Bless you all...keep up the good work.

Posted by: maxcat06 | December 25, 2007 1:19 AM

Oraise God for those who because of our Lord will go to the trenches to do his will as it is in heaven .

Will pray for your success , and to be free from the grasp of those who try to stop you or use you ! .

Merry Christmas and a Happy New year .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 25, 2007 5:38 PM

Thanks DOC75 . Looks like a good movie . I just might netflix it . I happen to be reading a pretty good book by J Shaara on World War 2 right now .

People react different ,even to the same situations . Hard to speak to past events and cultures , but I might guess possibly the germans were feeling desperate , Americans and Russians were at their doorsteps into their homeland , and they were feeling quite threatened .

But your right , sometimes having your face known by the enemy just makes it easier to kill you .

Peace to you and your family . God Bless,

Mick

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 26, 2007 1:09 AM

Jonabark:
My father-in-law was in the Battle of the Bulge. He almost never talked about his war experiences, but my wife tells me that when the My Lai massacre in Vietnam made the news, he told his family that he wondered what all the fuss was about.

He said that during his experience on the battle lines in Europe, the Americans rarely took German prisoners. They just lined them up ...

D

Posted by: Don | December 26, 2007 7:50 AM

Don,

I'm not sure what your point is its to say, "Americans aren't any better than anyone else." In specific instances, yes there were Americans who didn't take prisoners. However, across throughout the European Theater of War, Americans did take many, many prisoners and they were cared for as expected under the Geneva Convention.

Is My Lai your only reference point in Vietnam? Perhaps you ought to check into Robbie Riesner's biography. Have you heard of the guy before you wikipedia-ed him? Probably not, but at least you know My Lai! Why don't you read "Chickenhawk" by Robert Mason? It has nothing to do with Dick Cheney and the GOP, but it does have to do with the recollections of a UH-1 Huey pilot in Vietnam. Mason recalls a fellow UH-1 pilot who was shot down and "captured" by those kind and progressive North Vietnamese liberators who were overthrowing the American imperialists in South Vietnam. These left-leaning heroes (freedom fighters?) caught the fleeing pilot tied him to a tree and cut his skin-off alive. Obviously he died in the process. But hey, at least you know My Lai.

Jonabark,

Likewise, I'm not sure what your point is. Going back to Jim's story, trench warfare continued through every Christmas through 1918 yet there wasn't a Silent Night after 1914. What changed the frame of reference?

You also say, "it would be hard to find instances when they sang songs or held religious services with people they then killed." Check the Civil War. You had close relatives killing each other. I believe there were Silent Nights that did occur during the Civil War.

Finally, something for all of us to consider: Silent Night 1914 happened because of a shared religion between the combatants. What happens when there is no shared belief system?

Posted by: doc75 | December 26, 2007 9:50 AM

'm not sure what your point is ...

I'm only relating a family story that I have heard repeatedly. I leave it to readers to contemplate what it means.

D

Posted by: Don | December 26, 2007 10:22 AM

Paul McCartney did a wonderful video about this event to his song, Pipes of Peace, a #1 in England. I just saw it again on The McCartney Years DVD collection.

What do you say?
Will the human race be run in a day?
Or will someone save this planet we're playing on?
Is it the only one?

Help them to see
that the people here are like you and me
let us show them how to play
the Pipes of Peace
help them to learn
songs of joy instead of burn baby burn
let us show them how to play
the Pipes of Peace

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 26, 2007 6:38 PM

And so many "progressives" and Liberals and Secular Humanists are trying to minimize Christmas and Christians into a ghetto world of the excluded. Their version of Christmas is "Silenced Nights." Pray that God moves on the hearts of those that hate the Christian community to put down their weapons of legal actions against Christians and Christmas. Email this blog to the ACLU and Americans United.

Posted by: Donny | December 27, 2007 8:49 AM

Christianity has survived just fine with people that are worse than Donny and others. I believe that you influence others by showing them the sweeter side of God and allow the Holy Spirit to move in their hearts and minds.

Not always true; sometimes strong commentary is necessary (you're aren't always "nice" with your children, correct?). Besides, I have seen situations first-hand where people have turned away from Christ because of the actions of certain Christians who refused to be confronted about their attitudes, and in situations like that there's no time or reason to be "gentle." (Even if my words were kinder they still would be taken as a strong rebuke.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 27, 2007 3:22 PM

Great story...again. If only we could see peace in our own melting pot - America. There is a different type of war going on; one based on privilege and capitalism. Waged by the Oligarchs and their Institutions.

