Hospitality for 'Ugly Enemies' (by Brian McLaren)
Several weeks ago, Larry and Andrea - Christian friends who live and work among Muslims in the Middle East - sent me their reflections on the recent U.S. visit of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which outraged so many. My friends were bothered by what transpired too, but for different reasons. I think their reflections are well worth sharing here:
Paul Gordon Chandler, in a recent book Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road, describes how a young Muslim, Mazhar Mallouhi, refused to read anything about Christianity because, as Mazhar says, "Christianity was seen as the enemy. And you need your enemy to be ugly. You don't want to discover anything good in your enemy, or you will find yourself in the wrong." Mazhar eventually embraced a relationship with Jesus, and in his contact with Christians discovered that they, too, desire to regard their enemies as ugly as possible. When we portray our enemies as utterly depraved, then we feel justified in treating them however we want.
I risk stating the obvious by mentioning the less than gracious reception President Ahmadinejad received at Columbia University where he was an invited guest. He was also insulted at the United Nations when the American delegation got up to leave at the beginning of his address. It is worth noting that in the Bible, as in the Middle East today, hospitality is seen as a sacred duty. The New Testament says, "extend hospitality…" The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was seen by the ancient prophets to lie primarily in their lack of hospitality!
Contrast that with the meeting of religious leaders organized by the Quakers and Mennonites. The participants at the meeting did not shy away from hard questions about human rights or the Holocaust, but they asked them politely in an atmosphere of respect.
Interestingly, the religious leaders were criticized for being naïve in their expectations that dialogue would make a difference; some critics even considered them traitorous because they were giving the Iranian leader respect just by meeting with him. Those who choose dialogue are refusing to see only the ugliness, and this makes many people nervous because their clear-cut boundaries are being eroded. Again, this sounds familiar—didn't the Pharisees ask Jesus' disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
In my visits to Muslim countries, I have been honored by the friendship and hospitality of ordinary people. What will ordinary Americans offer in return? Will we allow ourselves the "outrageous" experience of seeing the humanity rather than the ugliness in our enemies? Will we reach out to Muslims in our communities and in other countries, and in the process, allow our own lives to be transformed?
Perhaps it is a distant hope to see political leaders gathering around a table in a true gesture of reconciliation and respect. But it is the changed hearts of ordinary people that will help to transform both societies - and our world.
My friends are echoing something Bono said in a recent interview: "But then you've also got to try to cut off the oxygen supply of hatred, which is false ideas about who you are as an American, who you are in the West. I know that sounds like limp liberalism, but it's really not."
When we treat guests in our country with contempt, when we refuse people the dignity of speaking with them, when we focus on the ugliness of our enemies to the exclusion of their humanity, we are reinforcing a pretty ugly idea of who we are as Americans. Ultimately, we're hurting ourselves. Again, to quote Bono, "Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"
As we approach the season of Advent, we will recall our central story: that the holy God who created the universe was mysteriously incarnated in a vulnerable baby among an oppressed people, entering a hostile world full of vicious but beloved enemies to talk to them, walk among them, befriend them, and seek to reconcile with them. What would happen this Christmas if we applied this message to our world and its hostilities today? Preachers, there is a subject for you to work into your sermons. Don't expect such sermons to be popular, but do expect them to be faithful.
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is board chair of Sojourners, and his most recent book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, explores these themes in depth.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I agree w/ you completely Bryan.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 14, 2007 1:24 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Brian about hospitality and that we should treat guests in our country with respect and compassion. We should listen to what they have to say and they should do the same for us. It would disfuse a lot of hostility. This could be applied to all sorts of situations.
In regards to the specific instance of what happended at Columbia, I agree that Lee Bollinger's criticisms of M.A., while mostly accurate, were not helpful. You shouldn't invite someone to speak and then rip on them when they accept your invitation. The mistake was inviting M.A. to speak in the first place. While all guests are entitled to basic hospitality, all people aren't worthy of an invitation. M.A. is certainly not. It would have been much more useful if Columbia had invited another Iranian, perhaps someone representing a peaceful face of Islam to speak, for an interchange between the west and Islam.
The best antidote for people like M.A. is to ignore them. Deny people like him a platform to spout their hate and lies.
Posted by: Eric | November 14, 2007 1:43 PM
Not to be nitpicky, but the hyperlink above referencing the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah mention pride, gluttony ("excess of food"), sloth ("prosperous ease"), and injustice ("did not aid the poor and needy") - but does not mention lack of hospitality.
I bring this up not to diminish the importance of hospitality, but just to note out how easily pride, gluttony, sloth, and injustice are overlooked as serious sin issues.
Posted by: Steve | November 14, 2007 2:15 PM
In my visits to Muslim countries, I have been honored by the friendship and hospitality of ordinary people. What will ordinary Americans offer in return?
How about a country that offers them the ability to worship free and openly. To travel anywhere without restrictions. To associate with anyone that they desire to have a relationship without fear of reprisal. To be allow to live anywhere and not be forced to move at the whim of the people around you. To be employed and even start your own company. To not be 'legally' treated as second class citizens. Wish that people of other faiths were treated that good in their country.
Blessings - to all...
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 14, 2007 2:20 PM
This reminds me of the protests Sojo celebrated that occurred at Bush's graduation speech at Calvin College. I agree that the Columbia president acted rudely towards M.A. in his introduction. It was inappropriate, because it's not how you should introduce someone you've invited to speak. But to say that the US delegation's exit during M.A.'s UN speech is somehow rude or "inhospitable" is to say that all protests are inhospitable, which is kind of silly.
Posted by: jesse | November 14, 2007 2:45 PM
The same college that the President of Iran spoke at denied a spokesperson of the border minute group to speak . In contrast , I thought the college was more then fair . The fact they made it clear they did not support his beliefs of of others not having their soverign nations respected and his hostile approcach to Human Rights would not have been even noted if it was about a Pat Roberston or a view that supported present American policy .
You said it better Moderatelad, .
Why are we criticising America here even when we gave this nutjob the ability here to0 explain there were no homosexuals in his country ?
You do know the BBC re played many of the comments he made , with editing of course , and many of the supportive statements by the college students that were not shown by our main stream media after his speech , and are now used for pro Iranian propaganda .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 3:00 PM
The Columbia thing was weird all the way around. He never should have been invited. Columbia was called out for making the invitation, and tried to save face by introducing him with an insult.
However, this is not what the prophet Ezekiel was talking about. The idea that criticizing someone before offering them a forum is tantamount to (or worse than) threatening to gang rape traveling visitors is absurd exegesis.
Ezekiel didn't sit down and talk with the enemies of God. He told them what was going to happen to them, in a rather striking manner, I would add.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 14, 2007 3:02 PM
Moderatelad,
Perhaps the current climate in the United States allows the things you are stating. I think there are probably those who would disagree with you.
Either way, let's not pretend that the United States has always offered those kinds of freedoms to all people, or that it always will in the future. It may be written into our Declaration of Independence that those freedoms have been given them by their Creator, the political reality in this country has often been drastically different. African Americans, Native Americans, Japanese Americans are just a few examples of groups that have been denied those basic freedoms that you describe in America's not-so-distant past.
Let those of us in the United States not feel too impressed with ourselves, to be well aware of just how far we have fallen short of universally applying the freedoms we supposedly guarantee. Then, with a healthy does of humbleness at our own weaknesses, perhaps we can have a useful dialog with those who seem to not value those freedoms as much as we would like.
Humbly,
Dan
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 14, 2007 4:03 PM
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 14, 2007 4:03 PM
'...well aware of just how far we have fallen short of universally applying the freedoms...'
True - but at least we have documents that govern us that at some point bring us back to center. Tell me - do these other countries have documents and courts that will help them come to realize the error of their ways? (in most cases - I doubt it and in many cases they point to their Holy Book that commands them to do what they do to un-believers)
Yes we are a flawed country and we do not have a perfect past. But I will match our track record against most other countries. (definatly ruled by Islam) If we are as bad as Wallis and Co seem to enjoy pointing out to us. Why is it that we are for the most part the country of choice when others are in trouble?
I will gladly vote to stay home in the US and leave the rest of the world alone if they would do the same.
We desire peace - we pray for peace. But sometimes you have to be willing to wage war (when all else fails) to keep the peace.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 14, 2007 4:17 PM
As Jesus said about the speck in one's neighbor's eye and the log in one's own, no we're not perfect and neither is anyone else. There's always this temptation to wish and hope that other people are worse. As C.S. Lewis wrote, there is something wrong with you if you end up being disappointed when you find out that another person (and yes even a foe) is somehow better than you had imagined.
Posted by: Ngchen | November 14, 2007 4:27 PM
Moderatelad,
We desire peace - we pray for peace. But sometimes you have to be willing to wage war (when all else fails) to keep the peace.
What war are we talking about here? A war with Iran?
I actually agree with you that sometimes war is a requirement. I believe that the United States was actually sinfully late responding to the atrocities by the German and Japanese forces during WWII.
So, I'm curious, what war are you talking about? And what did that country or countries do that required us, or will require us in the future, to make a military response.
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 14, 2007 4:30 PM
I disagree. I do not believe that it is wise or in any way "Godly" to lend credibility to an evil dictator who has repeatedly stated his desire to rid the world of Jews.
This also exposes the hypocrisy of Mr. Mclaren and others on the left. If a Conservative made the same statements about gays and Jews that Ahmedinihjad has made, you would be calling for his head. The vitriol which the left spews about Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell is unbelievable and none of them have ever promoted hatred of gays or Jews or anyone else for that matter. Apparently, you leftists only like fundamentalists who hate America.
Posted by: Bradley | November 14, 2007 5:36 PM
To elaborate on my point, there is a vast difference between being "hospitiable" and providing a forum for the spreading of hatred.
Posted by: Bradley | November 14, 2007 5:47 PM
"To elaborate on my point, there is a vast difference between being "hospitiable" and providing a forum for the spreading of hatred."
I agree with you, but do you really think Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have never promoted hatred of anybody? As a liberal, I can guarantee you that nothing I could possibly say about them holds a candle to what they say about me every day. Given the amount of libel and misrepresentation that they direct our way, I really think my fellow leftists have been remarkably restrained.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 14, 2007 5:56 PM
PS - If Ann Coulter were the president of a small country, I'd be scared to death.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 14, 2007 6:47 PM
As a liberal, I can guarantee you that nothing I could possibly say about them holds a candle to what they say about me every day.
Another nonymous
Well this may be true , but its hard to tell when your name is Another Nonymous .
Just shortly after I came to the point in my Life where I dedicated myself to Following our Lord . I took all my old music albums and dumped them . I heard everything differently , I have heard of other people doing the same thing. I did not know liberal Christians would hold me as a racist for having an experience like this ?
All of a sudden listening to words advocating doing drugs , meeting people and having sex for the fun of it seemed very shallow , and in fact harmfull to real relationships /
On anther blog people right now your fellow Soujourners are calling those who believe in music advocating women being used as sex animals , homosexuals being hurt , and Families being important are called racists ? Go check it out yourself , its the blog dealing with African Americans and the wage difference.
Do you believe Mom and Dads are very important to families and to children , do you believe music is not suppose to glorify sex out of wedlock and hurting people , and condemning that is racist ?
This because at the time African Americans lead the negative stats in out of wed lock births . Please , sharing the Gospel and the Desire of the Lord to be in Loving families is seen as racist here . You really have nothing to condemn consertrvatives till you clean up that in your own back yard . I never hear liberals speaking to this type of crap here . Never .
All social indicators in white families show when kids are brought up in single family homes , the rate of drug abuse , trouble with the law , HS Drop Out Rates , child molestation and many social ills all climb . Whats up with the liberal folks here ? Don't they think God's Plan for white folks , Native Americans , Pacific Inlanders , and other races and groups is good enough for Afican Americans also ?
You have to believe that family is un important to believe in liberalism ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 6:49 PM
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 14, 2007 4:30 PM
So, I'm curious, what war are you talking about?
I am not talking about 'a' war, past-present-future. I am saying that sometimes when 'diplomacy' fails and peace is at risk. You have to be willing to wage war to keep the peace.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 14, 2007 6:51 PM
There is an underlying issue here and it's being inconsistently applied by both McLaren and his critics.
