.
She's the co-founder of a San Diego group called Professional Women's Fellowship, an offshoot of the Campus Crusade for Christ.
I do have to wonder how seriously Ms. Walker takes the Golden Rule.

Walker: "I wanted to be involved in policy development at the highest level, and lawyers in our society are often involved in shaping policy."
The report: After defining torture and other prohibited acts, the memo presents "legal doctrines ... that could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful."

Walker: "I can't divorce faith from success because God is the foundation for my life."
The report: "Good faith may be a complete defense" to a torture charge."

Walker: "My relationship with God and with others in the community of faith has been central in my life."
The report: "The infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture." It "must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure."

Walker:"It helped to find someone who could mentor me and help me see my faith as relevant to the challenges of life and work."
The report:For involuntarily administered drugs or other psychological methods [to be considered torture], the "acts must penetrate to the core of an individual's ability to perceive the world around him."

Walker: "When God is the center of your life and everything you do revolves around His plans for you and the world, then that is when life really gets exciting."
The report:The executive branch [has] "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."

Walker: It's a travesty to be in a place of strategic importance to the world as a business or political leader and not allow God to accomplish the truly significant through you.
The report: To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

Walker: "Making moral decisions in the workplace where it is easy to go along and get along takes courage. It takes moral strength and courage to say, 'I'm not going to do this because I don't think it's the right thing to do.' "
The report: Officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate."
Mary L. Walker - Christian leader, Republican, Patriot, Torture Attorney.
______________________________________

We've heard hours and hours of nitpicking, obfuscation, rationalizing, arguing, denial, pronouncements of irrelevancy and personal attacks on Compolo,
but the fact remains:
Kevin and Wolverine are blind to the immorality of torture.
But we can forgive them.
They were influenced by leaders of the Christian Right.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 7:28 PM

Please set me straight, Timbo.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 7:46 PM

Gordon, Acceptance of Bush's torture policies may not be widespread among Christians from the right, I agree.
But I do know there are some morally irresponsible leaders in the Christian Right movement who exercise powerful influence over their followers.

Bush's torture policies and his 'doctrine of preemptive war' are morally and legally indefensible and damage the future of America.

Whenever I hear Bush's torture policies and war doctrine defended, I respond as a Christian American patriot.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 8:40 PM

From the Rolling Stone article on the Worst Congress Ever?

"a fat vicious creep who specializes in political slime and bullying and who couldn't get himself elected to a decent Town Council."

Dick Morris?

This is gonzo journalism, Kevin.
You have to read between the metaphors to find the truth about Dick Morris.
Keep going, you haven't gotten to the good parts yet.
Please overlook the few naughty words sprinkled through the text.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 8:53 PM

Judging from Campolo's last post on torture and different statements he makes to mostly secular audiences, he seems to believe that conservative christians are the enemy and are behind what is really wrong in the world (Wallis seems to think this, too). His previous post also suggests that he has no qualms with making false attacks on other believers. Are we members of the body of Christ? Does that count for anything? What a horrible witness this is.>

Posted by: jessie | October 28, 2006 9:40 PM

"His previous post also suggests that he has no qualms with making false attacks on other believers."

Further, I think it proves that he is not interested in a real dialogue about these issues. My guess is that he got a memo or press release from some organization or another with the reference to the survey, and re-ran it more or less verbatim. I can't imagine he made it up.>

Posted by: Kevin s. | October 28, 2006 10:07 PM

Timbo (quoting justintime) wrote:

"That s because you re in denial of inconvenient facts.
You re having a cognitive dissonance experience."

I have the title for my first techno album: "Cognitive Dissonance Experience".

Kinda rolls off the tongue, don'tcha think?

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | October 28, 2006 10:45 PM

Welcome to it, Wolverine.

