Brian-

So sanctions and freezing of the finances by our gov't and now you are all up in arms. I thought this is what Wallis and Co wanted to happen so that we will not have to go to war. I believe this is diplomacy. I believe that we will be talking to other countries about how to handle Iran so that the world will not be at war in another country. And Brian - you and I both know that the UN will be a part of all of this too. SO - why don't you call the Sec. General and let him know what is happening. That you do not want a war with Iran. Don't forget to tell him to inform France, Russia and others that now would be the time to undermine all efforts so that they can make a lot of money under the table. they all did so well with Iraq.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 25, 2007 1:49 PM

There is another way. It is the way of Christ, Who gave us the ultimate example of how to relate to a strong, even tyrannical government. He simply lived His life as if they didnt control Him - - because they didnt! He refused to acknowledge the power of the government, and He refused equally to 'protest' the governmental evil that was all around Him. He lived the way of peace, of pacifism, not as a 'non-violent resister," but simply as a "non-resister." "I say to you, resist not evil. . ." was probably not intended to be a cliche. He meant it. He meant it for 30 A.D. He means it for 2007.
If or when our government attacks Iran, we need not be surprised, nor do we need to fear. How sad that the words "I fear. . ." appear so many times in this article, written by a Christian. When Jesus said, so often, "Feat not. . ." that wasn't to be a cliche, either.

Posted by: joekc | October 25, 2007 2:03 PM

Brian, what do you suggest the US does with regards to Iran? Seriously, what do you propose? You can be helpful here!!

Please lay out your plan!!

Posted by: Blake | October 25, 2007 3:26 PM

Blake - can you tell my why you think that Iran is something we should "do something about"? Are they threatening us? Is the possibility that the current leadership (in both Iran and the US) will soon change beyond the pale of reason? Or the is a longterm solution to the differences with Israel will be worked out diplomatically less likely to create the conditions for peace than a military intervention?

Posted by: splinterlog | October 25, 2007 3:50 PM

Blessings, Brian! A wonderful column!

Attacking Iran would be even more idiotic than attacking Iraq, and every bit as illegal and immoral. It would be an utter disaster all the way around.

The Christians of this land must lead the way in opposing war, especially pre-emptive war against Iran. It is absolutely against the teachings of Jesus, period. It has been the great scandal of Christianity in America that the people in this land who call themselves Christians have so frequently gone to war without asking any questions, assuming that it is their Christian duty to fight and kill, often for the most specious reasons.

When will we realize that it is our Christian duty to make peace and oppose war?

When will we realize that, as Marine Corps General Smedley Butler wrote in the 1920s, "War is a Racket", benefitting only the military-industrial complex?

Posted by: Steve | October 25, 2007 4:13 PM

Please read the following and then get back to me with your thoughts on the "Iran Problem"

The Secret History of the Impending War With Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/102407B.shtml

Posted by: Jerry D. Riley | October 25, 2007 4:44 PM

Steve quotes Major General Smedley Butler - what a name.
At his death he was the most decorated soldier in the Armed Forces.
I had never heard of him until recently.

Smedley Butler was a key witness to 'The Business Plot', the 'Plot Against FDR', or the 'White House Putsch', an alleged conspiracy involving several wealthy businessmen to overthrow the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.
Purported details of the matter came to light when retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified before a Congressional committee that a group of men had attempted to recruit him to serve as the leader of a plot and to assume and wield power once the coup was successful. Butler testified before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in 1934. In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of several men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.

General Butler claimed that the American Liberty League was the primary means of funding the plot. The main backers were the Du Pont family, as well as leaders of U.S. Steel, General Motors, Standard Oil, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. A BBC documentary claims Prescott Bush, father and grandfather to the 41st and 43rd US Presidents respectively, was also connected.

Can you believe this?

Posted by: justintime | October 25, 2007 5:21 PM

"But yes, the candidates are positioning themselves strongly against Iran because it is the only electable position, and rightly so."

I don't believe that for a moment. If the candidates were honest, they would do the research and realize what a disaster a preemptive, unprovoked attack on Iraq would cause (just an hour's consultation with some real Middle-East experts would tell them that). Then they would communicate these facts to the American people and let the Americans decide what is in the nation's best interests: continuing to shake swords at the Iranians or an attempt to dialogue with them. I think once the American people understood what the results of an attack on Iran are likely to be, they will make the right choices.

"Our diplomatic actions means nothing if we have taken any military action off the table."

But we aren't even engaged in diplomacy! This statement therefore has no meaning. We can debate this point after diplomatic efforts begin, if they ever do. And anyway, I don't think any of us is qualified to tell our diplomatic personnel how to do their jobs.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | October 25, 2007 5:30 PM

Kevin,
What if we woke up one day and a nuclear bom exploded in Israel?'
...
We would read about it in the morning paper along with a story that Iran was incinerated by a massive nuclear retaliation.
Hopefully there would be no further hostilities.

Posted by: justintime | October 25, 2007 5:33 PM

Brian:

Thank you for your provocative posting on an issue of concern. I think the only important question right now is #2: "What can we do now to decrease the possibility of [preemptive attack against Iran] occuring?" We actually have time to do something.

Brian, please do not underestimate the tremendous impact that your teachings (and those of others such as Greg Boyd, NT Wright, and Walter Wink) on non-violence, creative peacemaking, and the true message and methods of Jesus are having upon Christians in America. Yes, there are many loud and boisterous critics, but minds and hearts are changing. Mine included, as well as those of some members of my congregation.

Before I became a pastor, I worked for nine years as a defense and intelligence analyst who conducted "war games" and developed strategies for winning America's next war (and the war after that ... and the war after that ...). As I have come to know Jesus more intimately and have understood His teachings within the context of His culture and society more clearly, I have completely changed my views towards the use of violence and force as acceptable or appropriate policy options. As a follower of Jesus, I now believe that violence and the use of force are never acceptable or appropriate options for us.