Is the US a Christian country?
If the answer is no, then Moderatelad's comments on this issue make sense. If the US is not a Christian country then US actions towards foreign powers are governed by reasonable political activity. Walking out, insulting, threatening, saber rattling, revoking permission to speak and then comparing yourselves favourably to other nations are all reasonable actions when you believe that the US is not a Christian country and is not bound by Christian ethics or principles.
If the answer is yes, then McLaren is probably right. The US should show hospitality and even love, and Moderatelad's comments about how other nations compare are irrelevant because you're not comparing yourselves to their standard but to God's.
The inconsistency comes when the same question is applied to other issues. McLaren and Sojo call Bush out for his claims that the US is a Christian Country with a call to bring freedom to the world.
So you're to be a Christian Country with regard to care for the poor, immigration, hospitality but not when the issues are abortion or gay marriage. (the obvious retort is that from a liberal reading of scripture there is no inconsistency).
Reverse that split for the critics.
At least the Catholic Bishops Conference are consistent. Everyone else seems to be caught in a state of flux. Reminds me of that politics and sewage comment from a few posts back.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | November 14, 2007 6:51 PM
I am not talking about 'a' war, past-present-future. I am saying that sometimes when 'diplomacy' fails and peace is at risk. You have to be willing to wage war to keep the peace.
I think I am going to fundamentally disagree here. I guess it depends on how you define "peace is at risk."
If that means "oh, they might acquire weapons of mass destruction, and they might use them against us," then I'm going to disagree with you. I cannot think of any kind of scriptural basis for starting a war because of something someone "might" do. Especially when the hypocrisy level is so high. The US has more weapons of mass destruction than nearly any other country on the planet, yet we seem terrified whenever anyone else might get them, and consider that a reason to attack them. Sorry, I can't agree with that tortured logic, it's total hypocrisy.
If you mean something like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, then I'm in agreement.
As a country we seem to have decided that perceived threats to peace are worthy of acts of war. Worse, we completely ignore similar perceived threats, or handle them completely differently, for political or economic reasons. As a Christian, I find that totally intolerable.
In His Love,
Dan
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 14, 2007 7:12 PM
This also exposes the hypocrisy of Mr. Mclaren and others on the left. If a Conservative made the same statements about gays and Jews that Ahmedinihjad has made, you would be calling for his head. The vitriol which the left spews about Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell is unbelievable and none of them have ever promoted hatred of gays or Jews or anyone else for that matter. Apparently, you leftists only like fundamentalists who hate America.
Posted by: Bradley | November 14, 2007 5:36 PM
Bradley
Ann Coulter and Russ Limbaugh, who are not Christians as far as I know, make comments that any decent person would be ashamed of, let alone anyone who claims to be a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jerry Falwell I believe is dead ad hopefully some of his more unpleasant statements with him.
Most of us "leftists" who criticize certain aspects of American domestic and foreign policy only do so because we believe that you are capable of so much better and have so much more to offer the World. Being left of centre isn't regarded as something unsavoury in the UK ......I think we'd probably call it "liberal" here although I recognise that the term liberal and left are used differently in the USA than in the UK.
Posted by: Annie (UK) | November 14, 2007 7:18 PM
Annie,
I am a Christian and I am not ashamed of Ann Coulter and Limbaugh (who are both Christians by the way.) My point is that Liberals in America accuse Conservatives like myself, Coulter and Limbaugh of being biggots because we oppose gay marriage. Then they criticize us for not wanting to provide a forum for a man whose brutal regime kills people for being gay and wants to whipe Jews off the face of the Earth! There is a massive disconnect in the Liberal mind.
Posted by: Bradley | November 14, 2007 7:35 PM
PS - If Ann Coulter were the president of a small country, I'd be scared to death.
Posted by: Another nonymous
From your views I thought that anyway
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 7:52 PM
Iran executes gays.
I can't believe that we would in any way condone this. Would we offer hospitality to Hitler while he was executing Jews? and gays?
Or does the Christian community think executing gays is a good idea? I suspect that many who support attacking Iran would change their mind if they heard they publicly hang gays. "Oh, do they? Well, then, leave them alone. They can't be all bad."
Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 14, 2007 7:52 PM
Brian McLarn's friends say: In my visits to Muslim countries, I have been honored by the friendship and hospitality of ordinary people. They ask: What will ordinary Americans offer in return?
Moderatelad refers in one post to: the ability to worship free and openly. To travel anywhere without restrictions, to associate with anyone that they desire to have a relationship without fear of reprisal, to be allow to live anywhere, to be employed and even start your own company, to not be 'legally' treated as second class citizens.
These are all important but feel, to me, like the documents he refers to elsewhere. They are very different from the experience of human friendship and hospitality. Documents are not friendship, and they are not diplomacy. Like friendship, diplomacy is about human contact. Before we write about the failure of diplomacy, we need to try diplomacy.
What particularly troubles me about the Columbia thing is this: who invites someone to their home or place of work in order to insult them? This is beyond rude. Mr. Bollinger and Columbia should be embarrassed by this behaviour!
Posted by: bren | November 14, 2007 7:58 PM
"...and the Desire of the Lord to be in Loving families..." Mick
where do you see that in the teaching of our Lord w/o reading a whole bunch of American based informing "theology" or sociology into the text? if you read Jesus on the family, he was actually quite disparaging of its implications for his followers. Beyond that, he didn't really have a lot to say about marriage and family. And please don't quote me the place where he cites the OT on male and female, etc. or implicitly affirms family life.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 14, 2007 8:21 PM
"I am a Christian and I am not ashamed of Ann Coulter and Limbaugh (who are both Christians by the way.)" Bradley
Right! - everybody's a Christian in America, right, Annie? wink-wink Didn't some old wag somewhere say something about knowing them by their fruits?
Posted by: canucklehead | November 14, 2007 8:25 PM
Canucklehead, by "fruits" do you mean things like sticking forks into baby's heads? Or do you mean knocking off the elderly when they have outlived their usefulness to society? More to the point of this column, you must mean helping an anit-semitic, gay killer get his message out to more people.
Incidentally, Iran is a Dictatorship (as are 2/3 of UN member states) which is run by a repressive regime that is in the practice of imprisoning and killing it's citizens who dare to ask for basic human rights.
Bren, Bollinger didn't intend to insult Ahmadinijad when he invited him. The decision to insult him was a political move that came about when he realized that NY Legislators were preparing to cut funding to the University (along with wealthy donors who thought inviting the man who prayed for WWIII on the floor of the UN, to be a little unseemly.)
Posted by: Bradley | November 14, 2007 8:38 PM
Since many Christians frequently point out that Leviticus calls for the death penalty for gays, isn't Iran justified in executing homosexuals?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | November 14, 2007 9:42 PM
"...and the Desire of the Lord to be in Loving families..." Mick
where do you see that in the teaching of our Lord
Posted by: canucklehead
gee canucklehead , I guess your right , the Lord has a desire for us to be in unloving families ?
I realize God wants us to put him first , and not put a family member above him , If that is what you mean ? I think you mis understood where I was coming from .
Too much coffee today or what ?
Posted by: mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 9:43 PM
"My point is that Liberals in America accuse Conservatives like myself, Coulter and Limbaugh of being biggots because we oppose gay marriage."
No, we accuse Coulter and Limbaugh of being bigots because they consistently say slanderous, malicious, uninformed and thoroughly hateful things about people who think like we do, implying that we are subhuman and morally repugnant. It truly amazes me that anybody could fail to understand why so many on the left are unwilling to look charitably upon people who have made a living by holding us up to ridicule and despicable calummy in book after book and day after day on the air. Why should anybody with any self-respect have to put up with that?
Mick - I'm sorry you don't like my moniker, but when have I ever said anything on this blog that even remotely suggests that I am not in favor of strong families, or that I advocate using drugs and sexual promiscuity? For the record, I have been faithfully married for 20 years, have two children to whom I am passionately devoted, and have never used any illegal drug, inhaled or otherwise. I am a liberal, and I am proud to say these things.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 14, 2007 9:54 PM
Falwell famously stated, on national TV shortly before he died, his take on Jesus' command to love our enemies:
"Bomb 'em all to hell in the name of the Lord."
I suppose he was in good company with Ann and Rush, good Christians that they are.
Ann's statement was that we show our enemies love by giving them the opportunity to come to the Lord or be killed.
As for Rush, when the Christian Peacemakers were taken hostage, he chortled how much he loved that and hoped they were killed.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 14, 2007 10:07 PM
Ashpenaz, neither I nor Coulter, nor Limbaugh, nor Falwell has ever called for gays to be killed. Sorry to disappoint you, but as much as you wish that we hated gays, we don't.
Mr./Mrs. Anonymous poster at 10:07PM, please get your facts straight: What Coulter said was, "I say we invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Chrisitianity." Thank you for making her point for her that your only problem with her statement is that she said "Christianity" instead of "Communism" or "Islam."
Also, your comment about Limbaugh is a complete fabrication. Try to restrain your hate enough to at least accurately portray what we say.
Posted by: Bradley | November 14, 2007 11:12 PM
"Since many Christians frequently point out that Leviticus calls for the death penalty for gays, isn't Iran justified in executing homosexuals?"
No. Even the most ardent theonomist would fail to recognize the right of a non-Christian government to execute justice in accordance with the law.
"Falwell famously stated, on national TV shortly before he died, his take on Jesus' command to love our enemies:"
For something having been famously stated, the phrase sure doesn't get a lot of Google hits. Do you have a source?
"Beyond that, he didn't really have a lot to say about marriage and family. "
What? Proverbs discusses it as length. Much of the old testament chronicles the stuggles of families to conceive children. Paul discusses marriage, and Jesus does as well. God asserts his authority over the family (and everything else), but to say that he didn't have a lot to say about it is incorrect.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 14, 2007 11:36 PM
Also, Ashpenz, to answer your previous question about whether Columbia would have invited Hitler to speak, Bollinger said that he would have. Here's the link to him saying so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhjeDtTr6NE
You might want to take a look around because you have broken ranks with you liberal leaders in you opposition to Columbia giving a murderous madman a forum to help him promote his agenda. You'd best get back in line. Liberals are tolerant of every opinion except the ones they disagree with.
Posted by: Bradley | November 14, 2007 11:39 PM
"Canucklehead, by "fruits" do you mean things like sticking forks into baby's heads? Or do you mean knocking off the elderly when they have outlived their usefulness to society? More to the point of this column, you must mean helping an anit-semitic, gay killer get his message out to more people" Bradley
silly me, here I was hoping for some kind of rational response
Posted by: canucklehead | November 15, 2007 12:28 AM
"...and the Desire of the Lord to be in Loving families..." Mick
where do you see that in the teaching of our Lord
Posted by: canucklehead
gee canucklehead , I guess your right , the Lord has a desire for us to be in unloving families ?
I realize God wants us to put him first , and not put a family member above him , If that is what you mean ? I think you mis understood where I was coming from .
Too much coffee today or what ?
Mick S.
--------------
Guess I missed it, Mick, but precisely where in your response do you answer my question? I hear sarcasm, I hear a reversal of the question to make it sound ridiculous, I hear "yeah, but," and I hear you take a shot about too much coffee, but
I don't see where you answered the question. So again, verse and chapter of Christ's explicit directives to fan the flames of family life?
Posted by: canucklehead | November 15, 2007 12:33 AM
"Beyond that, he didn't really have a lot to say about marriage and family. "
"What? Proverbs discusses it as length. Much of the old testament chronicles the stuggles of families to conceive children. Paul discusses marriage, and Jesus does as well. God asserts his authority over the family (and everything else), but to say that he didn't have a lot to say about it is incorrect." Kevin S.
Jesus, Kevin. Jesus on the family. That is the point being discussed, not Proverbs, not the Old Testament, Jesus. And if "to say he didn't have a lot to say about it is incorrect" I'll eagerly await chapter and verse. James Dobson Study Bible not allowed.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 15, 2007 12:42 AM
Bradley, the fact that Bollinger was under political pressure is no excuse for bad behavior. If he was bowing to that pressure, he should have withdrawn the invitation. Americans love to be known for their hospitality and treating guests with respect and compassion. Bollinger's public humiliation of a guest WHOM HE INVITED shot the American reputation for hospitality right down the toilet.
