I am not repenting, and I'm pretty my church won't be either (to the extent that a church can repent for the actions of a nation anyway).

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 10:34 AM

Rick, I think the reason Kevin S. won't be repenting is simply that he refuses to see the evil in what we have done and are doing in Iraq.

His attitude isn't unique; we have some folks like that in my church.

But you are absolutely right about he need for national repentance. I've been saying that since Sept 11, but pride and reactionary nationalism has blinded us to our need to come in repentance and humility before Almighty God.

There's historical precedent for national repentance and humiliation. Take a look:

"By the President of the United States of America.

"A Proclamation.

"Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.

"And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

"And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

"It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

"Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

"All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

"In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

"Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

"By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 11:27 AM

"Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

Cuts no ice with me. As John Wilkes Booth so aptly put it, Lincoln was a far greater tyrant than was Julius Caesar. Sic semper tyrannis!!

Posted by: Ignatius J. Reilly | February 21, 2008 11:51 AM

Ignatius, the need for national repentance has never been greater than it is now.

That's the issue at hand, not your red herring regarding Booth's opinion of Lincoln.

Besides, even if Booth was right (and considering the source and what he was involved in, I have considerable doubt about that), even tyrants can get it right sometimes.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 12:03 PM

Don -- In fairness, virtually nothing down South even to this day is named for Lincoln.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 12:11 PM

"Rick, I think the reason Kevin S. won't be repenting is simply that he refuses to see the evil in what we have done and are doing in Iraq."

I don't refuse, I just disagree with your assessment of what constitutes evil. But we won't be repenting of hypertaxation, abortion, a failed Social Security system. I don't see any call, after Christ's death for collective repentance, and I certainly don't see how a church can repent when it's membership is divided.

I think the concept of asking people who disagree with you about a political issue to repent turns the concept of repentance into a talking point.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 12:27 PM

Don -- My point is that Lincoln even now is not viewed as a national hero in much of the South. I find it ironic that some conservatives, most notably WallBuilders' David Barton -- a leader in the Republican Party in Texas -- today want to invoke the memory of Lincoln as a great Christian leader when he was as such rejected back then. Keep in mind that, although Lee opposed slavery, apparently he too felt that Washington had overstepped its bounds. (Also ironic is that the South is arguably the most patriotic region of the country today.)

Anyway, depending on ideology, often people want to call for "national repentance" to determine scapegoats, not necessary to atone for national cultural sins. It was in that ungodly spirit that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed abortionists, gays and the ACLU for September 11.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 12:42 PM

"His attitude isn't unique; we have some folks like that in my church"

Neither is yours Don . In fact many people prefer to think we deserved to be bombed on 9/11 , either beause of our sinly nature or because of our terrible foreign policy . I tend to blame the terrorists as most Americans do .

"Anyway, depending on ideology, often people want to call for "national repentance" to determine scapegoats, not necessary to atone for national cultural sins."

Agree with your insight here Rick . We need to be praying to be doing God's will more then we tell other people what they shouldt be praying because of God's will .

Right about Washington over stepping its bounds also, considering what Lincoln did with the Constitution , I am surprised the aclu IS NOT trying to still impeach him . There are far right organizations now that hide in militias and such , Freemen , that believe those Constitutional Rights have never been restored and use it to promote not paying taxes , even parking tickets , etc etc . Interesting group of people actually , ususally have a mix of racism , religion , and God Bless America in them .

Posted by: Mick | February 21, 2008 1:17 PM

"None of those, not even abortion strictly speaking, are Biblical issues that compromise the church's mission."

Why not?

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 1:40 PM

Rick, if we don't have to corporately repent for the millions of abortions our gov't allows, why would we repent for the deaths caused during war? Sincerely, I don't understand.

Posted by: Blake | February 21, 2008 2:00 PM

Rick writes:

(Also ironic is that the South is arguably the most patriotic region of the country today.)

Based on whose definition of patriotism? I live in the NW, and I know more folks in my neck of the woods, regardless of political bent, who stand, salute, pledge, and have tears in their eyes when the National Anthem is played.

Only a narrow definition of patriotism leaves disagreement and dissent out of the equation.

And only a narrow definition of repentance leaves out sorrow for all the things of which Kevim laments. Just because some deem abortion immoral, does not make our actions in Iraq more so....Thou shalt not kill doesn't have an "out" clause - i.e. except in abortion, war, etc.

Joni - been reading from the beginning

Posted by: Joni S. | February 21, 2008 2:03 PM

Roy, if you stopped blasting us with the epithet, "you liberals," we might be able to have a conversation. We aren't all "liberals," however you might define that term.

And read what I just wrote regarding Lincoln. I'm not "showering him with blessings"; my point was the call for national repentance, not the fact that it was Lincoln who made that call.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 2:12 PM

yes - the call of repentance is clear and loud today - not just for the war - but all many sins that our generation had committed - what about first the foremost to call for the repentance of a country that is so self-reliance - that's the root problem of humanity - the call of repentance to turn from self-centered to God - back to focusing on Christ - maybe that should be the repentance - not a single issue dominating repentance - yes we need to repent of not acting with justice and mercy - and yes we also need to repent because we didn't walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8).