I have shared this testimony for one reason. I believe that the hearts and minds of Christians can change if we continue to teach Christ's gospel of the kingdom. We must continue to discuss the issues of creative peacemaking and non-violence on a regular basis -- in small groups, in coffee shops, over dinner, and in the worship hall if we can. We can write articles and op-ed pieces. Yes, we will receive criticism, some of it brutally painful from those that we love. But when faced with evil, we must overcome it with good. And we must speak as Jesus did -- with love, and gentleness, and patience, and wisdom. And as a previous poster mentioned, we need to pray. This is the road that Jesus walked ... and so must we.

Let us persevere in the task of teaching and education and discussing -- it is having positive and lasting results on the hearts and minds and faith of Christians in America.

Sorry for the sermon. Humbly submitted.

John Moyle

Posted by: John Moyle | October 25, 2007 5:53 PM

It's quite possible that humanity is incorrigible. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, as the mutual funds like to hedge in their ads, but it's all we have to go on. A betting Martian would have to go with the smart money and predict another eventual asteroid belt in the third orbit from the sun.

I guess some war Jesus supporters simply have faith that no matter how much they, along with the rest of mankind, plump for ever-increasing violence that somehow Jesus will prevent them from carrying it too far. Just like He prevents cancer, heart disease, car crashes and all the other disasters personal and corporate we are prey to, I guess. And like He prevents so many of them from becoming fat by indulging in all those fattening goodies served up at church get-togethers. It's amazing isn't it, how far a little unshakable faith can leave you out on a limb, whether misplaced or not.

It's really too bad that comfort-praying is as deceptive as comfort-eating in its results, but it's not real.

What's real about Jesus is so often dismissed by traditions that substitute messianic nationalism for the Messiah and make up complicated theologies and ideological political idols to neutralize the effect of His clear teachings on those who read them.

"Not for us," "much later," "improperly understood" are all the theological subterfuges used to just allow things to continue along as they always have since shortly after our beginning and diss Jesus.

"When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the Earth?" is a genuinely open one.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 25, 2007 6:02 PM

It's really too bad that comfort-praying is as deceptive as comfort-eating in its results, but it's not real.

Amen

Posted by: justintime | October 25, 2007 6:19 PM

Iran is doomed and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. If the US does not destroy it, Israel will.

Posted by: Chuck Cosimano | October 25, 2007 7:41 PM

Steve,

"When will we realize that it is our ... duty to make peace and oppose war?"

Such a simple thought, yet it creates so much noise.

A friend mentioned to me recently that he'd heard a quote [I think it was from Friedrich Nietzsche] that "there has only ever been one true Christian: Christ."

Honestly, I tend to agree.

- Caren

Posted by: caren | October 25, 2007 8:00 PM

Posted by: justintime | October 25, 2007 5:21 PM

Can you believe this?

Yes - and Elvis is living under an assumed name in Tyler TX. Jimmy Hoffa is organizing children's games in Panama and WT 7 was brought down by Rosie O'Donald.

Now if you excues me I have a date with Beverly Sills.

Whatever -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 25, 2007 8:50 PM

The plot against FDR is a true story, Moderatelad.
I saw the BBC documentary.
You don't believe it? look it up.
FDR got concessions from the corporate fascist plotters in return for dropping the investigation.

The Bush family has been involved in war profiteering for a long time.
Bush's grandaddy, Prescott, was doing business with the Nazis until FDR shut it down.

Make no mistake Moderatelad,
This is a crime syndicate we have for a government.
And they're about to start another war.

Posted by: justintime | October 25, 2007 9:24 PM

Justintime,

And George W. Bush was on the grassy knoll in 1963 and fired the deadly shot that killed Kennedy when W. was but a lad of 17. It only figures he did it, since it runs in the family and he was in Texas at the time. Just because there's a conspiracy documentary doesn't necessarily make things so. And I could see your "Should we have a sanity test before registering Americans to vote?" test - You'd be the test giver and anyone who didn't believe the way you did would be judged insane. Yipes - they once had a literacy test in this country until the 1960s that kept blacks from voting. Jump forward to 2008 and have a test to keep conservatives from voting.

Posted by: Cads | October 25, 2007 9:59 PM

I would think we are forced into diplomacy. No king, if he is a wise king, will go out into battle without first assessing his resources. And if they are found wanting, he will then send a diplomat to negotiate peace. Do we have the resources? Our troops are exhausted, and we are stretched extremely thin. So I guess we go to the draft. With anti-war sentiment on the rise, how well will that go over? We really don't have much choice but to use diplomacy. We simply cannot afford a third war, especially when we have not finished the first two. It really is that simple, and if our leaders are smart, they will start with that premise and go from there.

Posted by: squeaky | October 25, 2007 10:27 PM

Kevin s. "the candidates are positioning themselves strongly against Iran because it is the only electable position, and rightly so."

The fact that candidates are lining up behind the position merely indicates that they think it's the vote winning position, not necessarily that it's the right decision. And being politicians they will continue to 'follow the wind.'

The moderates in Iran (Christian and Muslim) need our support. Any pressure we bring to bear on Iran will only serve to strengthen their warmongers (an equal and opposite reaction). This is the lesson of history which we seem intent on ingnoring. It is not just a bad Christian decision, it's a bad political decision.

But I am not afraid and I don't believe Christians should be (of either Iran or of further war). Alert, vigilant, activive, wise, but not afraid.

Be Blessed

Posted by: Trent | October 25, 2007 11:58 PM

Great article Brian! You expressed my same concerns very clearly!