I long for unity in the Body. And in our Nation.

Posted by: Chris Brooks | December 28, 2007 12:08 AM

too wonder how Sojo will treat the assassination of Bhutto.

Peace,

Posted by: Don

Me three ,

I also wonder how the world will ?

"My comments may sound extremely nasty to some but, unfortunately, in some cases are necessary to protect Christianity from some of His alleged followers. "

Sorry you do not have the ability , nor does any one . The Light of Christ has always been the best disinfectant .

Posted by: Mick | December 28, 2007 1:15 AM

The only people that fuse theology with ideology are "progressives." They cannot take the Bible, the New Testament especially, seriously and have Apostolic faith in "progressive" ideology. Neo-liberalism always trumps Biblical theology to the new leftist. It is more important for this movement to implement this secular, worldy, huminsitic socialism that is the progressive movement, than to just follow the Gospel and the teachings of the Apostles, which clearly oppose it. Odd that those that scream about tolerance and diversity the loudest, deny it most zealously to those that do not walk lock-step with this new liberal paragigm.

Posted by: Donny | December 28, 2007 11:25 AM

"That's basically why so many self-proclaimed "conservatives" don't like this blog and hammer Jim Wallis without mercy"

No that is not true . When you set yourself up as the holy spirit , and promote your politics as God's politics, you automatically set yourself up for the type of criticism Wallis and his followers get . No differnt then say Jerry Falwell and his old organization .

Wallis is a Servant of God, it is admirable that he tries to put action behind his beliefs . Any man who accepts Christ as Lord and Savior is my brother .

Wallis politics are just wrong . When he chooses to attack religious faith and sincerity because of honest disagreements , he becomes just another political interest group .
He marginalixed his own organization, conservatives did not do that . He actually had many of us hoping for this organization to prosper . It appears because of its in ability to gather steam , it has resorted to acknowledgig its own religious superiority and sincerity .

Leaving the majority of us not good enough to be part of it .

Liberals here on this blog for the most part can not accept the fact others with Christ as their core , happen to have an honest disagreement in politics . They have to put a derogatory motive behind the disagreement ,such as your last post .

Coming to the discussion with a preconceived bias and a preconceived belief of the motive of the person you are talking with causes most of these discussions to fail before they start . Thats mainly why the religious left fails to attract those with a Bibical world view . The Bibical World View is not compatible with the secular world view .
Being a religious , yet a politically liberal minded individual in regard with politics and must be a harder then it is for conservatives .

That is where you and the Holy Spirit part ways , you don't allow yourself to use the discernment God gave you to judge another's motive , and if you do , it is harrassed by a religious spirit and idealogy .

Saying people like Donny loves war for its own sake . You said I was for this war ? Praying for my son's safety to you is praying for victory .
That is contray to truth , and indeed has nothing to do with the Love of Christ , or even understanding the fact some people may be just scared shitless for their own kid . you can not even recognize the basic Christian tenet in how to handlle that .

Donny brings more to the table then you .

Donny does not seem as though he wants to build a relationship , so his comments usually are taken with a grain of salt . He sees liberal "political activists" secualists as dangerous , big deal .
That is what Wallis editorialists often proclaim ,

You are no better , nor me . We just phrase the comments differently .

.

Posted by: Mick | December 28, 2007 11:48 AM

Use the scriptures to reply to my positions then. I notice not one leftists even tries. Epithets are too easy I guess. Last word paradigm (though I typo'd) shows that worldy influences entered into liberal theology in such a way as to wash out the seriousness of factually following Christ the way He preached the Gospel. Wallis may not be a Spong, but he dwells in that camp. I am not deceived by what "leftists" actually do and say. Whatever is unsettling in the authenticity of the historoic Christian community to this new iseology-theolog labeled "progressive" is simply discarded (or accused on some neologic basis) to fit into the changes and alterations of liberal-to-progressive misrepresentations of Gospel truth. Simply ad homing my positions is cowardice at best. The Gospel and tes=achings of the Apostles are applicable to my positions as they are "progressives" that refuse them. Try not calling me names and deal with the truth of scripture. These men in WWI would not be allowed to sing this same song in any public school in Europe or America today, precisely because of "progressives." I'm sure Jude would be called a "troll" on thos blog as well.