The reason this is important to me is not because I worry about manners but because I worry about our capacity to treat as another child of God someone with whom we disagree. It's really easy to love someone who shares our own perspectives. If we don't learn to see the human/the child of God in those with whom we disagree, we won't learn from each other (unless someone here knows everything, we all have something to learn from each other) and we will resort to killing each other simply because we will no longer have the skills of loving one another as Christ has loved us.
Posted by: bren | November 15, 2007 1:04 AM
Bradley said:
There is a massive disconnect in the Liberal mind.
Me:
Like the same doesn't exist in yours or in the conservative mind. Look at Robertson or Ted Haggard or... Conservatives have by and large hounded and condemned the LGBTQ for years. They make it impossible for men and women strugglers w/n their church to be honest about who they are and they teach them to hate themselves. Talk about hypocrisy. Oh and our desire to have a forum w/ the president of Iran has nothing to do w/ how he treated gay people. We also want a forum w/ crazy little kim and that guy has been killing his own peasent class for decades.
It's good international policy and any intelligent student of international politics could easily see that.
One more thing please clean out your church and the conservative eye first before you instruct this liberal or others about how we treat our LGBTQ brothers, sisters and others. BTW I am for gay marriage. I have integrity on this issue. I wonder if you have compassion.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 3:46 AM
How many beautiful, peaceful and unarmed Christians have been beheaded (and/or killed by other means), by good looking and good to their family, Muslims?
Too many to count.
You must deal with Islam sooner or later Brian. Please make it sooner.
Posted by: Donny | November 15, 2007 6:19 AM
"Jesus, Kevin. Jesus on the family. That is the point being discussed, not Proverbs, not the Old Testament, Jesus. And if "to say he didn't have a lot to say about it is incorrect" I'll eagerly await chapter and verse. James Dobson Study Bible not allowed."Posted by: canucklehead
What!? How dare you try to keep the disucussion fair by not allowing others to miquote you canucklehead? What are you? Some sort of moral relativist Christian? Don't ya' know that that was JEEESUUUS whispering in the ear of the writer(s) of Proverbs?
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 15, 2007 6:37 AM
"Liberals are tolerant of every opinion except the ones they disagree with."
Bradley, I am going to try this one more time, and if it doesn't get through, I will declare you willfully deaf. When you use the word "liberal," you are describing some paranoid fantasy derived from listening to Limbaugh, Coulter et al. I know lots of liberals, and most of them would regard it as a point of principle to hear opinions that they disagree with and allow them to be expressed freely. When you make glib statements like the one above, you only reinforce the impression that you are more interested in attacking a straw man than in entering into genuine dialogue.
It's bad enough not to tolerate opinions that you disagree with. It is much worse, IMO, to present a caricature of those opinions, bash said caricature, and then pretend that you have somehow addressed reality. What's even sadder is how often this seems to work.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 15, 2007 8:56 AM
Payshun,
The fact that you claim "Conservatives have by and large hounded and condemned the LGBTQ for years" does not make it so. How have we hounded? By opposing "gay marriage?" I know gay people who oppose "gay marriage." Does that mean that they are "hounding" gays? I believe that adultery is sin. I would not stand for a man who has mistresses to be ordained as a minister in my Church. Does that mean that I hate him because he has a sexual preference for multiple women? Absolutely not!
Furthermore, your comments on international relations make it clear why Liberals must never be trusted with the security of our nation.
By the way, I agree with you on one point: Bollnger should never have invited him to speak in the first place! See, even you and I have common ground!
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 8:59 AM
Brian McLaren is a mystic. Nothing wrong with that, the church needs mystics. But he apparently believes that because he has had some mystical experience of God that he is qualified to comment on public policy without learning any actual facts about public policy. The result is spacey stuff like this.
There's no acknowledgement of Iranian involvement in Iraq, Iranian support of Hezbollah's attempts to destabilize Lebanon, Iran's nuclear weapon's program, Iran's oppression of domestic opposition, or Iran's development of ties to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.
Now we can argue about whether all this justifies current American policy, but these are the facts that have to be recognized before we can even begin to discuss Iran.
Look, hospitality is a great thing and all, but does "hospitality" mean sweeping all that under the rug? If it does, why do you extend "hospitality" to Ahmedinejad and the Islamist extremists who run Iran but not to Bush and the conservatives?
By ignoring all this, Brian McLaren does nothing to further peace with Iran, what he does is discredit the notion of hospitality, and provides further evidence that mystics -- God bless 'em -- have no business writing on public policy.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | November 15, 2007 9:28 AM
As for the argument that we should not have allowed M. A. to speak at Columbia, I have to disagree. I thought that in a free society,that all ideas should be aired and discussed and that truth and rationality would win out in the end. Therefore by giving a forum to false and preposterous ideas,we are actually helping to destroy these ideas by allowing them to be given scrutiny in the sunlight. I am continually amazed by certain groups trying to shout down any opposing views and keeping any dissenting views from seeing the light of day.Truth will triumph in the end.
Posted by: Gary | November 15, 2007 10:03 AM
As for the argument that we should not have allowed M. A. to speak at Columbia, I have to disagree. I thought that in a free society,that all ideas should be aired and discussed and that truth and rationality would win out in the end. Therefore by giving a forum to false and preposterous ideas,we are actually helping to destroy these ideas by allowing them to be given scrutiny in the sunlight. I am continually amazed by certain groups trying to shout down any opposing views and keeping any dissenting views from seeing the light of day.Truth will triumph in the end.
Posted by: Gary | November 15, 2007 10:03 AM
As for the argument that we should not have allowed M. A. to speak at Columbia, I have to disagree. I thought that in a free society,that all ideas should be aired and discussed and that truth and rationality would win out in the end. Therefore by giving a forum to false and preposterous ideas,we are actually helping to destroy these ideas by allowing them to be given scrutiny in the sunlight. I am continually amazed by certain groups trying to shout down any opposing views and keeping any dissenting views from seeing the light of day.Truth will triumph in the end.
Posted by: Gary | November 15, 2007 10:04 AM
By ignoring all this, Brian McLaren does nothing to further peace with Iran, what he does is discredit the notion of hospitality, and provides further evidence that mystics -- God bless 'em -- have no business writing on public policy. Wolverine
I agree that there is precious little to talk about with people who in the face of all the facts presented would argue that the Iraq war fiasco was all just a big mistake and refuse to look at the overwhelming evidence of deliberate falsification and misrepresentation that leads directly to the President. If I had to choose between listening to what Bryan has to say and your illogical and irrational apolgetics for this administration, I would take Bryan any day.
Posted by: JamesMartin | November 15, 2007 11:25 AM
"Therefore by giving a forum to false and preposterous ideas,we are actually helping to destroy these ideas by allowing them to be given scrutiny in the sunlight."
The problem is that Ahmadinejad will use forums such as this to spread propoganda about all the great things Iran is doing and to become a sympathetic figure. Joseph Stalin was Time magazine's man of the year. The truth eventually came out about him, but a little late, wouldn't you say?
That said, I don't think there is any imperative to let someone rant on about discredited ideas. An educational institution is by no means bound to let a Holocaust denier speak. We know that the Holocaust happened. It is a settled question, so what can such a person contribute to the intellectual sphere, other than to mislead the ignorant?
"Jesus, Kevin. Jesus on the family. That is the point being discussed, not Proverbs, not the Old Testament, Jesus. "
I believe the whole of scripture is the inspired word of God, do you?: If not, you are operating under a different set of assumptions from me and (I assume) Mick. Do you believe in he trinity? Do you believe that Jesus agreed with Proverbs or no?
At any rate, "the discussion" was in response to Mick's (seemingly benign) contention that the Lord wishes for us to be in loving families. If you see the word of Jesus as distinct from the word of God, then it was irrelevant to introduce Jesus as a refutation of God's word. You can't have it both ways.
Since Jesus recognized the authority of scripture, he didn't need to reiterate every tenet, and you have pre-emptively (and arbitrarily) excluded implicit respect for the family. But, in an attempt to humor you, here are a few examples.
Christ speaks against adultery, essentially expandind its definition (Matthew 5:27)
Christ speaks about divorce (Matthew 5:31)
Christ compares the relationship between father and son to the relationship between God and us (Matthew 7:9)
Christ does not disparage the concept of family, but rather says that we are to put him above family. He said that he would tear families apart, a reference to Micah which says the same thing. Christ references the Old Testament to discuss the importance of God as it relates to families.
Is your contention is that, by virtue of emphasis (or lack thereof), Christ rejects the remainder of what the old testament has to say about the family. Now who is resorting to implication? Mick's comment, that the Lord wants for us to be in loving families, stands unscathed.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 15, 2007 11:52 AM
Posted by: Gary | November 15, 2007 10:03 AM
"I thought that in a free society,that all ideas should be aired and discussed and that truth and rationality would win out in the end."
Gary, thank you for your post. Unfortunately, those in our society who are of a conservative nature do not seem to understand what it means to live in a democracy. Left to them this country will become a fascist state.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 12:10 PM
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 14, 2007 7:12 PM
As a country we seem to have decided that perceived threats to peace are worthy of acts of war. Worse, we completely ignore similar perceived threats, or handle them completely differently, for political or economic reasons. As a Christian, I find that totally intolerable.
I might agree with you but - are you saying like so many on this site have in the past. We have to be attacked first before we are allowed to do anything? How many UN sanctions did Iraq blow off? How many times did Iraq threaten US and others with 'WMD's' and others means of terror? Saddam in speaches admited that he had WMD's.
If you knew a month prior to 9-11 that the people planning it were in a house on the outskirts of 'your name the city'. We knew that they were planning to somehow attack the US - but we did not know just how. We knew that it was going to be sooner rather than later. We figured that this was going to be the last time they were going to be meeting like this and after that our ability to stop their actions was slim to none. Would you give the order to send the missle to dispatch them to Allah? I believe from what you have said that you may not. I would like to introduce you to several families on the east coast that wish you would have.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 12:22 PM
Moderatelad,
Excuse me, but please tell me who in the UN agreed with the United States that we should unilaterally attack Iraq. Besides, the UK, and their support was only halfassed at best, no one went with us.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 12:28 PM
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 12:28 PM
I believe that the number of countries that are a part of the Iraq War is over 20+. It was not just US. If the UN had done their job maybe the US could have stayed home.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 12:32 PM
Moderatelad,
Name these countries. And tell me, how many of these countries are not utterly dependent upon our foreign aid for their existence and strong armed into supporting us. You are so naieve in understanding how the United States conducts foreign policy.
And please do not close your posts to me with "Blessings" I find it disingenuous and offensive.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 12:42 PM
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 12:42 PM
Countries - you can google that one yourself. Which really doesn't matter as you have already labeled them as no more than 'lap-dogs' for the US. Yes - we have come to their aid in the past. We assist them in any number of ventures. They - for the most part are better off because of our assistance. I look at them as friends and collegues. You seem to label them as whores.
If we do not come to the aid of each other - where would the world be today?
The sign-off is and forever will be...blessings (you will just have to deal with it - and it is heartfelt)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 12:50 PM
The problem with the walkout of the U.S.delegates to the U.N. as MA began his speech wasn't "rudness", but stupidity. It reflects the Bush Administration's destructive and counter-productive habit of vilifying, threatening, and refusing to listen to or talk to its adversaries. Look where that strategy has gotten us.
Conrad Steinhoff
Posted by: Conrad Steinhoff | November 15, 2007 12:55 PM
When a country is being diplomatically forced into supporting the efforts of a stronger nation at the threat of loosing aid. That is called BLACKMAIL.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 12:58 PM
I might agree with you but - are you saying like so many on this site have in the past. We have to be attacked first before we are allowed to do anything? How many UN sanctions did Iraq blow off? How many times did Iraq threaten US and others with 'WMD's' and others means of terror? Saddam in speaches admited that he had WMD's.