Too many of our political leaders favor the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it fails to bow to Washington’s demand that it eliminate its nuclear energy program. I've also heard it said that many believe, in the event of a coup that removes the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, the US should attack that nation’s nuclear arsenal.

This is the same misguided type of talk that got us into a war with Iraq.

Iran and Pakistan are no real threat to us, but the military-industrial complex wants us to fear them so that we can fight another pre-emptive war to support their stinking industry.

It seems that almost all of our political leaders and the subservient media keep trying to plant the seeds of fear and distrust against these other nations. It is disgusting behavior, but we've been getting this message for so long, it feels "normal". But It Is NOT Normal.

We've being programmed to think that war will solve all of our problems with the adversarial nations that our corporatized leaders of Congress and the White House have chosen.

Ask yourself, are we, or the nations we attacked and now occupy, better off for the pre-emptive wars we have waged against them? Are we spreading democracy or fear and hatred?

The military-industrial complex and big oil are only too happy with ongoing wars. Our country is being torn apart by these wars. The costs of these wars is borne by you and me while The Military-Industrial Complex (Big Biz) and Big Oil are making enormous profits. In their minds, we are mere drones. Our democracy has been thoroughly twisted into something unrecognizable.

U.S. politician's comments indicate that they would consider attacking Iran and other nations for pursuing their nuclear ambitions.

How hypocrital such a position is! Should the United States be attacked because we have nuclear power plants and maintain a large nuclear arsenal?

Who's the real threat to world peace here? The United States has become a war-mongering imperialistic nation! Our lust for oil and profits has caused us to justify our illegal aggressions.

Where are the leaders who will stand up to this evil?

God help us - and God help the nations we are targeting.

Posted by: Karl Steven Keene | October 26, 2007 12:09 AM

I can't find a way from Jesus' words and actions to a preemptive strike on Iran. I know a lot of Christians support this idea, but I don't see how they get there. If you could take me, step-by-step, from Jesus to a pre-emptive strike on Iran, please let me know. I'd like to read it--I promise to do so with an open mind.

Posted by: ashpenaz | October 26, 2007 1:35 AM

Posted by: justintime | October 25, 2007 9:24 PM

'...saw the BBC documentary.'

And every documentary out their is 'gospel' - NOT! Just because is makes the final cut does not mean it is true.

'...Prescott, was doing business with the Nazis until FDR shut it down.'

Really! So were several others until FDR shut it down. What a concept. Cutting off the funds and business ventures to a nation bent on causing havoc to other nations around the world. Isn't that what has just been done here by our state dept? So - it is OK for FDR but not OK for GWB. (dare I say hipocritical...)

'...they're about to start another war.'

I think they are trying with the international community to prevent another war. There have been talks - sanctions - etc. trying to keep the peace in that area.

I am not a prophet - but if Iran gets the 'bomb' they will have no problem using it on Israel - some countries in Europe, (France and Russia are most likely drawing up agreements to undermine any effort and they will make a lot of money at the expense of others) and the US. Will they use a missle - they might. I believe that it will be a dirty bomb in some kind of 'suitcase' or package that will render that area or city useless.

Sleep tight tonight -

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 26, 2007 8:37 AM

Can we prevent the next war? I don't know. We didn't get where we are overnight, and it's going to be hard to get to a really better place fast.

But regardless, we must take the next step, and then the step after that, etc. We must set our feet in the right direction.

We must pray. We must start with ourselves, and ask God to change our hearts. We must repent of how we have been suckered into the lie that we must do evil in order to produce God. We need to confess, individually and as the faith community, and turn to God's ways.

We must examine the Gospel closely, with both our hearts (which must be open to a very different understanding than we have had) and minds. As faith communities, we must begin preaching and living the real Gospel that Jesus proclaimed, not a Gospel thoroughly contaminated by the principalities and powers. [Brian's books are helpful beginnings here.]

Politically we must just say no to the apostles of continuing evil systems, Republicans and Democrats alike. We should refuse to vote for any candidates who favor continued devotion of over half of our general revenue to wars and preparations for wars. We should refuse to go "the lesser evil" route and vote for a candidate who supports evil systems because she or he is marginally better than the candidate of the other major party. Where the two major parties present unacceptable candidates (which they almost always do), we should write-in, vote for a third party candidate or independent, or write in a value rather than a name. If enough people did this, the mass media and political structures would begin to notice. What if someone like Joe Schriner actually got millions of write-in votes?

We need to witness in whatever ways we are called. Not in demonstrations filled with hate and hostility like so many of the big "anti-war" demonstrations. But in silent, prayerful vigils, meetings with political office holders where we pray and calmly speak about the call of the Gospel, in dialogue with the nation's "enemies", in helping the victims of our country's wars both abroad and at home, etc.

And always remembering that we must be the change, and to really become the change means allowing Christ to transform us from the inside out. The love of Christ should be flowing out from us and touching every person with whom we come in contact. Then things will change, one heart at a time.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | October 26, 2007 9:56 AM

Posted by: justintime | October 25, 2007 9:40 PM

They are trying to start another war.
Haven't you seen this movie before?

You know - I think they are trying to prevent a war. Talking with the leadership of Iran has not worked. (whatever the leadership is over there...) So rather than just 'talking' we are taking the next step in forcing them to come to terms with the rest of the world. This is not 'saber rattling' - we are far from deploying troops. I believe that Brian is the one that is causing most of the fear that people are experiencing today. I think that he would have given some support in our trying to keep the peace. Instead - he jumps from where we are today to all out war with Iran. I do hope he is not this reactionary in all segments of his life - I could not live that way.