Posted by: Donny | December 28, 2007 12:02 PM

As we prayerfully choose among a sea of candidates, let us note the need for leadership with experience in foreign policy to deal with the crises that face us.

Posted by: doc75

Appears to be rioting now in Pakistan .

I admit I have really not the undertanding of the politcal views on this . So far all the candidates give the normal lip service without really saying much to this event .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 28, 2007 12:11 PM

When you set yourself up as the holy spirit, and promote your politics as God's politics, you automatically set yourself up for the type of criticism Wallis and his followers get. No different then say Jerry Falwell and his old organization.

There's no comparison whatsoever. For openers (as I have consistently said), Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and the like always had support from the secular right; in fact, Moral Majority, not even a religious organization, couldn't even have existed in the first place without cash and infrastructure courtesy of non-believers. Therefore, they could never have challenged, say, Wall Street to "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God"; in short, follow the entire counself of God. Sojo, on the other hand, has never enjoyed that kind of support from the secular left and, frankly, never will do so. (That said, however, it is poised and uniquely positioned to introduce such folks to Christ.)

Saying people like Donny loves war for its own sake. You said I was for this war? Praying for my son's safety to you is praying for victory.

What you were doing in the process, however, is praying for political victory for George W. Bush, which is never appropriate (and I would say the same if it were for a Democrat). If you were really interested in your son's safety, you would pray only for the end of the war regardless of outcome.

Donny does not seem as though he wants to build a relationship, so his comments usually are taken with a grain of salt. He sees liberal "political activists" secualists as dangerous, big deal.

Except that he slanders fellow Christians in the process. To our LORD, that is a big deal because it causes disharmony in the church and compromises its witness -- because we end up looking just like the world we believe and say is going to hell.

Use the scriptures to reply to my positions then. I notice not one leftists even tries.

If you've noticed, about half of these blog entries are specific Scriptural references, and they speak for themselves. Besides, even if I were to go chapter-and-verse, of which I am certainly capable, with you you wouldn't listen anyway.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 28, 2007 12:33 PM

Mick - Why is your punctuation seperated by spaces in your posts? Is that something you do intentionally or is it some formatting error that Sojo or your computer does?

Just wondering...

Posted by: Rob | December 28, 2007 1:37 PM

Posted by: kevin s. | December 28, 2007 1:00 AM

At any rate, happy hour next week, yes or no?

How about the following week - Christmas hit me a little hard in the wallet this year.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 28, 2007 3:34 PM

I get it, you see no difference between the United States and our enemies. Just say so instead of being cute.

You miss the point. It's easy to denounce atrocities when our enemies commit them but somehow more "justifiable" when we do. That's kind of what the entry was getting at.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 28, 2007 4:52 PM

"You miss the point. It's easy to denounce atrocities when our enemies commit them but somehow more "justifiable" when we do. That's kind of what the entry was getting at." Posted by: Rick Nowlin

Rick: My point is that folks here need to look at the other side: ignoring the atrocities committed by enemies of the US because it doesn't suit your viewpoint.

""Acknowledging the inevitability of military conflict is not the same as worshipping military power." Kevin S.

"Yeah but advocating the use of force is."

Um, not true. You might want to refer to God's instructions to Joshua or David in the Old Testament. Not exactly peaceful sentiments.

Also, following your logic we do seem to have a Biblical conundrum. Leaving behind the Old Testament we have to deal with the first convert to Christianity being a military officer, Cornelius.

Then, there is a centurion in Matthew 8:8 who commits a great progressive crime: he asks for his servant to be healed. What you say, that's not a crime (and, no, the crime isn't the fact he has a servant/slave)? The crime is that he recognizes authority: "For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." Yeah, he's not with the program.

In Acts 23:16-28, Paul ends up getting protected by 470 soldiers. Roman soldiers. Occupiers. God has a funny way of doing business and it doesn't always fit into our nice boxes.

Posted by: doc75 | December 28, 2007 8:00 PM

My point is that folks here need to look at the other side: ignoring the atrocities committed by enemies of the US because it doesn't suit your viewpoint.

We don't need to do that -- we have propaganda mills for that very purpose, some of them from the military itself, and until fairly recently they had the upper hand.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 28, 2007 11:48 PM

Mick - Why is your punctuation separated by spaces in your posts? Is that something you do intentionally or is it some formatting error that Sojo or your computer does?

Just wondering...

Posted by: Rob

Hey Rob I have a language structure deficiency .
My grammar sucks ..