Moderatelad,
No, I'm not saying we have to necessarily be attacked first before a military response is appropriate. Of course, had we had the means to stop the hijackers on 9/11, the President would have a moral requirement to prevent what they had in mind.
Seldom is life so cut and dry however.
Convince me that Hussein was ever doing anything more than spouting off to look tough and we might find a starting point to discuss how invading Iraq was justified in any kind of legal or moral sense. Hussein was not a credible threat to this country, he was barely a credible threat to the forces enforcing the no-fly zone on his border.
This doesn't even begin to address the shifting reasons given for why Iraq was invaded, especially when WMDs weren't found. Now we're supposed to believe he was in cahoots with Al Qaeda? That one doesn't pass the sanity test.
In His Love,
Dan
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 15, 2007 1:46 PM
Posted by: Lonnie | November 15, 2007 12:58 PM
Excuse me - in this day and age when it is anyones 15 minutes of fame to 'dis the US'. I am sure that someone would have talked with the Old York Times or the Lost Angels Times about what is going on in their dealing with the US. You don't hear much about it do you? These newspapers would go to great lengths to blast the Bush Adm. Hey - there is another 'Rather' out there that would take forged documents from another country and use against the US - Bush Adm. in a heart beat.
There are many countries that are in support of the US and our policies. Any country that we would have to 'blackmail' inorder to keep in line with us - is not a country we want to poor too much effort or money into. I believe that foreign policy of the US Dept of State has been better at their job over the past 5 or 6 decades than you give them credit for.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 1:50 PM
Getting back to Mclaren's post, I believe he misunderstands the difference between hopsitality and foolishness. There is a stark difference between loving your enemy and assisting your enemy in carrying out his wickedness. Where do you draw the line? If Hitler needs help dragging someone to the gas chamber, would the hospitable Christian carry two people? Or would simply offering to help him with his PR to put the best face on his genocide be enough?
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 2:32 PM
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 15, 2007 1:46 PM
'...spouting off to look tough and we might find a starting point to discuss how...'
I tend to take people at their word. So when they threaten to attack or cause terror - I take them serious. Hitler - Pol Pot - etc. all 'spouted off' and if they are been taken seriously from the get-go - we might have prevented the death and distruction that they and many others caused.
Diplomacy is always the first line. I would even use the UN. (even though I believe they are bascally self serving and ineffective) I would asked other countries to join us in putting preasure on the country and their leadership to coordinate with the rest of us so that we can keep the peace. The last resort is Armed Conflict.
The writings of Wallis and others that he allows to submitt articles for this site - I believe they would have disagreed with JFK and the embargo of Cuba.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 2:35 PM
Bradley
The Hitler analogy doesn't hold up here. Jews live in Iran. they have for centuries. So what's your point?
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 2:45 PM
Payshun - Come on man... Read up a little on the treatment of religious minorities in Iran. Bradley's point is perfectly valid. You don't give people who live on spreading hate and lies a forum to speak. You either rebuke them or ignore them. There is nothing unbiblical about that.
Posted by: Eric | November 15, 2007 2:57 PM
"Unfortunately, those in our society who are of a conservative nature do not seem to understand what it means to live in a democracy. Left to them this country will become a fascist state."
Not providing an academic forum for madmen to speak is not tantamount to fascism. Saying the Columbia should not have allowed Ahmadinejad to speak is not a statement againt democracy.
"Jews live in Iran. they have for centuries. So what's your point?"
Jews had lived in Germany and Poland for centuries as well. I agree that the Hitler analogy is imprecise, but if we are expected to listen to people, and then pretend as though they don't mean what they say, what is the point of listening?
"we should unilaterally attack Iraq. Besides, the UK"
Do you know what the word unilaterally means, or did you just start using it because those who agree with you started using it? Because you use the term incorrectly here.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 15, 2007 3:00 PM
I have read them, my point is that even though many of them face persecution (and not all of them at that) it is better to know what your enemy thinks than put your head in the sand and pretend he doesn't exist. No his analogy doesn't hold water because despite what you are saying Iran has not committed genocide (unlike Germany or the United States.)
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 3:02 PM
payshun,
Is that really the best you can come up with? Think about it some more and try again. I'm embarassed for you!
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 3:04 PM
payshun,
I can see you need some help. Let me go slowly: My analogy has nothing to do with the treatment of Jews in Iran (honestly, that didn't come to my mind on that particular post until you brought it up, but I can see why you thought that since MA continues to call for the extermination of the Jews.) My point is, Bollinger defended inviting MA by saying he would also have invited Hitler. Mclaren says that we should show hospitality to our enemies. My question is, where does the hospitality end? Do we assist them with their evil deeds? Or is it enough to simply assist them with their PR to cover up their evil deeds?
I believe that the command to love our enemies does not preclude the obligation to protect the weak. Apparently, Mclaren disagrees, so I'm wondering where the line should be drawn.
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 3:10 PM
Moderatelad,
I tend to take people at their word. So when they threaten to attack or cause terror - I take them serious. Hitler - Pol Pot - etc. all 'spouted off' and if they are been taken seriously from the get-go - we might have prevented the death and distruction that they and many others caused.>
I think perhaps we need to be 'wise as serpents' when deciding to completely eliminate a government, rather than just taking them at their word that they are a threat to us. Going back a few comments, I don't think threatening us is tantamount to a credible threat. I don't think a threat gives us the moral authority to respond with the overwhelming force we chose to use.
I have a feeling you and I cannot reach agreement on this issue. I think causing the deaths of as many people as we have caused based on an absurd threat, is immoral. You obviously don't agree.
In His Love,
Dan
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 15, 2007 3:11 PM
Me confused Payshun...so unless the country you rule is guilty of genocide you should be provided a forum to speak... That's a pretty low bar to set.
Posted by: Eric | November 15, 2007 3:36 PM
Bradley,
But you seem to have answered your own question. How far does hospitality go? Mclaren already answered that here:
"When we treat guests in our country with contempt, when we refuse people the dignity of speaking with them, when we focus on the ugliness of our enemies to the exclusion of their humanity, we are reinforcing a pretty ugly idea of who we are as Americans. Ultimately, we're hurting ourselves. Again, to quote Bono, "Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"
But for some reason in your paranoid and delusional ramblings you associate giving someone a forum w/ genocide. They are not even close to the same thing. So again instead of asking the obvious question which justifies your obvious and paranoid delusions why not ask a real question about how does hospitality work when dealing w/ our enemies? That's a better question. I would not be too embarrassed for me. Your'e the one's that paranoid.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 3:38 PM
Eric
My point was that comparing Iran w/ Hitler is a false option. They are not Nazi Germany. People in glass houses should not throw rocks. Iran has not done what we have done and yet we don't give them a forum to speak. That makes no sense.
Considering how screwed up we are in our own history we must learn to deal w/ the most unsavory and people and in some cases take them out. Folks on the right seem to think a preemptive war w/ Iran will solve our problems w/ them. That's what this is ultimately about.
If we can demonize them, deny them any forum to express their ideals they will either go away or we can secretly plan an attack to make us feel safer. They are not going away so that means we should at least hear what they have to say. it's better to have your enemy closer and to be aware than to stick our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist.
I don't think Ahmadinejad will attack Israel. He is not that stupid. Does he want the nuke? Ofcourse he does. It will prevent his country from being attacked by us and Israel. If he was stupid enough to attack Israel and use a proxy Iran would be a crater. Unlike World War II Germany Israel has the nuclear power to turn the entire region into a smoking crater. They would not hesitate to retaliate.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 3:57 PM
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 15, 2007 3:11 PM
I am not saying that just because of Saddams retoric we were justified in attacking. He had a track record of attacking other countries and killing is own people. I think we should have taken care of him in the first Gulf War - but that was not the UN mandate. Liberals are pissed at Bush 1 for not taking care of Saddam back then and he followed UN mandates. Bush 2 took care of Saddam and did not follow UN mandates and liberals are pissed. So which is it - to follow or not to follow UN mandates?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 4:24 PM
For the record Payshun, I would not support a war with Iran. It would be a very very bad idea.
I disagree with you that our enemies aren't going away. I actually believe that denying M.A. a forum would be a benefit to the U.S. and Iran. He's not the sole leader over there. He's battling for power with others and giving him the legitamacy of speaking at Columbia and at the UN only strengthens his power. He could actually be removed from office in Iran in the near future, the people are so unhappy with him.
To the larger point, no, Iran is not Nazi Germany, but we're not talking about countries here. We're talking about individuals and the standards that should be set for who American citizens should treat with hospitality and who should be protested. M.A. as an individual spreads hate and fear. There is no reason to welcome him with hospitality. There's a huge difference between understanding M.A. and understanding Iran.
Posted by: Eric | November 15, 2007 4:27 PM
payshun,
I am well aware of what Mclaren said in his post. Repeating it does not clarify it. Where is the line to be drawn? Obviously, you either don't have an answer or you are ashamed to post it here.
As for your estimate of Iran, you clearly have not studied MA's religion and more specifically, his beliefs about his religion. Taking threats seriously is not paranoid, it is prudent.
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 4:27 PM
Bradley since you seem to be either clueless or unaware this is what Mclaren wants. Oh and it has nothing to do shame, it has to do w/ it being so clear that I should not have to explain where the line is. But since it seems unclear to you let's just break down the quote.
Speak w/ our enemies
Treat them the dignity of an audience
Be respectful
Stop demonizing Ahmadinejad
How's that for a short list? Is that clear? Does that make sense? Can you see the line? No one is saying that we should appease him or create standards that mirror Mynamar, or Nazi Germany or for that matter nationalistic Russia, all we are saying is really pursue diplomacy and see what comes out of it. If we can get along w/ the psychotic and genocidal Stalin we can find a way to relate to Ahmadinejad.
Actually I probably know more about Islam than you do. I used to work and live w/ Muslim men. I know when all their times to prayer are. I know about the pillars, the Hajj and a whole host of other things. I also have been learning about sufism for a while now. Unless you have been w/ the man you don't know how he practices his faith. Here is a suggestion make friends w/ devout muslim men and see how they act. Not all of them are jewish hating islamofascists (regardless of what Fox News says.)
Eric,
He is not going away for a while not w/ the support Russia is giving him. Putin has made it clear that he will support the Iranian government to keep gas prices low in Russia. He wants to stay in power. that means that Ahmadinejad now has at least one power player in his corner regardless of how his people feel about Russia. That could bite him later but only if we stay out of it and watch. Since America seems to be so clueless about dealing w/ this I think we need to learn and be silent for a while.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 4:47 PM
payshun,
1.) So you basically support the Bush Administration's present course of action with Iran. (i.e. talking with them, pursuing diplomacy and trying to avoid war at all costs.) I happen to disagree with him and you, but that is another issue.
2.) I did not say, nor do I believe that all Muslims (or even most of them) are "jew hating islamofascists." Please note that I specified MA's "beliefs about his religion."
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 4:52 PM
Bradley it's only prudent when there is a real threat. What's Iran going to do to us? Israel is a strong country. They can handle themselves. Has Iran instituted a policy of killing off all the Jews in their own country? What about the Christians? Does Ahmadinejab have the potential to be the next Hitler w/ the national support and legitmacy necessary to take to the world stage?
The answers that are no.
How about some more questions?
Does our demonizing help him in the Muslim world?
Does our posturing help us here and keep us safer?
Are we under a real threat from Iran, where their army, navy or para military aparatus are poised outside our waters? do they have nukes aimed at us (like say China, Russia and a few other countries do?)
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 5:00 PM
Then you should be happy Bradley Bush is not fully engaged in the negotiations. He doesn't fully support them. I wish he was it might lead to something better for this world.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 5:04 PM
"you clearly have not studied MA's religion."
That was what you said in the first part of your sentence. That's what I went w/. MA's religion is Islam. So yes I have studied especially Sufism, I am a mystic, a Christian contemplative by calling so I respect all mystical religions.