A Cognitive Dissonance Experience can free you from the curse of an obsolete paradigm.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 10:56 PM

Gordon, Bush's torture policies resulted from abandoning the long standing Geneva Convention definition of torture and replacing it with a definition of torture that evolved out of the infamous Bybee Memo from Gonzales' Justice Department to President Bush.

The Bybee memo was a formal legal opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel interpreting the Convention Against Torture and the accompanying criminal provisions enacted by Congress in 1996 to prohibit torture.

The co-author of the memo was Bybee's deputy, John Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley's Boalt Hall Law School. But who wrote what is unclear. In the end, Bybee was the senior official who signed off on the legal opinion, so the responsibility for its content is his.

Bybee's interpretations guided the Bush Administration for twenty-two months. And a powerful case has been made that Bybee's extraordinary reading of the law led to Americans engaging in torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

The memo defines torture so narrowly that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function" qualify. It also claims, absurdly, that Americans can defend themselves if criminally prosecuted for torture by relying on the criminal law defenses of necessity and/or self-defense, based on the horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Finally, the memo asserts that the criminal law prohibiting torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations undertaken of enemy combatants pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers."

In short, the memo advises that when acting as commander-in-chief, the president can go beyond the law.

Check out the torture thread,
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/10/tony-campolo-duplicity-on-right.html
for a more complete picture of how the effects of the Bybee Memo influenced the document written by Mary Walker's group in the Pentagon and down through the chain of command to the National Guard troops at Abu Ghraib who had no formal training in interrogation techniques.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 11:20 PM

So, is Romans 13 blasphemy?

Was Bush disobeying Romans 13 by removing Saddam from power?

If government tells you to sin, should you obey government or God?>

Posted by: D4P | October 28, 2006 11:27 PM

Kevin, "For the record, cognitive dissonance refers to the belief in two conflicting ideas at the same time. The most commonly used example is buyers remorse. It is not simply another way of saying "wrong" or ill-informed."

This is exactly what you and Wolverine are experiencing with the obsolete Bush paradigm.
We hope your shift into a new paradigm will be successful.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2006 11:44 PM

Gordon -

You seem to think that the internal administration discussion was an honest effort to define what they saw as an ambiguous term, rather than an effort to find a plausible justification for what they knew to be torture...>

Posted by: D4P | October 29, 2006 12:53 AM

"If government tells you to sin, should you obey government or God?"

God.>

Posted by: Kevin s. | October 29, 2006 12:57 AM

Gordon, "You seem to think that the internal administration discussion was an effort to find a plausible justification for what they knew to be torture,..."

Yes I do.
Along with a considerable number of legal commentators.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 1:05 AM

If anyone deserved the sword it was Saddam

So what of your Romans 13? "Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God."

Seems to me, then, that Bush removed a government that was put in place by God. Unless (as you put it) you think that Romans 13 is blasphemy...

And another thing: where does scripture tell us how to determine whether a particular war is allowable or not...?>

Posted by: D4P | October 29, 2006 1:31 AM

"
And another thing: where does scripture tell us how to determine whether a particular war is allowable or not...?"

I don't really think it does. That is my point. I have not evoked scripture to support our efforts in Iraq, but rather to say that our nation may go to war.>

Posted by: Kevin s. | October 29, 2006 2:39 AM

I have not evoked scripture to support our efforts in Iraq, but rather to say that our nation may go to war

What good would it do to say that you can go to war if you don't know when you can go to war...?>

Posted by: D4P | October 29, 2006 4:14 AM

Justintime,
I did read your previous quotes from Perkins, Bauer, et al., and didn't really find them compelling. Neither Bush nor these leaders will say that they support torture, and I don't think that supporting Bush means that you support torture. But this is really beside the point and involves a whole other debate.

Campolo said he used a survey by Balmer to support his claim that 12 leaders of the religious right UNANIMOUSLY supported torture. Given that only two even responded, it's safe to say that this claim is false. Campolo and Sojo have a responsibility AS CHRISTIANS to print a correction so their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ will not be harmed through slander.>

Posted by: jessie | October 29, 2006 3:22 PM

Same principal applies

I disagree.