I can blame dyslexia , which is part of it . But I have talked to others with similar problems and we have the same problems say when we are "feeling" passionate, pressured , or whatever . Hard to explain . But it is my attempt to try and make my post understandable . Weird , even when I proof read the mistakes are not caught , sometimes I see the mistake but it does not register , and sometimes my language skills are so bad I see the mistake and not realize it .

Sometimes I can make it come out OK , I notice if I keep to one subject and not wander I do much better grammatically . Sorry . Gets kind of toxic here , which makes its worse I think for my sentence structure .

Believe it or not , at work I am often asked for help in writing or spelling from my supervisor . When I take a long time I can come out with a decent looking document . Some people judge you on it , and I admit that hurts some exchanges .

Mick

Posted by: Mick | December 29, 2007 1:34 PM

"know you are not enthusiastic about coming to New Orleans, but if you get down this way in the next year, my wife and I would enjoy having you over for dinner."

Blessed are the Peace makers !
Happy New Year to you , God Bless

Posted by: Mick | December 29, 2007 2:18 PM

"Yeah but advocating the use of force is."

Advocating the use of force is worshipping military power? If I advocate the use of force by police, am I worshipping the police? What is the difference?

Jonabark,

I don't particularly care what words you put quotes around (Don: Please rewrite to "around what words you put quotes"). My point is that punctuation does not advance an argument. If you want to make a point that we are overlooking our own actions, then make that case, and explain how we could do things differently.

To pretend that we (conservatives) have never considered where America might be guilty of overreaching military is implicitly condescending. To imply that we think in tribal terms (without supporting evidence) is insult. If you are going to insult, why bother posting?

Posted by: kevin .s | December 29, 2007 8:41 PM

If you want to make a point that we are overlooking our own actions, then make that case, and explain how we could do things differently.

We have tried, but you have never listened. Ever -- because you thought you knew better than everyone else. The war in Iraq should be proof enough.

To imply that we think in tribal terms (without supporting evidence) is insult.

Can you say the "Cold War"?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | December 29, 2007 9:54 PM

"The war in Iraq should be proof enough."

The war in Iraq is proof that I am not listening to Jonabark? Who are you talking to?

Posted by: kevin s. | December 30, 2007 3:51 PM

"Jonabark,
I don't particularly care what words you put quotes around . My point is that punctuation does not advance an argument. If you want to make a point that we are overlooking our own actions, then make that case, and explain how we could do things differently.

To pretend that we (conservatives) have never considered where America might be guilty of overreaching military is implicitly condescending. To imply that we think in tribal terms (without supporting evidence) is insult. If you are going to insult, why bother posting?"

Kevin,
My original use of quotes around us and they was to emphasize in an abbreviated way the divisive identity based language that separates and dehumanizes soldiers and citizens whose countries are engaged in war. It was a summary of my earlier post where I wrote"Namelessness and facelessness is not removed by reading a nametag or seeing a face. A face can still be a gook, a commie , a fascist, a pig, etc. It is when we share feelings, music, food and conversation, pictures and stories of loved ones that we gain faces and identities." I agree, however with the premise that one must be careful with, and is justified in being suspicious about quote marks. Not quite the devil's footprints, but caution is called for.

I do in fact make a case( over many posts including the one cited that Americans are far too willing to ignore the atrocities of our own history and to justify brutality and aggression by citing brutality in those they are attacking. My argument was not at all limited to conservatives. LBJ, Truman and Clinton all used this tactic. I don't think I use the word conservative in the same way you do, on the rare occasions that I use it at all. There are many pacifists, anti imperialists, and non-interventionists who are conservatives and thousands of these who are or have been Republicans. Anyway are you agreeing that Vietnam (and/or Iraq) is a case of military overreaching or just that you have considered that it "might" be?

"To imply that we think in tribal terms (without supporting evidence) is insult. Kevin S"
I was responding to an individual post by an individual writer and addressing the US war in Vietnam. It is you who describes yourself as part of a "we".

I know my weaknesses and I am not saying I am above self righteousness and even insult, but i do honestly try to argue politics without regard to party or big labels like liberal or conservative which i sincerely distrust. I did honestly hope to reinforce the idea that the story that started this thread holds some promise for the human condition. It looks like I have failed at that. I think if these discussions were face to face we might have a better chance of seeing some real give and take. It is hard to know for sure, but that is my experience and the experience this Christmas story speaks to.