Let's pray that this will cause them to come to the table with a little more intentionality in their efforts to keep the peace rather than the 'stall them at all costs' tactics that we have seen in the past few years.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 26, 2007 10:03 AM

Cads, 'Your wanting me to read Kevin Phillips to prove the Bush family is evil is like me wanting you to read Ann Coulter to prove the Clintons are corrupt. Each author starts with an agenda and only then are the "facts" reported. Please don't try to tell me Phillips has no agenda. I've heard him on NPR. His hatred for Bush is at least equal to yours.'

No, cads, it's not the same.
Kevin Phillips has impeccable credentials as an historian of American politics.
He's done the research and if he has an opinion about Bush, it's for good reason and he can back it up with the facts.

Ann Coulter has no such credentials.
She's an entertainer catering to the right wing.
The Don Rickles of fascism.
No one takes her seriously, not even herself.

The fact is, cads, you're really not interested in finding out the truth about the Bush administration.
Accepting the truth would require you to abandon your delusions.
It's tough to admit that you've been supporting a crime syndicate, when all along you thought they were decent and honorable men, trying to do the right thing.

Posted by: justintime | October 26, 2007 10:38 AM

Moderatelad, 'Let's pray that this will cause them to come to the table with a little more intentionality in their efforts to keep the peace rather than the 'stall them at all costs' tactics that we have seen in the past few years.'

If it makes you comfortable to pray that Bush and Amadinejad don't start another war, pray for their sanity.
And I'll keep trying, along with many other Americans, to stop this disaster from happening.

Posted by: justintime | October 26, 2007 10:47 AM

Squeaky, 'Our foreign policy resembles an elephant playing piano.'

It certainly does, Squeaky.

For an intelligent analysis of the current situation in the Middle East:
The collapse of Bush's foreign policy By Juan Cole
From Turkey to Iraq to Pakistan, the mounting chaos proves the White House is just winging it.

Posted by: justintime | October 26, 2007 11:00 AM

Posted by: justintime | October 26, 2007 10:47 AM

Please - I do not want to have a war with Iran. War is the last act of a rational soceity to deal with an irrational entity. But for all the time that someone has gone to Iran to talk to them about stopping - all they have gotten is plattitudes from them that were meaningless. Maybe freezing assests will cause them to realize what they are up agaist in the world. A nuclear Iran would be one of the most destablizing factors in the Mideast and the world.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 26, 2007 11:12 AM

Yesterday Condi announced new sanctions against Iran...which are the product of implied pressure from Russia aligning itself with Iran, NOT as a result of the Compassionate Conservative deciding that diplomacy is the better course to war. War is good for profits, it builds fear in the minds of most folks, and makes it more palatable to accept the "leadership" of those so terribly unworthy to lead. After all, as Americans we must "Stay the course."

The "War on Terror' has become the flashpoint for too many Christians to stand "for us or against us", as the conservatves like to portray their theory of endless war, endless profits. They have preyed on people's fears, and found a willing audience.

Yes, there are Islamic extremists who want to see us destroyed. Sadly, there are Christians who believe in "just war" as long as it fits with their carefully insulated view of the world. Jesus didn't preach holy war, or just war. He spoke to our hearts, and dared us to stand apart from the mainstream of the world, in the name of His love.

There is no security in this world. Jesus offered us suffering, perhaps even death, as the price to follow Him.

How many millions will we slaughter in the name of security? When will we stand up and demand justice and freedom for all, even from the terror growing right here at home?

Those in power aim to preserve their power, not to act for the good of mankind. Whether in Washington, in Tehran, in Jerusalem, Caesar lives in the hearts of world "leaders".

Pray for Peace, and dare to SPEAK OUT!

Posted by: Doug & Jan in CO | October 26, 2007 11:49 AM

Anyone who likens Kevin Phillips to Ann Coulter is demonstrating a titanic ignorance of Phillips' career.

He comes on strong in "American Dynasty," a little too strong to my taste, but fundamentally his portrait of the Bush family is sound. And he offers 24 pages of endnotes and 2 appendices with supporting documentation, so anyone who cares to can check his sources. Cads, you up for that kind of intellectual spadework? Or is it easier to listen to talk radio?

Posted by: carl copas | October 26, 2007 12:48 PM

It's easier to listen to talk radio than to take the initiative to learn the truth for yourself.
The remaining 'conservatives' who support the radical Bush administration are intellectually lazy.

Posted by: justintime | October 26, 2007 2:34 PM

DONALD RUMSFELD CHARGED WITH TORTURE DURING TRIP TO FRANCE
October 26, 2007, Paris, France – Today, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights filed a complaint with the Paris Prosecutor before the "Court of First Instance" (Tribunal de Grande Instance) charging former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with ordering and authorizing torture. Rumsfeld was in Paris for a talk sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine, and left through a door connecting to the U.S. embassy to avoid journalists and human rights attorneys outside.

Posted by: justintime | October 26, 2007 3:02 PM

Americans should remember that the US has been meddling in Iranian domestic affairs since the 60's.
The CIA engineered a coup against Mossadeq, a democratically elected leader.
Why?
Because Mossadeq was planning to nationalize Iran's oil resources.
The CIA was acting in the interest of the oil Barons.
The US then installed a puppet government governed by the Shah, who turned out to be a vicious tyrant.
The Shah was overthrown by a popular revolution and the kidnapping of our diplomatic mission was 'blowback' for the US installing the Shah.
Later, the US (under Bush 41) backed Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran.
Millions of Iranians lost their lives in this war.
Why should we be surprised the Iranian leadership doesn't trust America?
Least of all, an America governed by Bush, the war criminal.

Posted by: justintime | October 26, 2007 4:01 PM

Carl Copas, How DARE you attack me for siding with Ann Coulter - I was doing no such thing, and if you re-read my post, you should be able to see it too. I can't stand the woman; I was just making a point about agendas. And 24 pages of endnotes doesn't prove a thing unless YOU'RE willing to accept the 57 pages of notes at the end of David Limbaugh's "Bankrupt" book attempting to prove the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the democratic party!! That was the most well documented book I've ever read, but it certainly had an agenda, as do almost all political books! One more thing - I hardly ever listen to talk radio as I'm busy reading, so once again, you don't know what you're talking about!