The Bible says stuff like "Thou shalt not kill," "Love your enemies," "Pray for those who persecute you," "Return good for evil," "Do not take revenge into your own hands," etc. etc. etc. It is not unreasonable to believe that these commandments are violated when we kill our enemies by dropping bombs on them and shooting them.

The Bible gives less reason to believe that having kids is sinful. Be my guest if you want to argue otherwise.>

Posted by: D4P | October 29, 2006 4:48 PM

Jessie,

If Christian right leaders think they have been slandered by Tony Compolo and Randall Balmer, they should file a lawsuit.
The fact they haven't done so tells me they know they would lose in a court of law.

Christian right leaders have publicly supported Bush's immoral and illegal torture policies.
Christian right leaders are public cheerleaders for Bush's immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq.
Christian right leaders have never spoken out in opposition to Bush's torture policies or the Bush doctrine of preemptive war.
Christian right leaders use slanderous and libelous tactics routinely against their enemies.
Yet the Christian right does not hold their leaders accountable for any of these un Christian acts.
Until the Christian right begins to hold their leaders accountable, they should not expect anyone to apologize for telling the truth about their leaders.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 6:29 PM

"First, it is probably never possible for Christians to to be "certain" that a particular war is godly, despite what our "leaders" tell us.

Second, given our inevitable uncertainty, the commandments in the Bible against killing, mistreating enemies, etc., and the obvious devastation that war can cause, it is probably wise to err on the side of non-violence over violence."

Sure... That's why our country attempted diplomacy with Iraq for more than a decade following Desert Storm.>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 29, 2006 6:34 PM

Kevin glosses over Bush's bad faith negotiations with Saddam in the lead up to his invasion.
Saddam finally agreed to allow inspectors in to verify that WMD's did not exist.
Bush was caught off guard by Saddam's offer and unprepared to take him up on it.
He had already committed several years prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Bush went ahead with the invasion based on 'fixed' intelligence about WMD's.
Bush is a warmonger, and warmongers never negotiate in good faith to avoid a war.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 7:00 PM

Kevin and D4P,

I don't think you will find any clear direction on what constitutes a 'just war' in the Bible.
If you want to know what constitutes 'just war', you have to reference the Geneva Conventions and international law.
By these authorities, Iraq is not a 'just war'.
The Geneva Conventions and international law clearly define Bush's Iraq war as an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and therefore a war crime.
The Bush administration attempted to get around the Geneva Conventions and international law by advancing the concept of a 'preemptive war'.
The Bush 'Doctrine of Preemptive War' will not stand.
And Bush is a war criminal for lying America into committing war crimes.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 7:14 PM

Justintime,
You write "If Christian right leaders think they have been slandered by Tony Compolo and Randall Balmer, they should file a lawsuit. The fact they haven't done so tells me they know they would lose in a court of law."
--Another explanation is that they're just obeying biblical teachings regarding lawsuits against other believers!

Campolo made a false claim about other Christians. He and Sojo have a responsibility to correct the record. Case closed.>

Posted by: jessie | October 29, 2006 8:23 PM

Jessie, Did Jerry Falwell forget about 'biblical teachings regarding lawsuits against other believers' when he said this?

"Imagine God raising up an army of attorneys. ... We have declared war on the left, and we're going to sue the hide off of everybody, everybody, who tries to inhibit the liberties of our children and our families from worshipping and honoring the Lord."
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 8:58 PM

So, in the first case, God called people to war. In the second, Bush did so.

Does Falwell equate God and Bush...? (Granted, God once spoke through a burning bush...) Perhaps Falwell believes that God told Bush to go to war. But didn't Hitler claim the same thing? Are we supposed to believe anything and everything Bush says regarding what God does and doesn't tell him to do?>

Posted by: D4P | October 29, 2006 9:21 PM

'Bush says God sent him to war'

06/10/2005 The BBC released an excerpt from an interview with Palestinian information minister Nabil Shaath that was part of a series called "Israel and the Arabs".