Where have all the flowers gone?
Girls have picked them every one

Where have all the young girls gone?
Taken husbands every one

Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one

Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered with flowers every one

When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

Excerpted from Pete Seeger's song: Where have all the flowers gone?

Posted by: jonabark | December 30, 2007 10:36 PM

My solution: compose in Word using spelling and grammar checks, then cut and paste to the comments box.

I did that for a particularly long post that I wanted to make sure I got right. The result was that I lost all my paragraph breaks (see my last post on the "Immigration Shouting Match" posting, which is now in the archive).

Apparently, any future attempts to edit my postings will need to go through some additional tweaking. Technology is supposed to simplify our lives, but sometimes it seems to make things more complicated!

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 31, 2007 7:40 AM

Dear Rev. Wallis,

Thank you for your thought-provoking essay. In my view, the subject is always relevant. It was particularly relevant in 2002. That it would “remain[] tragically relevant” in 2008 was beyond my worst expectations.

But the question haunted every heart that lived that wondrous night
"Whose family have I fixed within my sights?"
'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung
For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone for evermore."

These lines, particularly the last two, from “Christmas in the Trenches” raise several questions.

If “the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war had been crumbled and were gone for evermore," how is it possible that the war continued for nearly four years after the event? Did the “walls” not crumble after all? Were the “walls,” in fact, not necessary “to exact the work of war.” Did the walls “really” exist? (In other words, “walls” is a metaphor, which supposedly refers to something that exists in reality, and which can be described literally. Perhaps the phenomenon it refers to doesn’t really exist, or exists to some extent but its characteristics and/or function are different in certain respects from what the metaphor suggests.)

I think these questions are important because they relate to war and the reasons wars occur. It seems to me that the last two lines of song offer one explanation, expressed in an extended metaphor, which I would “translate”into literal language as follows: The powers that be inculcate false negative impressions and attitudes about the enemy into the general population. As a result, the population is willing to fight or support wars. The impressions and attitudes are so wrong that they are completely falsified merely by contact with the enemy in a non-combat situation. (e.g., the Christmas Truce)

In my opinion, there is truth in this explanation, and indeed, more truth than the events that followed the truce might suggest; however, the explaination is partial rather than comprehensive. There are other factors and circumstances that contribute to the start of wars, and how long they continue as well. I don’t pretend to have certain knowledge of what they are nor their relative significance.

The Christmas Truce of 1914, and particularly its impact on the altitudes of those who were involved in the event about their respective enemies is the subject of a very interesting paper, Demystifying the Christmas Truce: The various impacts of a short peace on the minds of soldiers. , by Thomas Löwer. I respectfully recommend it to all who are concerned about the general subject matter under discussion in this thread.

Excerpts (footnotes omitted)

From one perspective, the Christmas Truce was not unexpected. Several neutral powers tried to convince the warring nations to keep peace during Christmas and to show the minimum of Christianity. The most successful attempt to arrange a truce was the Pope’s appeal. He appealed the European powers to keep peace at Christmas, which might have helped to arrange a treaty to end the war. Not surprisingly, the nations would only have accepted peace if they were not disadvantaged by it. Not all nations agreed to a truce: Russia, for example, refused, because the orthodox Christmas is almost two weeks later than the catholic and protestant Christmas, making an official truce impossible. On the other hand the truce came totally unexpectedly. Both headquarters forbade a truce and fraternizations and threatened those who ignored their orders with hard punishment.

[...]

This paper approaches the Christmas Truce within the context of the Propaganda War. It asks if the propaganda of the warring states influenced the soldiers who took part in the truce, and if so, in what ways. If the soldiers were influenced by the propaganda, did they change their opinion about their opponents in the trenches?...

To point out what impact the propaganda had on the soldiers, the first part investigates the different stereotypes which were created by the different propaganda departments. ...The second part will juxtapose how the soldiers adopted the propaganda or made their own opinions about their enemies. This part is very much based on primary sources. Letters of soldiers who took part in the truce will give information about their personal attitudes.

That a truce in the trenches between the opponents could happen is more impressive if the Propaganda issues and common stereotypes are also focused on. On both sides, the propaganda was used to create the worst picture of the enemy. The Entente, as well as the Mittelmächte, maintained large Propaganda organizations. On both sides, intellectuals supported the stereotypes with countless publications about the rightness of going to war and to underline the others’ guilt.

Full Text

Pacem in Terris

Tom Doyle

Posted by: Tom Doyle | January 4, 2008 3:07 AM