Posted by: Cads | October 26, 2007 4:25 PM

p says, 'THis next step won't help our cause at all. It will just push the population into Ahmadinejad hands'

p is right, sanctions are really an appeal to the citizens of a nation for them to bring pressure and influence on their leaders to change policy.

In this case sanctions will be counterproductive.
Sanctions will unify Iran behind the more radical mullahs.
And Iran's Western-leading youth will be silenced.
Iran showed astonishing unity in the face of Saddam's invasion, losing several million of their patriots.

What's Bush expecting to happen with sanctions?
Bush is picking another fight we will never be able to finish.
I'm beginning to think he wants perpetual war - to secure the oil resources of the Islamic world.
China and Russia are sitting this one out.
If we lose again, they will only be too glad to pick up the pieces.
Don't expect 'any coalition of the willing' this time.
I don't think the Brown Government will let Britain get suckered again by Bush.
We may find our only ally is Israel.

Posted by: justintime | October 26, 2007 5:03 PM

Posted by: Karl S. Keene | October 26, 2007 3:04 PM

You said of Iran:

I said of 'Radical Islam'.

'...consider a nation that pre-emptively attacked the United States...'

They have and did on 911. It was Radical Islamists and they are protected by Iraq - Iran - Syria - Afganistan - etc.

'...and expand beyond the limits of some far-off distant land, and likely come to our shores...'

How do you know that it hasn't already? We have cells here waiting to do 'something' sooner of later. Did you know that 1000's of radicals loyal to UBL and Islam left the US and went to the mideast to fight with Saddan and against the US and Allied forces.

Tell you what - lets back off and just give Iran the material that they need to make the bomb and then the situation will be done with and we can move on to something else. This is why I say we need to recall all our armed forces from all around the world and be done with foreign policy. Let the Irans and North Korea's of the world have their way with no US involvement. Of course the UN and other countries will not be able to make any money 'under the table'.

I would gladly back off and let the world go to hell just like the authors on this site say 'between the lines'.

You understand then that without military assistance and portection - humanitarian aid will be almost non-exsistant. I will never ask or support anyone going off our shore to assist if we can not protect them.

Most of the companies that have foreign offices will have to greatly limit their involvement as they will be exposed to any number of challenges from other counrties and leaders that support and believe in starting a war for their own personal gain. They would have the US out there to try to bring some balance to any region of the world.

I'm right with you buddy - staying home and not caring about what happens off our shores.

Do have a great weekend -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 26, 2007 6:49 PM

It's exasperating to keep saying, without it seeming to make any dent, that it's a false dichotomy to say the choice is either war or nothing at all.

It shows the hatred and disdain for others is so great, that one either wants to kill them, or alternatively have nothing at all to do with them.

Being peacemakers as we are called to be, by Jesus, is a task that requires more patience, more backbone, more courage, not less.

Perhaps that is why it's so easy to do nothing at all, or jump directly to war, for either of those positions seemingly offers the "quick fix."

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 26, 2007 11:10 PM

Posted by: Karl S. Keene | October 26, 2007 11:07 PM

The new paradyme in the 21st century is that national orginion means nothing. You idology and affilation is what will identify you. The were Saudi's - fine. But they were supported and trained by any number of countries and groups.

They are thinking outside the box but liberals keep trying to put them into some small nishe so that they can justify not going to war against them. They can do that and we will still be as dead as before. This is not the war we thought it would be but it is the war they wanted us to have.

Paint it anyway you want to. Use the same brush that Wallis slaps us around with. Their desire and focus on the US and the West is their form of 'holy war', and they have been preparing for it for decades. How are you going to stop them so that our children and families can hope to live peacefully in the homes and communities.

We may be engaging them in Iraq currently but their desire is to be fighting us in the street and parks in the US. Your choice.

Blessings - and the handle is just 'Moderatelad'
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 27, 2007 12:49 AM

Kevin s.

I can understand from a purely secular viewpoint why the strong stand against Iran, including the threat of force, may make sense (I can also perceive stronger argument against it).

But let me ask you, is your support of threatening Iran based on your spiritual or secular reasoning? Is it what you believe God wants for you and for your nation, or is it what you believe is the best course of action (logically speaking).

If the former, can you establish why you believe God wants Iran threatened?

If the later, can you specify what you believe God's opinion would be?

I'm not trying to be facetious, I simply do not understand where God is fitting into your thinking.

(for extra credit can you provide me an historical example of where threats or sanctions have speeded revolution? Right now I'll settle for one - to counter balance the dozens odd counter examples).

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 27, 2007 8:51 AM

Why are you all making this assumption that Iran will start a war? Any war? Only US does things like that, not sane countries like Iran. As for this statement that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, that ladies and gentlemen is an outright lie. Ahmadinijad (sp?) made no such statement. I have read his original speach and I can post it here--but who cares for facts when our minds are made up?

Posted by: Al Blutenhalbmonde | October 27, 2007 11:38 AM

Pardon my delay in responding, Justintime, but my response was held up - guess I got too personal. David Limbaugh is Rush's only sibling and has authored 3 books. My beliefs were inherited from my deceased father and I read and watch a variety of publications and channels. Suffice to say, I scoff at the self-assuredness of radical conservatives and laugh at the naivete' of wacky liberals.

Posted by: Cads | October 27, 2007 1:40 PM

As a newbie to the online Sojourners material, and as one like so many of you up there who haven't begun to have time to work through all of these posts, I'll keep my comments brief until I can get some more bearings.