Shaath described his first meeting, in company with Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen, in June 2003.

He said that President Bush said to all of them:

"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me: 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did.

"And then God would tell me: 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.'

"And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.'

"And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 9:38 PM

Full text of the famous 'Land Letter', an open letter from evangelical Christian leaders to George Bush outlining their theological support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
______________________________________

October 3, 2002

The Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States of America

Dear Mr. President,

In this decisive hour of our nation s history we are writing to express our deep appreciation for your bold, courageous, and visionary leadership. Americans everywhere have been inspired by your eloquent and clear articulation of our nation s highest ideals of freedom and of our resolve to defend that freedom both here and across the globe.

We believe that your policies concerning the ongoing international terrorist campaign against America are both right and just. Specifically, we believe that your stated policies concerning Saddam Hussein and his headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction are prudent and fall well within the time-honored criteria of just war theory as developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.

First, your stated policy concerning using military force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction is a just cause. In just war theory only defensive war is defensible; and if military force is used against Saddam Hussein it will be because he has attacked his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and harbored terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September 11, 2001. As you stated in your address to the U.N. September 12th:

We can harbor no illusions. . . . Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He s fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and forty Iraqi villages.

Disarming and neutralizing Saddam Hussein is to defend freedom and freedom-loving people from state-sponsored terror and death.

Second, just war must have just intent. Our nation does not intend to destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq. As you declared forthrightly in your speech to the U.N. General Assembly:

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. . . . Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

This is clearly a just and noble intent.

Third, just war may only be commenced as a last resort. As you so clearly enumerated before the U.N., Saddam Hussein has for more than a decade ignored Security Council resolutions or defied them while breaking virtually every agreement Into which he has entered. He stands convicted by his own record as a brutal dictator who cannot be trusted to abide by any agreement he makes. And while he prevaricates and obfuscates, he continues to obtain and develop the weapons of mass destruction which he will use to terrorize the world community of nations.

The world has been waiting for more than a decade for the Iraqi regime to fulfill its agreement to destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction, to cease producing them or the long-range missiles to deliver them in the future, and to allow thorough and rigorous inspections to verify their compliance. They have not, and will not, do so and any further delay in forcing the regime s compliance would be reckless irresponsibility in the face of grave and growing danger.

Fourth, just war requires authorization by legitimate authority. We believe it was wise and prudent for you to go before the U.N. General Assembly and ask the U.N. Security Council to enforce its own resolutions. However, as American citizens we believe that, however helpful a U.N. Security Council vote might be, the legitimate authority to authorize the use of U.S. military force is the government of the United States and that the authorizing vehicle is a declaration of war or a joint resolution of the Congress.

When the threat of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba presented a grave threat to America s security, President Kennedy asked for the support of the U.N. and the Organization of American States, but made it clear, with or without their support, those missiles would either be removed by the Soviets, or we would neutralize them ourselves. The American people expected no less from their president and their government.

Fifth, just war requires limited goals and the resort to armed force must have a reasonable expectation of success. In other words, total war is unacceptable and the war s goals must be achievable. We believe your stated policies for disarming the murderous Iraqi dictator and destroying his weapons of mass destruction, while liberating the Iraqi people for his cruel and barbarous grip, more than meet those criteria.

Sixth, just war theory requires noncombatant immunity. We are confident that our government, unlike Hussein, will not target civilians and will do all that it can to minimize noncombatant casualties.

Seventh, just war theory requires the question of proportionality be addressed. Will the human cost of the armed conflict to both sides be proportionate to the stated objectives and goals? Does the good gained by resort to armed conflict justify the cost of lives lost and bodies maimed? We believe that the cost of not dealing with this threat now will only succeed in greatly increasing the cost in human lives and suffering when an even more heavily armed and dangerous Saddam Hussein must be confronted at some date in the not too distant future. We believe that every day of delay significantly increases the risk of far greater human suffering in the future than acting now would entail.