Let me point this out since we are here. Your tone was rude. Just because people don't agree w/ you doesn't mean that we don't have a clue. I can be rude back but I chose restraint. Look if you can't even respect me, then how can you respect our real enemies?
p
Posted by: payshun | November 15, 2007 5:16 PM
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 4:24 PM
I'm not a liberal so I don't think I can answer your question. Personally, I could care less about U.N. mandates. I'm interested in whether or not our country is involved in an immoral war. I believe that we are, and I believe that we have acted quite immorally in the prosecution of that war. I'm upset about an administration that wants to characterize itself as the good guys, all while being ultimately responsible for torture, the immorally bankrupt use of professional mercenaries given free reign, permanent imprisonment, etc. I'm worried that there isn't more Christian moral outrage at these horrendous acts, and instead we bicker with each other over nonsense while more people die.
We need to be discussing ways to make this situation better. We need to be insisting that the US absolutely refuse to be involved in torture, no matter whether or not useful information might be gleaned from it. We need to be insisting that the use of mercenaries end, now. We need to acknowledge that we have a real mess on our hands, that no surge is going to fix it, and ask for ideas and even help for how we make it right.
I'm furious with both sides on this issue. The right refuses to admit we have an administration that has hopelessly fouled up the prosecution of a war it had no moral authority to start in the first place. The left can't seem to come up with any solution other than bringing our military home no matter the cost to a country we now must accept responsibility for.
I want the President to accept that ultimately the failure of this war is his responsibility, it's his watch. I want someone other than a couple of low-ranking nobodies to take some serious repercussions for the fact that, whether or not this President admits it, we committed torture. I want us to practice what we preach and give the people in Guantanamo the right to a trial, and either convict them or deport them.
I want someone on the left to admit that just leaving Iraq to dissolve in a bloody civil war is a stupid and inhumane solution. There aren't going to be any answers, but I don't see anyone even trying to come up with them. I want to see some leadership that spends it time trying to solve problems rather than making the other side look bad.
Unfortunately neither side will budge, and unfortunately I see that same tendency in the comments section here. Both sides take hard line positions, spout off some of the most ridiculous accusations, but neither side actually seems to propose any way to get out of this mess. And before you accuse the liberals of staring it, or being the worse, I'd say it's equally bad from both sides.
Nobody cares about morality, they just want to prove their rightness over the other position, when I see little morality from either position.
Ok, rant off.
In His Love,
Dan
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 15, 2007 5:19 PM
Has anyone seen the painting posted on Greg Boyd's blog? In it, Jesus is washing the feet of Osama bin Laden, while other world leaders such as Tony Blair and Angela Merckel look on.
Posted by: carl copas | November 15, 2007 5:54 PM
payshun,
You are correct, my tone was rude, and thank you for noticing.
1.) Iran helped to found and now heavily funds and arms Hizbollah ( a terrorist organization that makes Al Qaeda look like a bunch of punk teenagers slashing tires at night.
2.) Iran supports Hizbollah because they know they cannot win a traditional war with Israel or the West.
3.) If Iran gets nukes, they will share them with Hizbollah. I doubt that even you think terrorists with nukes is a good thing.
4.) MA's interpretation of Islam causes him to believe that his duty is to bring about world-wide violence in order to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam. (Note, I do NOT accuse ALL Muslims of sharing this belief!)
That is why Iran is a threat and why they must be prevented from obtaining nukes at ALL costs.
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 7:44 PM
Jerry Falwell was fond of saying outrageous things on national television, which is just why producers would have him on, hoping for one of those kinds of reaction statements.
I also heard him say that very statement or something close to it. Someone had asked him about loving our enemies from a Christian standpoint and he said that was his response, to kill them all in the name of the Lord.
I was at the library last night and I saw a book title by Coulter, "If Democrats Were Smart They'd Be Republicans." Dumb as they might be, that wouldn't make them very smart, so I passed on Ann's book. Good looks and caustic wit don't equal wisdom, and saying you're a Christian doesn't mean you never have to say you're sorry.
I too heard a clip of Rush actually chortling over the capture of the Christian Peacemakers after it was reported widely. He did say he loved what happened and he had zero compassion. Listen to the whole thing yourself as I did and you would say the poster is capturing the essence of Rush's comments. It's for reasons like this, his hard attitudes and his own hypocrisy that I gave up listening to him. It was a hoot back in the Clinton days. Now he's just an administration mouthpiece. His own guest host used that as a stepping-stone to became White House PR spokesman.
Does my agreeing with the above mean I'm suddenly an Al Franken fan? No way. It's like most ballots, you long for a checkbox beside "None of the above."
Why are these media-created megaphones even important to us? The distorted perceptions they engender are not reality, nor is the hyper-partisanship they stir up to make their own fortunes healthy for us.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 15, 2007 9:35 PM
N.M.Rod,
Ms. Coulter's most recent book is actually entitled, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and it is great, by the way! I highly recommend it.
The fact that you claim that Limbaugh is an "administration mouthpiece" belies the fact that you do not listen to him. In fact, he has been a VERY harsh critic of the administration on things like spending, prescription drug program, immigration, allowing Ted Kennedy to write the No Child Left Behind Act, etc...
As for the Christian Peacemakers ordeal, I do remember now what you're talking about. After laughing at the irony (which you HAVE to admit is pretty darn funny,) Rush explained that "a part of me likes this story."
"Here's why I like it: I like it any time a bunch of leftist, feel-good handwringers are shown reality."
I can't say I disagree with him on that.
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 10:17 PM
It's kind of like the crazy guy at the zoo that keeps trying to pet the lion. At first, you tell him not to, because he will be bitten, but he ignores you. You keep watching and when the lion finally bites his hand off, your aren't happy about it, but it is somewhat amusing and on a weird level, humorous.
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 10:58 PM
Bradley,
Actually, no, I don't think it is funny at all. Rush's words are hateful--you really don't see that, do you?
Posted by: squeaky | November 15, 2007 10:58 PM
No, frankly I do not see that as hateful. What I DO think is hateful is a group of ignorant, naive liberals traveling to a war zone to try and contrive stories about how the young men bravely serving their country, half a world away from their families in the armed forces are kidknapping and illegally detaining innocent women and children and committing "war crimes." THAT IS HATEFUL!!!!
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 11:03 PM
Falwell famously stated, on national TV shortly before he died, his take on Jesus' command to love our enemies:
"Bomb 'em all to hell in the name of the Lord."
I suppose he was in good company with Ann and Rush, good Christians that they are.
Ann's statement was that we show our enemies love by giving them the opportunity to come to the Lord or be killed.
As for Rush, when the Christian Peacemakers were taken hostage, he chortled how much he loved that and hoped they were killed.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2007 11:12 PM
Falwell famously stated, on national TV shortly before he died, his take on Jesus' command to love our enemies:
"Bomb 'em all to hell in the name of the Lord."
I suppose he was in good company with Ann and Rush, good Christians that they are.
Ann's statement was that we show our enemies love by giving them the opportunity to come to the Lord or be killed.
As for Rush, when the Christian Peacemakers were taken hostage, he chortled how much he loved that and hoped they were killed.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2007 11:17 PM
Do not be to fast making decisions about Lee Bollinger concerning the invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in speaking to an entire college and via-TV the entire American nation.
Consider first that Bollinger had to deal with the ignorant and uninformed in America, making up the greatest majority concerning Iran and Mahmoud, and still allow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to make a speach that fools wanted cancelled.
So what did Bollinger accomplish despite a nation of uninformed and propagandized people, Bollinger did what a any master of diplomacy and Academic excellency would do, he made a speach to all who would later discover was based upon the same propaganda and slander used by the US-Empire today trying to destroy Iran. Check out Bollingers exact words, the man is a genius.
And what did we learn from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That he wanted to carry on peace talks with the US-Gov, neither he or the nation of Iran want to 'Wipre Israel Off the Map' and atomic weapons are contrary to peace, that women in Iran contrary to US-PSyOPs are highly respected and have high positions throughout Iran infrastructure, and welcomed visitors of Bollingers college to any college in Iran, possibly even one that the large religious Jewish population in Iran might have.
What as a result did we learn about out US-Gov and specifically the Bush-Admin, that they have not for an instant stopped lying to Americans and the world.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 15, 2007 11:18 PM
I have done extensive searching for this Falwell quote, but can't find it anywhere. Do you have any proof of it?
Also, I am struck by how Limbaugh points out the irony of the kidknapping of anti-American liberals who were released unharmed, and he is "hateful."
Yet, Bill Maher does a monologue on Falwell's death saying, "New rule: Death is not always sad" and goes on to mock his death and wish that Pat Robertson had died as well, and I don't hear any of you bleeding hearts calling that "hateful."
Or how about when Bill Maher laments that the assasination attempt on Dick Cheney failed in Afghanistan? Still no one will call that "hateful?"
Listen, I don't want you to call it hateful. Just stop with the smug, pious, holier than thou crap!
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 11:23 PM
I really don't know how the fate of the Christian Peacemakers, who are
willing to give up their own lives for others, can be a real hoot for people who are supposedly Christian.
Rush Limbaugh's no Christian, he's a poor man with lots of self-inflicted personal problems despite his wealth, fame and political influence. Folks, we have to admit he makes his money off caustically disparaging others and making his listeners feel oh-so-superior as they alternately cackle at his zingers and feel rage for whomever is the object of today's Orwellian five minute hate.
Do you really know who Jesus is, and if you do, are you in any way desiring to follow Him? Following Rush's rants daily to pump up your own pride isn't anywhere the same as following Jesus, taking up your cross and being reviled as He was.
I guess trying to take His words seriously will subject anyone who does so to ridicule or worse. But that's the way it's been since the beginning - if your religion makes you feel really good about yourself, then it's not about God.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 15, 2007 11:27 PM
Posted by: Dan Barber | November 15, 2007 5:19 PM
Great rant! I love to read the passion behind what you say. Frankly - in my never to be humble opinion - all war is immoral. But sometimes you have no choice. My 'farty arty' friends talk about Viet Nam being such an 'unpopular war' - DAH! I wish they would let me in on what makes a war 'popular'. I am sure that people would rather die in a popular war - NOT!
What my 'farty arty' friends don't get is that conflict in the new mil. is not going to look anything like WWII - Korea or Gulf War I. The people/groups waging war will not be a country but more a group of people that think alike and will cause trouble/terror anywhere they can and train anywhere they can find support.
This is not the war we started but it is one that we have to finish.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 15, 2007 11:30 PM
Actually, N.M.Rod, I did not realize that you were the arbiter of who is actually a Christian and who is not. For some crazy reason, I thought that was up to God. I forgot that you smug, pious liberals know everything. I've always looked at the criticism I take from leftists as taking up my cross and being reviled by the world.
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 11:41 PM
Statement: How many beautiful, peaceful and unarmed Christians have been beheaded (and/or killed by other means), by good looking and good to their family, Muslims?
One of the reasons that propagandists and evil persons have such success spreading half-truth and lies about true Muslim/Islamic belief, is the appauling ignorance of Americans concerning the Islamic Qur'an. To those who pass this type information, look up 'False Flag' found often today.
Being a Christian, I am well aware of how this same method is used with the Christian Bible, taking text out of content to prove a lie. Believing seriously the necessity to be as wise as the serpent, I have taken the time to trace and track down many examples and falsehoods put out today about true expresions of belief in the Qur'an.
Islamofacistterrorist Muslims bent upon killing Jews and Christians, Virgin reward, these are so far out of context, they must rightly be called a lie. George Bush and his Administration are so often caught in their lies and attempts to destroy the innocent.
It grieves me not at all to judge such as claim to be Christian and believers, and in their lies and deception, warn that they are leading the uninformed and misinformed astray. This sorely including fellow Christians. This also including the antichrists (anti=false Christ-like) today within the Christian church.
Be very careful of slander and deception everyone, this nation is falling fast.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 15, 2007 11:43 PM
Falwell's exact quote on CNN was "Blow them all to Hell in the name of the Lord."
Surprised you couldn't find that; it's an easy one to find because it made so many headlines.
Falwell was wealthy and politically influential, but bloated with extreme obesity when he died. Yet he claimed nevertheless a short time before that he had twenty years of left to live.
Was he truly following Christ with his statements that brought him notoriety in the public eye?
If that which is prophesied does not come to pass, the person making them is false and not to be listened to.