With apologies to anyone else who may have been making the same or similar comments (again, I just haven't had time to absorb all of this!), my few comments thus far include:

Trent: Thank you for asking where God fits into some of the replies here. That doesn't mean He doesn't, of course, and you noted that; but like you, at times it seems unclear to me exactly how and where. Biblical and confessional warrants for positions taken here, regardless of which "side" of the issue is taken, seem a bit lacking ... and would help me, at least, and I presume you too, sort things out. Speaking just for myself (duh), I find it too easy to slide into my own -- and rather inappropriate -- heated rhetoric, growing out of my own political stances; and I need the "theologizing" (for lack of a better word)not only to avoid that slide, but to keep the political, ethical etc. etc. issues in perspective. A faith perspective.

Karl Keene: In line with my comment to Trent (above), thank you so much for your post with biblical references. My modest newbie suggestion is that considerably more of that might help the discussion stay ... well, stay with a faith focus, and perhaps avoid the "hatefulness" to which Scott McClamma alluded above (see my next reply to Scott).

Scott McClamma: I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one being put off by the hateful tone of some posts here. It is one thing to disagree, and disagree vehemently; it is entirely another, and out of character for anyone claiming to be claimed by Jesus, to lurch over into sarcasm and at least borderline hatefulness. I hesitated to go on too.

John Moyle: Preach on, brother! Somehow preaching seems not inappropriate on a Christian site! I very much appreciated your testimony -- it helps put a face on, or feet under?, or both, a biblical perspective.

Kevin S.: Would you mind expanding on some of the things you said (above) in response -- I assume -- to Trent's question about "where God is fitting into your thinking"? Specifically:

> I think it is the best course of action from a > logical standpoint, and I find nothing in the
> Bible that contradicts it.

Karl Keene's posting up above suggests a large number of fairly well-grounded texts (i.e. taken from a wide variety of biblical sources, and not just "proof-texting"). What other texts -- and specifically New Testament texts, since I would assume Jesus is the "benchmark" by which we weigh and interpret all other texts -- might you rely on instead of Karl's? For that matter, instead of the overall biblical perspective on which Brian McLaren would appear to be relying?

> If it averts a nuclear attack, I can see where
> he would want it. So we are essentially left
> with the question of whether this is a logical
> course of action.

Would the aversion of nuclear war in any way qualify the biblical perspective Karl is arguing with his texts (above)? If so, how would you see that happening? In other words, does God qualify His will if such-and-such catastrophe is avoided by means other than His will? (And of course that leads back to the question of alternative biblical perspectives: what other texts might you suggest?)

> Somehow, I think they might be unimpressed by
> the prayers of Christian peaceheads with a gun
> to their own heads.

With apologies if I am misunderstanding you here: I respectfully would disagree with you here, by saying my hunch is that most Christians aren't directing their prayers sideways at anyone. Whether the Iranians or Al Quaeda or anyone else might be "impressed" or -- more likely! -- not, is rather beside the point. Our prayers are to God. The outcome of a faith-based stance, whether "peacehead" or any other, is in His hands. He is sovereign, and we trust that even when we screw up and His sovereignty is worked out through our mistakes.

grace and peace,
bro. steve

Posted by: bro. steve | October 27, 2007 5:01 PM

Posted by: squeaky | October 27, 2007 4:00 PM

Posted by: Don | October 27, 2007 5:07 PM

You know - moch me all you want if that is what it takes to make you feel better. I like a joke just as well as anyone else - so - whatever.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 27, 2007 5:43 PM

Trent, 'But let me ask you [Kevin S.], is your support for threatening Iran based on your spiritual or secular reasoning?.'

Kevin S. bases his support for threatening Iran on what he reads in neoconservative journals - The National Review and The Weekly Standard.

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2007 11:50 AM

If secular neo-conservatives and their big business allies blindly count upon American evangelical conservatives to blindly support expansion of war, just because they were deceived into it the first time around, they may have to think again.

There's an amazing article in the New York Times Sunday magazine, today, of all places, that in a surprisingly fair way characterizes the realignment of thinking going on among evangelical conservatives.

The appeal of religious conservatism is that we try to hold fast to the truths of our faith as delivered to us by Jesus and the apostles who faithfully wrote inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's easy to make the mistake - I did - that politically nationalistic conservative movements hold the same principles, but they don't - they are conservative, often, in the classic sense of defending the political and economic status quo, and acting for those interests, regardless that a conservative Christian interpretation of scripture will find them desperately wanting.

There is hope, as prayers go up, that although "if it were possible, even the elect would be deceived," that the Holy Spirit will open all of us to the truth no matter how distasteful and set us free from being made merchandise of through lies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 28, 2007 12:17 PM

Lonnie, that's the second time I've been falsely accused on this one blog alone. Please carefully read what is written prior to being critical of someone. And may God help YOU be more tolerant of others.

Posted by: Cads | October 28, 2007 2:24 PM

Thanks to N.M.Rod for linking to this great article in the NYT: The Evangelical Crackup

The brief reference to Jim Wallis in this extensive essay by David Kirkpatrick:

[Bill] Hybels, founder of the Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago, is very possibly the single-most-influential pastor in America; in the last 15 years, his Willow Creek Association has grown to include more than 12,000 churches.
In the past, Hybels has scrupulously avoided criticizing conservative Christian political figures like Falwell or Dobson. But in my talk with him, he argued that the leaders of the conservative Christian political movement had lost touch with their base. “The Indians are saying to the chiefs, ‘We are interested in more than your two or three issues,’ ” Hybels said. “We are interested in the poor, in racial reconciliation, in global poverty and AIDS, in the plight of women in the developing world.”
He brought up the Rev. Jim Wallis, the lonely voice of the tiny evangelical left. Wallis has long argued that secular progressives could make common cause with theologically conservative Christians. “What Jim has been talking about is coming to fruition,” Hybels said.