How different and how much safer would the history of the twentieth century have been had the allies confronted Hitler when he illegally reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936 in clear violation of Germany s treaty agreements? It is at least possible that tens of millions of the lives lost in World War II might not have been lost if the Allies had enforced treaty compliance then instead of appeasing a murderous dictator.

We are extremely grateful that we have a president who has learned the costly lessons of the twentieth century and who is determined to lead America and the world to a far different and better future in the twenty first century. As you told the world s leaders at the U.N.:

We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand.

Mr. President, we make that stand with you. In so doing, while we cannot speak for all of our constituents, we are supremely confident that we are voicing the convictions and concerns of the great preponderance of those we are privileged to serve.

Please know that we join tens of millions of our fellow Americans in praying for you and your family daily.

Sincerely Yours,

Richard D. Land, D.Phil.
President Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention
_____________________________________

May the Lord God have mercy on the soul of Richard D. Land.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 10:01 PM

Americans everywhere have been inspired by your eloquent and clear articulation of our nation s highest ideals of freedom and of our resolve to defend that freedom both here and across the globe

Eloquent and clear articulation? Eloquent and clear articulation...? Which President are these people listening to...?>

Posted by: D4P | October 29, 2006 10:06 PM

Specifically, we believe that your stated policies concerning Saddam Hussein and his headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction are prudent and fall well within the time-honored criteria of just war theory as developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.

Does anyone know what Richard D. Land is talking about?
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 10:11 PM

Wolverine,

I think Christian conservatives are responsible for their own reputations.
That's why they should have been calling out their leaders for making statements in support of torture and immoral, illegal warmongering on the part of the Bush administration.
Instead, the Christian right has been parroting the irresponsible statements of their leaders without thinking for themselves.
The Christian right labels those who criticize Bush's immoral torture and war as traitors to America.

The Christian right should be on their knees, praying for God's mercy.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2006 10:23 PM

this may be one of those moments in history when we are forced to settle for a trade-off

At some level, this kind of mindset is what bothers me the most. This is similar to Pat Robertson's "assassination or war" dichotomy. In my opinion, these dichotomies are false. To believe that the only options are for one group of people to die or for another group of people to die shows very little faith in God and His "mysterious" ways.

If faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, why can't that same faith resolve conflicts in such a way that doesn't require the slaughter of thousands of people? Is God so impotent that He would ever prefer His human henchmen to cause thousands of deaths rather than pray for and trust in a more "miraculous" solution?>

Posted by: D4P | October 30, 2006 1:23 AM

you are confusing the role of government with th role of us as people

Do you mean that governments are not/should not be subject to biblical commandments, even governments run by people who claim to be Christians?>

Posted by: D4P | October 30, 2006 1:33 AM

justintime wrote:

On your knees Dobson.

Oh, this is rich.

Great shall be the weeping and lamentation, for lo, justintime hath pronounced thy doom!

Shall I fetch your spear and magic helmet?

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | October 30, 2006 2:22 AM

Oh, this is rich.

Great shall be the weeping and lamentation, for lo, justintime hath pronounced thy doom!

God forgives all who confess their sins.

Shall I fetch your spear and magic helmet?

Thank you, Wolverine, a large bowl of buttered popcorn would suffice.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 30, 2006 2:47 AM

I honestly do believe God sent him to war

While I'm not sure I agree, I do think you have a good point. Even if it is true that God sent Bush to war, it does not necessarily follow that (1) We know God's reasons for doing so, and/or that (2) His reasons are congruent with ours. It doesn't necessarily follow that God wants "us" to win, or that He defines success the same way we do.>

Posted by: D4P | October 30, 2006 5:42 AM

After all the discussion on authoritarian personalities, the book I read this weekend, I'm Judgmental, You're Judgmental by Terry Cooper, seemed apropos. I stand as convicted as anyone else - moreso - but I think we'd all benefit from reading these tips for dealing with judgmental people:

1. Remember in advance the manner of authoritarian thinking - expect that there will be rigid, all-or-nothing certainty in your counterpart.