We know he also made statements that homosexuals and others he usually targeted were responsible for 9/11, though such a statement was highly questionable. But probably Jerry hated his political opponents so much that it was easy for him to ascribe the ultimate demonization of them.
Jerry ought to have forfeit any public influence long ago, when preaching from the pulpit he used to advocate apartheid as God's will for the races. Sure, he eventually changed his public stance under financial pressure, but he showed no courage or spiritual discernment in his vehement original position. He often made pronouncements as if he were speaking God's word, but it was just fallen, sinful Jerry getting attention.
Now are we to be pleased that Falwell, or any one else died? Not at all. As the poet John Donne wrote, the death of any man diminishes me, for I am a part of mankind. I do not wish for the death of anyone - especially not because they disagree with me!
The other thing that's puerile is thinking that somehow any critique of a supposed conservative's statements makes one a liberal - someone you can hate and don't have to listen to...
Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2007 11:45 PM
Re-Judging
In the will of God.
1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment..."
Posted by: DeWayne | November 15, 2007 11:52 PM
Mr./Ms. Anonymous,
It doesn't come up on google, youtube, wikipedia, or anything else I've tried, but I hope you're right, because I really like that quote!
Here's irony for you: On a post where Mclaren is imploring us to treat a murderous jew hating gay killer (MA) with hospitality, all you gentle, loving liberals are showing the opposite of hospitality to anyone who dares to disagree with you. (Falwell, Limbaugh, Coulter, Me) Maybe that's because you're all hypocrites?
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 11:54 PM
The only evidence I've seen lately coming out of the Cheney-Pentagon regarding Iran furnished weapons in Iraq, are a scant few weapons that in fact are Russian and Chinese design and production, the Iran stenciled markings presented by the Cheney-Pentagon did not impress me in the least. Black paint is not all that can be found black in the Pentagon today.
It must be remembered that the Cheney-Admin purged out many qualified Pentagon-generals to arrive at the unqualified now running the Iraq quagmire, and even the battlefield-remnant WMD another general presented to a Congressional hearing, was ashamedly admitted to a GOP-rep questioning, that the general would have preferred conventional weapons to what earlier he had called very dangerous WMD.
Of late the Cheney-Pentagon has been releasing Iran individuals as in one group being Iran councilor-diplomats invited by Kurds into Iraq, arrested in contradiction to Int'l-Law on charges now being dropped. Altogether similar to victims imprisoned for years at Gitmo, now released w/o charge against them.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 12:12 AM
anyone who dares to disagree with you. (Falwell, Limbaugh, Coulter, Me) Maybe that's because you're all hypocrites?
Being apolitical (lesser of two evils not a choice), and fully aware both political-party hierarchy have sold aout America, my favorite statement by the man on loan from god concerns Global Warming. His statement, "if global warming is true, it will benefit everyone."
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 12:20 AM
Dear Dan,
If you don't hew to a certain extremist political orthodoxy (I leave it to you to determine which) you will find you will be written off and all your opinions dismissed as coming from the exact opposite of that political orthodoxy. You will be the enemy!
And these folks don't believe in loving their enemies.
I have to say that it's kinda obvious that the Holy Spirit who makes one humbly teachable is completely absent from this sort of missile exchange.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 16, 2007 12:31 AM
Falwell famously stated, on national TV shortly before he died, his take on Jesus' command to love our enemies:
"Bomb 'em all to hell in the name of the Lord."
I suppose he was in good company with Ann and Rush, good Christians that they are.
Ann's statement was that we show our enemies love by giving them the opportunity to come to the Lord or be killed.
As for Rush, when the Christian Peacemakers were taken hostage, he chortled how much he loved that and hoped they were killed.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 12:32 AM
"Falwell's exact quote on CNN was "Blow them all to Hell in the name of the Lord."
Surprised you couldn't find that; it's an easy one to find because it made so many headlines."
Look, you have gone to several posts here (and on DU and the other crazy left wing blog sites) and posted this misinformation. It's not a bad idea, I suppose, since Google pulls up comments from blogs as much as any other source. However, you are lying. Provide a source (which you cannot do) or stop it. Talk about puerile.
"Has anyone seen the painting posted on Greg Boyd's blog? In it, Jesus is washing the feet of Osama bin Laden, while other world leaders such as Tony Blair and Angela Merckel look on."
He did a message on it as well. My friend who goes to his church posted some interesting thoughts at the link below.
http://www.ochuk.com/?p=1373#comments
I'm not sure that enemy love requires us to give our enemies a megaphone, however.
"Actually, no, I don't think it is funny at all. Rush's words are hateful--you really don't see that, do you?"
I'm not a Rush listener, but I haven't heard much that is any more hateful than what I hear from Democratic operatives (and, certainly, Al Franken on Air America).
Posted by: kevin s. | November 16, 2007 12:47 AM
"I've always looked at the criticism I take from leftists as taking up my cross and being reviled by the world."
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 11:41 PM
That statement would be laughable were it not so damn borderline blasphemous.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 16, 2007 1:24 AM
"It doesn't come up on google, youtube, wikipedia, or anything else I've tried, but I hope you're right, because I really like that quote!" Bradley
In other words, folks, if it's not traceable on the internet, it doesn't exist.
Bradley, go down to your local university and ask them for something that outlines their stance on quoting from the internet as it relates to scholarly research. Maybe mention Latin words like "youtube," "wikipedia" and "google" to show them you're serious.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 16, 2007 1:30 AM
Anyone who continues to deny Jerry Falwell ever said "Bomb them all to hell in the name of the Lord" does not have the truth in them, because he did, and I verified it. I saw and heard it myself at the time. It was even on the CNN site as a video, because he said it while being interviewed by CNN. If you can't find reference to it, you really don't know yet how to use the internet well.
Look, Jerry was well-known as a hyper-partisan political "patriot pastor" and an advocate for pre-emptive war and militarism as a first resort. His religion was highly nationalistic and merged America and militarism and God all into one. He was one of those who took out an ad in major media giving the Lord's permission for the war by invoking Just War Theory - without actually going into the criteria, for good reason - it failed those criteria. He was proud of his belligerence and he loved being controversial. Look at his publicity-motivated involvement in buying up Jim and Tammy Bakker's tarnished ministry and theme parks.
Jerry was always just Jerry.
Jerry was a rich man and his religion enlarged his substance. Rev. Creflow Dollar, Benny Hinn, T.D Jakes, Joyce Meyer and Richard Roberts, now all under investigation, didn't hold a candle to his material success. Jerry was one of those who likely had his reward in this world, not the next. That's another reason I wish he were still around - he would still be able to repent. And he might yet have been able to see how his own self-serving glib talk made him complicit in death and destruction he wouldn't ever have to personally experience from the comfort of his luxurious manse.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 1:55 AM
and the Desire of the Lord to be in Loving families..." Mick
Canucklehead Are you serious , you are taking me to task for saying God wants us In Loving families ? First of all Jesus tells us what God has joined together , let no man separate . Kind of a strong statement coming from , well God . Don't you think ?
Perhaps your just mad at your own folks for calling you canucklehead ? But your really pushing the enevolpe here . The Lord not only got mad us for divorce , he said divorce was because of the hardening of our hearts . You really think God is being mean here ? That just perhaps divoce hurts us , hurts our kids , hurts our friendships , our future relationships and how we handle our present ones . Not to mention the social ills it causes . Broken families hurt , thats why i said the Lord wants us Loving families . The Bible to me is a Love Story , I don't get your problem with this statement .
I happen to know God , He is a friend of mine . He wants us in Loving Families .
What do you think ?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 3:34 AM
But for some reason in your paranoid and delusional ramblings you associate giving someone a forum w/ genocide.
P Said
Wait a second here payshun , you are speaking about allowing a person who promotes terrorism and favors sponsoring it at a forum to promote his propaganda at tax payer expense .
And you believe we are to be polite and kind .
Ok . I don't agree , but I can not argue with your principle , Unless as
you so often do , you ridicule others as above , in the same style . , and pretend you can read the minds of the people here and in doing so promte a less then favorable aspect of their integrity and sincerity . .
Get off it . For someone who claims to know so much , you have such a problem of understanding this ?
This is basic 101 view. Analogy .. KKK demonstrating in Chicago , I believe the ACLU defended their Constitutional Right to do so . That was a principled position , even though we all know the ACLU disagrees with the KKK , almost as much as they do with Evangelical Christians .
But being polite to the KKK , nope , sorry , . You thinking this guy is not as bad as the KKK and what they advocate , Ok . there is a disagreement . But you can't see that . I can see it and you constantly point out my inability to listen to other people .Try it yourself . It helps.
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 16, 2007 3:54 AM
canucklhead,
You might have a valid point if I were doing a scholarly research paper. I'm actually just trying to annoy bunch of thin-skinned liberals on a blog. Also, I didn't deny that he said it. I asked for a link to video or an exact quote. I'd like to post it on my own blog because if he really said that, I like him even more!
As for blasphemous, I forgot that as a liberal you are entitled to say ANYTHING including rejecting the inerrancy of scripture and that's okay, but if I make a statement that you disagree with, I'm clearly guilty of blasphemy. My, you liberals are so tolerant!
Posted by: Bradley | November 16, 2007 9:07 AM
Moderatelad,
Many people on the so called left are pissed that the United States ever went into Iraq in the first place. It has nothing to do with the fact that Bush 1 failed to remove Saddam or that Bush 2 killed him.
All of it was wrong and immoral.
Posted by: Lonnie | November 16, 2007 9:46 AM
N.M Rod
Ann Coulter has good looks?
OMG
Posted by: Lonnie | November 16, 2007 9:48 AM
Posted by: Lonnie | November 16, 2007 9:46 AM
Correction - we caught him, the Iraqi courts put Saddam on trial and convicted him and he was excuted for his crimes. (I know - something you might wish would happen to Bush #2)
I understand the other sides opinion on Iraq. It has everything to do with Clinton diplomacy which is 'do nothing when terrorists attack the US'. The Bush #1 and Bush #2 premise is straight out of the Star-Tribune here in Mpls. They had articles stating these issues over the past years ever since Bush #2 won the election. (I understand that Wallis still promotes the idea that the US Supreme Court took it away from Gore)
I just wish that someone on the other side would say that if in fact we do win the peace in Iraq - it would be a good thing - but no one has and I don't believe that they ever will. Because to admit that would mean that some good could come out of this - but the other side sees no good in anything Bush does. Some of the people that I work with in education - if they wake up in the bad mood - it is Bush's vault.
There are poeple out there that believe the Bush#1 and Bush #2 idea.
Have a great weekend
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 16, 2007 10:15 AM
Well now we know that the "Bradley Fighting Machine" is here just to try to annoy rather than learn anything. By his own admission, all his rhetoric isn't in search of the truth but to simply annoy others and get under their skins.
What a waste of his own time, and if he had a sincere viewpoint, all he's done is undermine its validity.
For these sorts, caught up in themselves and unable to break out of themselves, it's a form of public mental masturbation.
I guess this is the drawback of allowing just anyone to post... pray for him.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 10:30 AM
I happen to know God , He is a friend of mine . He wants us in Loving Families .
What do you think ?
Posted by: | November 16, 2007 3:34 AM
not sure who I'm talking to here but the point of my post is that the family agenda was not nearly as important to Jesus Christ as certain voices in North America would have us believe; I note with interest that no one here has made reference to passages like his dismissal of the announcement that his mother and brother wanted to see him = "who are my mother and brothers?" or the limited relevance of family life as contained in his response to the question "whose wife will she be in heaven?"
so far, what I've heard from the family defenders are explanations and rationalizations that come perilously close to dying the death of a thousand qualifications as it relates to what Jesus (not Proverbs, not generic God, not the OT) had to say about family
Posted by: canucklehead | November 16, 2007 12:02 PM
canucklhead,
You might have a valid point if I were doing a scholarly research paper. I'm actually just trying to annoy bunch of thin-skinned liberals on a blog. Also, I didn't deny that he said it. I asked for a link to video or an exact quote. I'd like to post it on my own blog because if he really said that, I like him even more!
As for blasphemous, I forgot that as a liberal you are entitled to say ANYTHING including rejecting the inerrancy of scripture and that's okay, but if I make a statement that you disagree with, I'm clearly guilty of blasphemy. My, you liberals are so tolerant!