Well worth a read.

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2007 3:02 PM

I'm a teacher and, sadly, middle America IS changing dramatically. This change is most evident in the young. Over the past 15 years, even very young children have acquired a taste for heartless sarcasm, crudeness, meaningless and vulgar sexuality, profanity and angry and physically violent retribution for assumed wrong. Whether they desire it or not, they feel material wealth is the only power one has in a capitalistic society. Because they know most American citizens will never be wealthy, teenagers exhibit a general apathy and hopelessness.

Overall, more and more children lack focus, imagination and motivation to follow through on tasks. And, most disturbing, children and young adults base many of their beliefs on what they are told by media personalities and celebrities. When questioned about the validity of basing one's beliefs on questionable sources, they say they don't have time to do a comparitive analysis of the facts. Talk to any teacher and they will tell you this country is in heading for big trouble unless there are some big changes. And the problem is not with the teachers...it's with our culture.

I believe the Holy Spirit helps Christians discern the Truth...and if ya don't believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit then it's common folk wisdom to trust your gut. Well, sir, my gut gets violently sick when I watch O'Reilly and his self-righteous cohorts berate and belittle, mislead and outright lie...all the while asserting they are Christians. And, since I do believe in the Holy Spirit, I also feel every spiritual hackle rise in alarm...and the following words echo in my mind "these people are working against Christ's teachings. These people are doing the work of darkness...and why? For profit?" I feel great sorrow. I wonder who gave them their diamond studded collars? I look closely and see the weight of a heavy yoke of their master on their shoulders. I know that sounds dramatic, but that is what I sense. Is it judgemental to say most of the media celebrities who profess to support a "conservative viewpoint" are not people of peace or love? Remember the Sunday school song..."You will know we are Christians by our love"... Do they demonstrate God's unconditional love and forgiveness?

Christ taught we should use our minds, hearts and hands to manifest his Love actively in the world. He also demonstrated there is a Helper, the Holy Spirit, who makes spiritual discernment possible and who gives those who surrender to Him the courage to speak the truth. It is right to use spiritual discernment and teachings in the Bible to guide our minds and hearts. It is clear Christ's central teaching is to Love God with all your heart and Love your brother as yourself. Brother is defined as all mankind.

I am praying for God to show me how I can actualize His Love in the world.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 28, 2007 3:36 PM

Moderatelad, 'Al Frankin - the C+ comic whanna-be is the one who wrote the book titled "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat ugly liar" and then did little to have the facts to back up the title.'

You better learn how to spell Al Franken's name, Moderatelad, because this C+ comic wannabe is going to be your next Senator.
His book about Rush Limbaugh is titled:
Rush Limbaugh is a big Fat Idiot
His next book is about Bill O'Reilly and is titled:
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
Both are factual and highly entertaining.
Recommended reading.
By the way, Franken hired a team of fact checkers from Harvard University to do the research for these two books.
Franken's claims are supported by the facts.

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2007 3:54 PM

"What other texts -- and specifically New Testament texts, since I would assume Jesus is the "benchmark" by which we weigh and interpret all other texts -- might you rely on instead of Karl's?"

I am not ceding the premise of the question here. I don't see where the scripture cited by Karl speaks against using the military to avert nuclear war, and he offers no explanation for how this might be so.

"In other words, does God qualify His will if such-and-such catastrophe is avoided by means other than His will?"

First question. Can we do something that is not withing God's will? It is an open question, but the answer is necessary to address yours. I don't believe that God forbids the use of military force, and so I don't see the use of same to avert nuclear war to be forbidden by God.

"Whether the Iranians or Al Quaeda or anyone else might be "impressed" or -- more likely! -- not, is rather beside the point."

It might be beside your point, but not the point I was addressing, which was that the Iranian people need to see peaceful gestures from us before they will revolt against their government.

"The outcome of a faith-based stance, whether "peacehead" or any other, is in His hands. He is sovereign, and we trust that even when we screw up and His sovereignty is worked out through our mistakes"

Okay, but this is not an argument for taking the military option off the table, unless you begin with the premise that Christianity mandates a pacifist bent.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 28, 2007 5:05 PM

I don't think the Paleo-con moniker is intended pejoratively.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 28, 2007 9:56 PM

Iran Adapts to Economic Pressure
Washington Post, Monday, October 29, 2007

Confronted by mounting U.S. and U.N. pressure, Iran has been steadily shifting its trade from West to East and, with the benefit of record high oil prices, is likely to be able to withstand the new U.S. sanctions, according to U.S., European and Iranian analysts.
China, a permanent member of the Security Council that can veto any U.N. resolution, is expected to overtake Germany as Iran's biggest trading partner this year.
Oil traders said that Iran does an increasing portion of its petroleum sales in euros and yen, instead of U.S. dollars, and often through third parties, to help its customers circumvent U.S. financial sanctions.
"Given particularly the price and demand for oil, Iran clearly has leverage with countries that need Iran's oil," said Shaul Bakhash, a George Mason University historian and author of "The Reign of the Ayatollahs." In addition, he said, "Iran has a huge cushion of foreign-exchange reserves."
Iran's oil revenue this year will far exceed the government's budget forecasts, which had assumed an average oil price of $60 a barrel. On Friday, oil settled above $90. The extra revenue will make it easier for the government to maintain social-services payments designed to bolster its popularity amid economic problems.
...
When the Bush administration seized power, oil was trading at $20 a barrel.
Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq has driven the price up to $90 a barrel.
Having lost their occupation of Iraq, they may see war with Iran as their only chance of remaining in power.
The Bush administration is not only immoral and corrupt, they're incompetent as well.
God help America.