2. Ecourage situations where a confrontation with different viewpoints is inevitable.

3. Constantly use questions to invite black-and-white thinkers to take on the perspective of others.

4. Remember that authoritarians are often abusive because they are anxious and fearful.

5. Remember that we are not responsible for changing an authoritarian's thinking pattern and conclusions - people have a right to think how they want and many authoritarians defy any attempt at negotiating or peacemaking.

6. Remember that imitating authoritarian belligerence will be enormously tempting - we all have the impulse to meet aggression with aggression and by expecting their reactions we can intentionally decide to respond peacefully.

7. Remember to look at our own tendencies toward authoritarian thinking - we all have the impulse and we all frequently obey it.

8. Remember that authoritarianism usually reacts to our uncertainty out of a denial of its own uncertainty.

9. Remember that authoritarian thinking sees a challenge to its perspective as a challenge to its identity.

10. Encourage individuals to associate with reference groups that have a tolerance for raising questions, exploring options, and wondering about issues.

11. Remember to reflect a comfort with doubt and a relaxed attitude toward uncertainty.

12. Remember to speak out of our own experience rather than constantly 'speaking for' and entire group or tradition.

13. Remember the extremely limited value of debate when it comes to value questions or to religious and spiritual matters - it is normally the quality of our lives and not our logic and arguments that change hearts and minds.

14. Hep persons reinterpret their past world from the standpoint of their new outlook.

15.Remember that being open-minded does not mean accepting perpetual abuse - if an authoritarian cannot respect certain boundaries at some point we may need to cut off contact.>

Posted by: Daniel | October 30, 2006 4:05 PM

Daniel,

I think those are excellent tips and very appropriate for all of us on this board.
Thanks for posting them.

To some of you I probably sound just as bad as judgmental Christian right leaders and followers.
I'm only judging what I think is poor judgement.
Please forgive me if you think I've been judging you personally.
.>

Posted by: justintime | October 30, 2006 4:37 PM

I'm guessing the 30,000-600,000 dead Iraqis would have voted for us to leave. The remaining sample might be biased...>

Posted by: D4P | October 30, 2006 5:12 PM

"I'm guessing the 30,000-600,000 dead Iraqis would have voted for us to leave. The remaining sample might be biased..."

Edgy...>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2006 5:54 PM

ps - please substitue "current administration" in place of "US" in the above post.>

Posted by: badmash | October 30, 2006 6:03 PM

"I have a hard time believing your choice to vote for Bush was founded purely by faith."

Not faith. Observable fact. I supported the war effort (not that Kerry gave any coheren alternative to the existing strategy), I want cjudges with a sound, conservative, judicial philosophy, I think tax cuts are a smart way to improve the economy (and keep unemployment low), and I believe in reforming Social Security. I agreed with Bush, not Kerry. I am not going to ask God's forgiveness for voting for Bush.

"Faith and fear cannot be one when it comes to such choices."

Not sure how that applies here. I wasn't afraid of John Kerry. I just think he has stupid ideas on how to lead a government. Maybe I fear stupid ideas.>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2006 7:05 PM

One more thing how can you say and claim that God wants sound conservative judicial philosphy when he only tolerates man's attempts at being fair. how can you claim that tax cuts are God's way of being just?

You said:
God,

Between two less than perfect candidates, I chose the one I thought best represent mine and your beliefs. I have no regrets.

Your servant,

Kevin

What you said there was a faith based answer not a factual one so which is it? Faith and fact are completely opposed to each other.

Faith is about trust not about fact.

p>

Posted by: Payshun | October 30, 2006 7:18 PM

"No not fear of Kerry's ideas but fears of what would happen if Bush was not office which aren't necessarily the same thing."