Posted by: Bradley | November 16, 2007 9:07 AM
MIGHT have a valid point? uh-huh, is that a telling response or what?
"as a liberal you..."
-funny thing but I don't remember meeting you
-ah, the libel of labels, they're such a conversation/knowledge enhancer, no?
-you didn't simply make a statement that I disagree with, you said something revealingly stupid; IT IS virtually blasphemous for a North American to suggest that any opposition we may encounter (especially on a Christian blog site) is remotely related to what Christ's original listeners would have understood by his reference to taking up one's cross; if we knew anything about taking up our cross, do you truly think we'd be so flippantly BSing as we like to do here?
Posted by: canucklehead | November 16, 2007 12:25 PM
Some fundamentalists are emperors without clothes when it comes to upholding scripture.
They like to wrap themselves in the mantle of Biblical literalism, but modesty is not their forte, so when the Spirit speaks to them, they quickly come undone and stop up their ears.
You see, they have the arrogance to read out of their T.J. Version Bibles everything Jesus had to say in Matthew 5, 6 and 7, because just like others who personally find certain particular scripture troubling, loving other human beings, especially sinful ones like themselves, is their particular bugaboo.
It's possible to have an outward semblance of religiosity, without the internal power thereof, when the central tenets of the Way of Jesus are rejected.
White-washed sepulchers, inside full of dead men's bones rotting.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 12:42 PM
"In other words, folks, if it's not traceable on the internet, it doesn't exist."
If Falwell had said something so inflammatory, it would be online. He didn't say it. As far as "scholarly research" goes, Google is a perfectly acceptable place to locate a CNN clip. Of course, you can't find such a clip, because it doesn't exist, except in the imagination of the anonymous ranter.
"so far, what I've heard from the family defenders are explanations and rationalizations that come perilously close to dying the death of a thousand qualifications as it relates to what Jesus (not Proverbs, not generic God, not the OT) had to say about family"
The gospels are not wisdom books. Jesus had no contention with Proverbs. You only disregard them because it is convenient to the point that you aren't making very well. I don't know what you mean by "generic God" was the God of the Old Testament generic? That's a curious way to approach theology. There aren't two Gods. Christ and God are not odds with each other.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 16, 2007 12:53 PM
Kevin, Bradley and all of you other Falwell lovers,
Here is a link to Falwell in all of his splendor.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=4916
Posted by: Lonnie | November 16, 2007 1:09 PM
Bradley,
"Or how about when Bill Maher laments that the assasination attempt on Dick Cheney failed in Afghanistan? Still no one will call that "hateful?"
Listen, I don't want you to call it hateful. Just stop with the smug, pious, holier than thou crap!"
You might have a point if anyone had actually been talking about Bill Maher. But no one was, and so you are accusing us of manufactured hatefulness. It would have been more honest to simply ask what we thought of Maher's statements, and incidently, the answer is they were hateful.
Could you please tone down the rhetoric? I really don't understand why you think it serves your cause to be so rude. The message you send with all your scoffing, sarcasm, and name calling is that you don't actually have any valid points. If your points truly were valid, then you wouldn't have to resort to such tactics.
Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 2:33 PM
"Rude" is simply bad manners. But what's with the vitriol? Why is it that people who disagree with what they've decided are people of a broadly left liberal mindset feel the need not merely to dissent from or try to rebut their viewpoints but actually to belittle them? What is ths source of all this seething vitriol?
If this were a case study for a psychology class, someone might suggest that the rage comes from feeling threatened. But this isn't a psychology class; this is a blog whose participants say they are from a faith community usually called Christianity. Boy, this sure doesn't appear to be Christian behavior!
What if everyone were to decide that we are all seekers? What if, having that in common, we were to respect each other's search, and therefore respect each other?
Posted by: bren | November 16, 2007 3:26 PM
Squeaky -
I'm afraid Bradley is so inured to Limbaugh-think that he doesn't know what he's doing. I have known so many nice, reasonable people who will suddenly mention in passing that they enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh, as though they were talking about another nice, reasonable person and not about one of the most hate-filled individuals ever to take to the airwaves. It's baffling, but, as Bren points, it has set a rather low threshold of civility in public discourse, and we're seeing the fruits of that.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 16, 2007 3:32 PM
I'd have to agree, Another. I have a couple students in my class who think that vitriolic sarcasm is the way to make their point (they do this online--they actually never say anything in class, which is even more infuriating). They can't seem to understand that the second they resort to that tactic, they have lost every shred of credibility with me. When I challenge them to back up their statements with research, they respond with "it's called talk radio" and "what you really want us to do is fall in line with your liberal viewpoint" (I've never even expressed a liberal viewpoint in class, incidently). I'm afraid Limbaugh and others have taught this generation that the way to engage an opponent is with ridicule. If you can shoot someone down with a well-placed insult, you have won the argument. It's the easy way out, because it keeps us from having to actually consider another's perspective. As long as we can broad-brush someone as "liberal" or "conservative" we can dismiss anything they might have to say that actually might make us think or question our own positions.
Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 4:32 PM
WOW - Fawell amde a statement that he should not have and everyone is up in arms.
Baldwin asked for people to go stone a leading Republican Congressman - no one asked him to retract his statement.
John Kerry compared to our men and women in the military to a bunch of college drop outs and dummies to students. He was not asked to retract his statement.
I would like to see a complete video on what Faweel said as well as a few sentences prior and after that statement.
Something about sticks and stones comes to mind - but then again I old school.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 16, 2007 4:38 PM
Well said, Squeaky (electronic handshake). It sounds like my students are for the most part more polite than yours, but I've seen plenty of what you're talking about as well. The only reason I keep posting to this blog is that I hope it's a place where some meaningful breakthrough might take place, and every once in a while it actually does. My only real enemy is the certainty bug. Once somebody becomes convinced that being certain they are right is more important than growing spiritually or intellectually, the argument is over. Unfortunately, so is spiritual and intellectual growth.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 16, 2007 4:47 PM
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 16, 2007 4:47 PM
Once somebody becomes convinced that being certain they are right is more important than growing spiritually or intellectually, the argument is over. Unfortunately, so is spiritual and intellectual growth.
So - my certainity that Christ is my Savior and to live is Christ but to die is gain. My 'spiritual and intellectual growth' is over?
Just wondering - I believe that one can have both.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 16, 2007 4:53 PM
"So - my certainity that Christ is my Savior and to live is Christ but to die is gain. My 'spiritual and intellectual growth' is over?"
Um, no; it's just beginning. That's my point. Only you can stop it, by a determination to fix your certainty on anything less.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 16, 2007 4:57 PM
This blog still posts articles of worth. But the shouting matches that follow are getting tiresome. One knows the script even before one reads the entries:
Wallis or some other progressive evangelical posts an entry.
Immoderatelad and kevin s, with help from Donny, jesse, Bradley (the latest hateful to join the bunch), and the others, ridicule the blog entry with hateful language. Readers who are more liberal counter the cons. Donny replies with a screaching foaming-at-the-mouth posting. Moderatelad shakes his head and says he's glad the liberals weren't in charge of the country in 1941 when Japan was a threat (this even if the blog was about, say, poor people in the inner city). Kevin s chimes in with charges of Sojo hypocrisy. And on and on and on . . .
Finally, pushed over the edge, one or more of the libs gets pissed off and responds with an intemperate reply.
That of course is what the conservatives wanted all along. They then write hypocritical posts in which they contend, with perfectly straight faces, that all they wanted was to have a reasoned dialog. But now, the whiny/childish/hippie/panty-waist liberals can't admit when they're wrong and can only respond by shouting.
Then everyone goes to bed, we wake the next morning, and start the whole damnable process all over again.
That
Posted by: carl copas | November 16, 2007 5:02 PM
Moderatelad,
Are you defending uncivil discourse, then?
Do you disagree with Another Nonymous that a closed mind often results in the death of spiritual growth? That's all s/he was saying.
Another--I have lived what you describe--I was once very certain in my beliefs until a couple cross-country moves exposed me to other Christian perspectives. It wasn't until I examined the foundations of my beliefs that I truly began to grow. That doesn't mean I am not certain in my destiny through Christ, but the uncertainties I have in my faith have given me new nooks and crannies to explore, and it has been amazing.
My students are actually quite respectful, except for a couple. With the onset of e-mail, however, many faculty are noting that students are getting less and less respectful.
I hope to see more people on this blog seeking solutions to the problems we face, but sadly, seems most people think it is more fun to argue than it is to learn...but on those rare occasions when meaningul exchange is attained...that's just magical...
Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 5:27 PM
carl copas,
Well--what can I say? I couldn't keep from chuckling at your assessment. That being said, I'd have to say that I do often appreciate the perspectives of some on your list, particularly Moderatelad and Kevin S. Donny and the new Kid on the block, Bradley, have little of worth to offer. They might if they would make an honest attempt at dialogue, but alas...I try not to respond, but it's often hard not to, even though I know it isn't worth my time.
I've had some meaningful exchanges with Moderatelad and Kevin S, so I don't put them in the Donny camp. Not even close, really.
What I do wish, however, is that Kevin S, Moderatelad, and others would make a concerted effort to comment on something on the blog they agree with BEFORE nitpicking about what they disagree with. I have often observed you guys will find the tiniest little points to attack, even though, in some cases, I suspect you are in agreement with much of what the blogger said. Case in point, Moderatelad, I don't think you disagreed with Nother Nonymous at all, yet you still managed to find something to disagree with. Why? What is the point of that? It certainly doesn't spur dialogue on further. It's like me giving a student an F because they got one question wrong on a 50 point exam.
My request: the next post you respond to, make an effort to find something you agree with and post on that first (even on the blogs you largely disagree with). Maybe we can start having real discussions, then.
Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 5:43 PM
"I hope to see more people on this blog seeking solutions to the problems we face, but sadly, seems most people think it is more fun to argue than it is to learn...but on those rare occasions when meaningul exchange is attained...that's just magical..."
I couldn't agree more. And Carl, your post had me in stitches. Is there any way to stop this process? How about you, I, Squeaky and whoever else wants to sign on simply stop responding to anything said disrespectfully? As soon as that tone creeps in, the discussion either ends or we just ignore it, and talk only to those who meet a minimum threshold of civility. Doesn't matter what your political views are; as long as you're willing to be civil, please join us. Everyone else gets ignored. It will be hard, given that we all seem to be at least partially addicted, but do I have any takers?
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 16, 2007 5:52 PM
"No, frankly I do not see that as hateful. What I DO think is hateful is a group of ignorant, naive liberals traveling to a war zone to try and contrive stories about how the young men bravely serving their country, half a world away from their families in the armed forces are kidknapping and illegally detaining innocent women and children and committing "war crimes." THAT IS HATEFUL!!!!"
Ignorant and naive, sounds right about your views. I will remember that the next time I think about Abu Ghraib, Haditha and any other thing Blackwater or some of our troops do. Guess what Bradley some of our troops do horrible things. That's what war does to people and your views sound pretty naive to not know that simple fact.
Mick said:
Wait a second here payshun , you are speaking about allowing a person who promotes terrorism and favors sponsoring it at a forum to promote his propaganda at tax payer expense .
Me:
It would not be the first or the last time we did it either. We have done that since our country started and the truth is we will do it when we find a dictator we like like say Musharaf.
You also said:
This is basic 101 view. Analogy .. KKK demonstrating in Chicago , I believe the ACLU defended their Constitutional Right to do so . That was a principled position , even though we all know the ACLU disagrees with the KKK , almost as much as they do with Evangelical Christians .
But being polite to the KKK , nope , sorry , . You thinking this guy is not as bad as the KKK and what they advocate , Ok . there is a disagreement . But you can't see that . I can see it and you constantly point out my inability to listen to other people .Try it yourself . It helps.
Me:
Well umm the KKK led a lynching campaign that lasted nearly 100 years and killed at least 1000 black men and raped and killed black women. I would defend their right to speak too. I can see exactly what you are saying but if you think he is the only world leader w/ racist views that we give public air time too then you would be naive. Look at Putin's lack of defense of immigrants in Russia and his backing by hardliners there. We support him completely despite the fact that his regime is corrupt. Well when I look at ours I can't point too many fingers considering our own regime is not pretty either.