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2007 12:21 AM

Posted by: justintime | October 28, 2007 3:54 PM

Franken's claims are supported by the facts.

Franken and Facts should never be used in the same sentence as far as I am concerned. Ingram's book is extreamly factual and she has been threatened by lawsuit after lawsuit and she has sent everyone one of them her evidence she had to support her book. Everyone of them has backed off.

I find it interesting that his failed radio program on 'Sucking Air America' was the 'O'Franken Factor' - he is also at best a C+ in creativity. Senator Franken - we can survive him too. We have a senator in there now with close ties to radical Islamic groups that want to destroy the US. We survived Anderson - the self promoting one. We survived Gov 'Turnbuckle' - so I am not too worried.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 29, 2007 8:25 AM

Posted by: squeaky | October 29, 2007 9:47 AM

And Bill O'Reilly should be?

Rush - Ingram - O'Reilly, they all are published authors and NYT Best Sellers. But isn't it interesting that they take on issues, problems, ideologies etc. in their books. Yes - they talk about people in their books that they disagree with and that they feel have faulty doctrine or ideas. The 'Franken' style authors attack the person / messanger for who they are and do little when it comes to facts about what they believe that is faulty.

I know that some of my thinking needs to be tempered and I have changed when I see 'rationally' where I may be in error. But a Franken that just hates conservatives - sorry the message gets lost in the delivery.

Even Rosie O has been on the factor and was handled very respectfully. Too bad she can not say the same about how she handled most of the conservatives that appeared on her show. FOX has Hannity and Combs - CNN has nothing like that on their station. MSNBC (make sure no Bush compliment) has nothing like H&C.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2007 10:11 AM

"If you want to become well informed, you will have to take personal responsibility, open your mind and actively search for the truth about what's going on in this turbulent world."

In other words, visit Dailykos quick before Hillary buys him off.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 29, 2007 12:09 PM

You're a different case entirely, Kevin.
More complicated, more widely read, but maybe even more resistant to the truth than Moderatelad.
Becoming informed isn't as easy as reading from any one source of opinion like Kos OR the neocon punditry.
You have to expose an open mind to a diverse range of opinion and foreign sources, too.
Kos won't be bought off by the likes of Hillary. Kossacks would scorch him for it and probably abandon his website.

I can agree with you on Hillary.
I don't trust her corporate ties, her cynical triangulation of interest groups and her lack of courage, but if she gets the nomination I would have to support her against any of the Republican 'pygmies'.
Progressives are looking for a candidate with courage.
I like Obama, but I'm not sure he's much more than a great orator
Dennis Kucinich best expresses my progressive values but I doubt he's electable.
John Edwards is my current electable favorite.
Recently Chris Dodd gained a lot of points with me because of his principled stand in defense of the Constitution.

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2007 1:01 PM

So O'Reilly treats people respectfully and doesn't attack them? You must be looking at a differenct O"Reilly. He has actually sent "reporters" out to trap, embarrass or harrass people he disagrees with. He habitually looks at the camera and threatens to "get" someone he has targeted. His show is for entertainment, not fact-gathering.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2007 3:24 PM

The CSpan live telecasts of Senate and House proceedings give you great insight into the personalities of our Congressional representatives - good and bad.
If there's an important bill up for debate, I'll watch it.
No commercials and no spin from network producers or pundits.
Of course there's lots of spin from the politicians themselves.
But when you see politicians spinning in a live broadcast, it's easier to see through it and spot the hypocrisy, both right and left.
O'Reilly's "no-spin zone" is a joke.

Posted by: justintime | October 29, 2007 5:23 PM

I agree with most of the article. However, the wealthy already pay too much in taxes. They are the ones supporting almost all of the benefits of being in this country. Approximately 60% of the population not only pay little or nothing in taxes, but reap enormous benefits as the result of the taxes on the rich, including lower taxes. I agree that Bush is a shameful disgrace.

Posted by: Just me | October 30, 2007 12:31 AM

Kevin: Thanks for taking time to reply.

best,
bro.steve

Posted by: bro. steve | October 30, 2007 11:35 AM

Moderatelad, Kevin S,

Have you ever listened to Thom Hartman's radio program?
If you have I'd be interested in your comments.

Posted by: justintime | October 30, 2007 1:19 PM

I long for the day when christian parents will be as eager and proud to send our children into missionary service - even at the risk of death as we are to send them into military service. I seek the day when we as a "christian" nation are eager to spend 100 billion to send love and care instead of death and destruction. I wonder what the world would be like and how we would be percieved if we truely believed what Jesus believed and did not simply believe in Jesus. All who are weary and burdened come...his way...rest for the soul.
I wish we would be as eager to defend and promote the kingdom of God as we are to defend and promote the kingdoms of the west.

Posted by: Jim Beck | October 31, 2007 8:51 AM

...and one more thing Moderatelad,

I find it very telling that you think of NPR as being 'liberal'. Many folks out there find it to be very wishy washy and not so liberal at all. If you think of NPR as liberal it shows that you do not understand the spectrum of political and theological diversity the actually exists within the US culture.

Posted by: Lonnie | October 31, 2007 3:29 PM

Can justintiume go back to posting on daily kos or moveon? All he and others that think that way can see is their hatred for Preisdent Bush. They cant see or hear the Iranian president calling for the desctruction of Isreal or hear him say that the "unbelievers will burn in the fire of Islamic fury". I realize Iran doesnt have a nuclear bomb yet, but they will, as early as 2009, according to some reports from Mossad. If you are on the left or right, do you really want Iran to have nuclear weapons? I think the last thing we need is a war with Iran, but if sanctions dont work and talking doesnt work, what then? Wait for a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem? Im open to ideas, but dont take military action off the table.

Posted by: almostheaven | November 6, 2007 4:41 PM