Oh, I wasn't afraid of Bush not being in office. Is that why you think people voted for him? Fear of him not being in office? You need to meet more conservatives.

"Please don't equate opinion w/ fact they are not the same thing."

The facts were that the President supports conservative judges, the war in Iraq, tax cuts etc... It is also fact that I agree with him on those issues. It is not true that I based my vote on faith in the manner you describe.

"One more thing how can you say and claim that God wants sound conservative judicial philosphy when he only tolerates man's attempts at being fair. how can you claim that tax cuts are God's way of being just?"

I think you have spent a considerable amount of time putting words in my mouth and drawing conclusions that are not supportable by my statements. I voted for who I thought was best, and I felt that my vote was in accordance with my beliefs.

"Faith and fact are completely opposed to each other."

Not necessarily. Jesus died for our sins. That is factual, but requires faith to believe it. However, I did not vote for President Bush because I had faith in him. I voted for him because I agreed with him.

Do you have a point you are getting at here?>

Posted by: kevin s. | October 30, 2006 8:59 PM

It seems to me we have a problem as North Americans (and possibly Christians) where we assume to hold the solutions to another's dilema. This hubris is especially problematic considering we have little knowledge of the local experience while listening little to those who do.

If we wonder why Irag is in trouble?

Maybe it lies in 'a twenty-four-year-old American named Jay Hallen put in charge of launching Iraq's new stock exchange?' Or in a twenty-one-year-old college senior named Scott Erwin, a former intern to Dick Cheney, [who] wrote home that he was 'assisting Iraqi's in the management of finances and budgeting for the domestic security forces?' Or in a 'KPMG consulting firm Bearing Point [creating] a free market from scratch in Iraq?'

It has taken the United States two centuries to achieve its current status which some argue still lacks some basic democratic standards. It was a long messy process of "muddling through" that was probably more lucky than well-planned.

History points to our inability to plan out the journey toward freedom (or God) for another.

I also have a serious problem with the indifference shown towards Iraqi life in the statements regarding moving the 'terrorist battleground' to Iraq as somehow preferential to that battle being fought on North American soil.

I encourage reading "The White Man's Burden," by William Easterly for a more thoughtful discussion on the West's involvement with the Rest. That is the source of the above quoted information.>

Posted by: Anonymous | October 31, 2006 5:48 AM

AskWhyNow,

Would you be willing to share why you believe the situation in Iraq is the fault of Islam?>

Posted by: Daniel | October 31, 2006 3:11 PM

Thanks for the entry. My comment is somewhat beside your point, but does deal with your framing of it (and other articles on Sojourners today). "Myth," it appears, is used as a synonym for "lie." On the one hand, this may be sugarcoating the real charge. On the other hand, it is furthering the misunderstanding of what a myth is. Maybe this battle is already lost, but I would expect that a religion-focused site like Sojourners may want to preserve a deeper meaning of what a myth can be.

Thanks again,>

Posted by: Rod | October 31, 2006 7:33 PM

Great comment Anonymous.

p>

Posted by: Payshun | October 31, 2006 10:11 PM

I haven't read through all the comments yet, but I'm disapponted that Tony Campolo thinks that stating a man's name is professionally considered a "source." Mr. Campolo, how can we access that particular research material to see the "study" that was performed?

If you are going to comment on current events in the name of "The Church" then please be more credible and professional about it. The doubters and enemies of the Church all ready think we're insane.

Thanks.>

Posted by: Bruce Donaldson | November 3, 2006 3:43 PM

Whether we should have been there at all or for as long as we have been, I'm afraid the reality of the situation is that Iraq will implode if we leave now. Civil war will break out, and it will become a terrorist haven.

Another reality: No one commenting on this thread has any sort of access to the intelligence information or briefings that the nation's leaders have. We can pontificate all we want, but it's meaningless.>

Posted by: Jonathan | November 9, 2006 5:47 PM