How many campaings has Ahmadinejad started and led to kill off the jews and christians w/n his own country? Let me know when you find out that one. My point is that even though he says stupid and uneductated things about the Holocaust espouses hateful and racist ideas about Israel we should still treat him as a head of state. If we can look back fondly on Andrew Jackson and his genocidal butt we can at the very least see what the man has to say. No one said he has to stay in Lincoln bedroom.
Oh and I have had a few racists as friends. Eventually they turn around w/ more contact. Who is to say Ahmadinejad will turn around if he is confronted enough?
One more thing it is not mind reading it's just knowing how fear driven your American culture is. Since I did not insult anyone (I only attacked their views) then you can stop w/ the wounded no one understands me line. I understand it. We get it. We just don't agree. Isn't that what our discussions always turn into? Well to be fair I don't think you get nearly 3/4's of what I am saying.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 16, 2007 6:04 PM
If Falwell had said something so inflammatory, it would be online. He didn't say it. As far as "scholarly research" goes, Google is a perfectly acceptable place to locate a CNN clip. Of course, you can't find such a clip, because it doesn't exist, except in the imagination of the anonymous ranter.
As a Christian that believes every spirit needs be validated, especially with Gods word. I made a singular websearch of Jerry Falwell regarding the statement of 'blow tham all away to Hell', and selected the first reference that popped up:
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=847
There appears much that Falwell will have to answer for, especially regarding people led astray. Having researched and studied for truth, finding False Flag as prevalent as it is today, find that much today accepted as truth is instead deceipt and product of evil.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 6:04 PM
So - my certainity that Christ is my Savior and to live is Christ but to die is gain. My 'spiritual and intellectual growth' is over?
Just wondering - I believe that one can have both.
Spiritual growth indeed is more than hearing, being also to do. And in this needing learn Spiritual truth, not as some that accept the evil within an Office as authority they show proper Respect. Honoring with respect evil within an Office, is to dishoner the Offices that God establishes, showing disrespect for Gods word.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 6:15 PM
Nother,
I agree my only concern is that how long do you put w/ bs? I am trying by darndest to only attack their ideas, feelings and policy. I am trying to be as honest as possible in doing it. Instead of actually debating the principles I am attacking they all assume I am attacking them.
What do we do?
p
Posted by: payshun | November 16, 2007 6:16 PM
Amen! When George W. Bush ran for President in 2000, he promised a more humble foreign policy. Unfortunately, what we have had is a very arrogant policy.
Not only must we be gracious in extending hospitality to even those with whom we may have a lot of disagreements, we need to remove the plank from our own eye as a nation before seeking to remove the speck from the eye of another.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2007 6:18 PM
If this were a case study for a psychology class, someone might suggest that the rage comes from feeling threatened. But this isn't a psychology class; this is a blog whose participants say they are from a faith community usually called Christianity. Boy, this sure doesn't appear to be Christian behavior!
What is going on in America, happening also to those that consider themselves religious or Christian, does in fact have a good study in mans psychology today.
Do a websearch with key-words 'The Lucifer Effect'. Once again Gods word validated by man.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 6:24 PM
"I agree my only concern is that how long do you put w/ bs? I am trying by darndest to only attack their ideas, feelings and policy. I am trying to be as honest as possible in doing it. Instead of actually debating the principles I am attacking they all assume I am attacking them.
What do we do?"
Yes, I know what you mean. I suppose we honestly ask ourselves whether we *are* attacking them. Then we take a deep breath and hit delete.
When you say you are attacking people's feelings, I assume you mean their beliefs. The linguistic confusion gets to the heart of the problem. In many cases, feelings and beliefs are inextricably tied together, so that to challenge the latter is to hurt the former. We need to ask ourselves honestly whether we are falling into the same trap in answering others' responses to us. Then we need to take a deep breath and hit delete.
Whatever is left, we post. Then we rinse and repeat.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 16, 2007 6:29 PM
Nother,
I agree--I'll try. And it is sometimes hard to resist responding to the more inflammatory rhetoric. It is perhaps silly to think the people behind those words will listen, so it is best to ignore them.
I think, Payshun, that it is possible to stop responding to those who are so very blatantly disrespectful in their responses. They are probably just trying to get a rise out of people, and if it no longer works, maybe they will knock it off. It would be a start...
Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 6:31 PM
squeaky I'm afraid Limbaugh and others have taught this generation that the way to engage an opponent is with ridicule. If you can shoot someone down with a well-placed insult, you have won the argument. It's the easy way out, because it keeps us from having to actually consider another's perspective.
Being Christian and also apolitical, I also have noted a tendency of the religious-right that can only be described as tactic from the prince of this world.
This tactic goes beyond slander and name flights of imaginative fantasy, but is to divert issue with continious and new charges of fantasy. Anyone that tries to keep up with disproving each and every one of these charges, never boxes in the slanderer to answer and prove a single statement of fantasy.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 6:37 PM
"Well, I'm for that too. But you've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord."-Falwell
Here is the actual transcript right here.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/24/le.01.html
You will have to scroll down a bit but it's during the conversation between Falwell and Jackson.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 16, 2007 6:50 PM
When you say you are attacking people's feelings, I assume you mean their beliefs.
Not merely their beliefs but the fears that come w/ them. I am attacking their fears. That's an emotion that mirrors a belief.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 16, 2007 6:55 PM
Payshun
How many campaings has Ahmadinejad started and led to kill off the jews and christians w/n his own country? Let me know when you find out that one. My point is that even though he says stupid and uneductated things about the Holocaust espouses hateful and racist ideas about Israel we should still treat him as a head of state.
I believe you are being honest and sincere in the above statement.
Many today indeed have been influenced by false statements made by individuals such as John Hagee, that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hitler saying "Israel Must Be Wiped Off The Map", but in fact this was never said by Mahmoud, who instead quoted Khomeini that said "The Regime In the Holy City (Jerusalem) Needs Vanish From The Pages of Time."
It sounds like you are aware that there is a large religious Jewish population in Iran that have lived there many generations, along with 250,000 Christians, all under the protection even of Khomeini from 1979-89.
I have discovered that there are men in our government in high Office, that these serve the prince of this world, this includes men within the secular Zionist government within Israel.
Indeed the antichrists (anti=false Christ-like) are leading many in America and around the world astray and to serve Satan. In these circumstances I warn the uninformed they need learn how to seperate secular-Zionists from true (Torah) Jewish/Israel. This is a great failing within the church today.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 7:04 PM
Squeaky, Payshun, Another Anonymous,
I agree. We have to begin simply to ignore the mean-spirited postings and respond only to those--Right, Left, Center, evangelical or whatever--who in good faith want a genuine dialogue and not a shouting match like those on the McLaughlin Group.
Otherwise, we may as well visit this blog to just read the main postings and forget about the comments. Surely our Lord doesn't want us wasting our time in what I'll politely call urinating contests.
Posted by: carl copas | November 16, 2007 7:35 PM
My request: the next post you respond to, make an effort to find something you agree with and post on that first (even on the blogs you largely disagree with). Maybe we can start having real discussions, then.
Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 5:43 PM
Squeaky, I like your suggestion and strongly affirm you for it.
Now that I got that out of the way, listen up, you chump, you weasel, you apostate, how dare you...
W.B. Riley, founder of the Northwestern schools in St. Paul, MN (not sure what it's called now) once said: "I love a good fight and, all the more, if it's theological."
That statement is now the Minnesota state bird and my source for that piece of info is a new thriller just out that's co-authored by Pat "Assassin" Robertson, John "CUFU2" Hagee and Jack Van Grumpy.
Posted by: canucklehead | November 16, 2007 7:45 PM
Thanks, Canuckle...umm, I think =).
I can resemble Riley's remarks, if I change but one word--"fight" to "discussion". Man it would be cool to have some great discussions here--ones that make me think deeply rather than drink gallons of water so I can win the peeing contest Carl refers to...speaking of which, erm, gotta go...
Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 7:52 PM
As for what is "mean-spirited," my point all along on this thread has been that it is "mean-spirited" to suggest that a violent terrorist like MA deserves "hospitality." How "hospitable" must it be to MA's political prisoners when we lend him credibility?
As a secondary point, I demonstrated that you feel no obligation to show "hospitality" toward Conservatives.
And payshun, thanks for the link. It wasn't quite as harsh as it had been described, but I still think I'll post it on my blog.
Posted by: Bradley | November 16, 2007 8:47 PM
As for what is "mean-spirited," my point all along on this thread has been that it is "mean-spirited" to suggest that a violent terrorist like MA deserves "hospitality."
Bradley - Note that my first post on this thread begins "I agree with you." And I do.
Posted by: Another nonymous | November 16, 2007 9:05 PM
Posted by: squeaky | November 16, 2007 5:27 PM
Glad you are certain too.
My foundation in my faith is secure and I am accepting of others ideas. I believe that the strength of the Christian Faith is in the 'diversity' of our denominations. We all take part in the Lord's Supprt in our congregations. My Catholic friends believe that once prayed over - it is Christ's body and blood. Some believe that Christ's body and blood are 'present'. To me it is grape juice and crackers - ordinary items set aside for an extrodinary use. To me - we are all correct. We practice Baptims differently some infant, some adult but for the most part we believe that it is one Baptism for all.
My Faith trumps my politics. Some will disagree - fine it is a free country. But I have NEVER matched my Faith to my politics.
I believe that the 08 election will be the first time since Bush 1 lost that I will vote a split ticket in the general election. I have found a person at the state level that I really like and she is a Dem. (and several on this site faint)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | November 17, 2007 2:29 PM
"Kevin, Bradley and all of you other Falwell lovers,
Here is a link to Falwell in all of his splendor."
Okay, the quote is this:
"Well, I'm for that too. But you've got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops. And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord. "
His argument was that we should seek out and kill terrorists, not that we are to blow ALL of our enemies to hell. That's a big difference, and I heartily agree that we should be killing terrorists, though I would be fine if we poisoned, hung, or beheaded them as well.
No president run on the "we shouldn't kill terrorists" platform. We don't negotiate with terrorists, and no serious person proposed that we should.
I don't love Falwell (in the sense that you mean, anyway), and I never appreciated the inartful way he expressed things, but he was both misquoted and taken brutally out of context by the anonymous gunslinger.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 17, 2007 5:29 PM
Holocaust Denial originated in the Christian West ans so did classic antisemitic idea of the evil conspriring powerful Jew. However, it now permeates Muslim and Arab world. Ordinary doctors and lawyers across the Muslim world believe the Holocaust is a lie. Ahamdinejad is not some kind of lone nut. He is not unusual. That is why meeting with Ahamdinejad is so problematic. It gives aid and comfort to Holocaust deniers and antisemites all over the Muslim world.
I should also mention that Jews are not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. So much for Middle Eastern hospitality.
Posted by: Susan | November 18, 2007 11:37 AM
".. should also mention that Jews are not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. So much for Middle Eastern hospitality."
Posted by: Susan | November 18, 2007 11:37 AM
Well, Saudi Arabia esp.Mecca & Medina is actually off-limit to _*all*_ non-Muslims so Jews aren't singled out especially as I understand the situation there. Not that it's a policy I agree with but then it _is_ their home & so they get to set the rules.
Kevin S. wrote :
"I heartily agree that we should be killing terrorists, though I would be fine if we poisoned, hung, or beheaded them as well."
Er .. I think you'll find beheading usually kills people too! ;-)
How about we convert them and turn them into useful members of society?
Not bloodthirsty enough for you .. ?
Sorry about that. I'd rather see good come from bad than bad matched by more bad personally.
Jesus loves even Caiphas and prayed for his forgiveness even whilst hanging on the cross - and thus I'm think would also wish forgiveness for Osma bin Laden and, yes, Hitler. They too were his , our, neighbours.
How incredible & forgiving & Christ-like is that!
Salaam, Shalom, Peace
--------------------------------
BTW. Is this a latest comments response ever record? ;-)
Posted by: Salaam = Shalom = Peace | March 11, 2008 2:28 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?