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

Posted by: Daniel | February 21, 2008 2:14 PM

It feels like we should all repent daily for our inhumanity toward one another even in this blog. When will the day arrive when we can look into the face of the other and recognize and honor them as brother, sister, God? I repent daily by honoring my husband who is Muslim and currently still living in Baghdad. Finally, after 2 1/2 years of waiting for the US government to grant him a visa to the US, he will be allowed in the US later this spring. Even so, the transition will be difficult. In the last two years, he has lost many things -- his work, his home in Baghdad, his farm in south Iraq. He has suffered the death of many close friends. His family has been scattered all over the globe. He has developed physical ailments of his own. And yet, our love remains strong and growing -- for we both daily lament, repent and pray for peace among our cultures and around the world. He has opened my eyes to truths I never knew existed because of my limited western and Christian filters. I am daily grateful for his wisdom and love. And I hope and pray that one day I will be able to visit Iraq to see and know his roots more deeply.

Posted by: Stephanie | February 21, 2008 2:24 PM

How can Jim Wallis and others at SoJo pray when they are colluding with the same wealthy and powerful interests as Bush to denigrate, demonize and dehumanize working poor and struggling middle class American citizens who are crying out to their government because they are being displaced by illegal aliens in the workplace, seeing their jobs taken away, their wages gutted, facing homelessness, seeing their children go hungry. Facing privation, malnutrition, sickness and death, because Christians in name only seek the untold millions the US Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable pay out to those who help them hide behind catcalls of "racist" and "xenophobia".

The blood of innocent American citizens, who are black, brown and white is on the hands of Wallis and his cohorts, who are exploiting religious belief to make money, and are the same sort that Christ threw out of the temple for making a mockery of his father's house.

Prove me wrong if you disagree instead of censoring what you find inconvenient.. let's see Wallis demand that Mexico, the 14th wealthiest country in the world raise wages and provide opportunties for it's own people. He won't of course, basically because Wallis doesn't believe in Christ's teachings, any more than Falwell or Pat Robinson did.

Posted by: Jenny | February 21, 2008 2:55 PM

Rick, if we don't have to corporately repent for the millions of abortions our gov't allows, why would we repent for the deaths caused during war? Sincerely, I don't understand.

If the government were forcing women to have abortions a la China that's one thing, which is clearly not happening. The other issue is that we rarely consider the conditions that make legal abortion appear necessary and which are almost never addressed by the "pro-life" movement, sexual abstinence one exception. (Keep in mind that I'm as opposed to abortion as anyone on this blog and strongly support chastity.)

That's one reason why we Christians need to treat each other with dignity and respect and not use each other our own selfish purposes. Truth be told, however, in this area many of us still act the same way the world does. (I've been part of the Christian singles scene in my city for over 20 years, so I know what happens.)

In contrast, many, many Christians supported the war in Iraq, basically because of falsehoods the current administration spread but also because we've been a bit trigger-happy, taking the attitude, "Ready, fire, aim." Recently I saw a bumper sticker saying, "Support the troops -- let them win," as though if we just hold on long enough things will change. But Alcoholics Anonymous, the first place I heard this, defines the term "insanity" as doing the same thing and expecting different results.

To wit, evangelical Christians were never involved in supporting abortion but were in supporting the war. That's the difference.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 2:59 PM

"But individually I did not do that, nor did I vote for this man who led the nation down this path. Short of moving to Canada how could I have avoided being a part of it all?"

Even if you move to Canada, you'd still be a part of it - because Canada, due to its economic dependence on the United States and in order to avoid borders closing to its citizens, has fielded fighting troops in Afghanistan under U.S. command, with proportionally the same losses as American troops in Iraq.

Moreover, no one gets to resign from the human race. When we see grievous sins done by others, it is not correct to recoil in an attempt to see others as the source of sin but not ourselves. That is a natural response - to want to say, "Not me!" We cannot excuse sin, but we can recognise that any human of sin is tragic for us too - because given similar influences and circumstances, we would do just the same as that person. This is the awful truth about original sin - there is no getting away from the nature of Adam and Eve by ourselves. If we have been so blessed to be able to recognize temptation and resist, then we are not absolved, but now responsible to be our brother's keeper. And just who is our brother? Even the sinner - the enemy -just as Jesus died for us while yet we were still in sin.

This is why we can repent for community sins - even those we recognised and warned against - because as part of humanity, they are our sins too. There is likely not an evil thought, even if not acted upon, that has not crossed my own mind. How could the apostle Paul term himself "The chiefest among sinners" were this not so? And Jesus said entertaining the thought of adultery made one as guilty. No one can cast the stone - yet, go and sin no more. This does not absolve the individual from repenting from sin himself, for the same is true of him - he is responsible for self and then others in proportion as much as he comes to know the truth.

John Donne wrote, "No man is an island... every man's death diminishes me, because I am a part of mankind... ask not, for whom the bell tolls - it tolls, for thee."

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 21, 2008 3:11 PM

Sojourner Truth - You go a long way to answering my questions above. Your comment is well thought out. If it is as you write, why is the war in Iraq such a focus of repentence? As sinful human beings we should be repenting every day for all manor of horrors and sins. Under this philosophy we should be just as repentent of Darfur, Rwanda, the tens of millions who died in China and the Soviet Union after the Communists took over, the Nazi Holocaust, and all wars, all injustice and everytime someone is murdered. Why is Iraq such a focus?

Posted by: Eric | February 21, 2008 3:29 PM

"When we see grievous sins done by others, it is not correct to recoil in an attempt to see others as the source of sin but not ourselves."

No, but the proper response is to repent of our own sin, and recognize God's grace at work in our lives, not to repent of the grievous sin we are witnessing, or of community sins.

You do successfully argue against judging others, but that is a different matter. To then argue that a church must repent on behalf of the community is even further away from scripture, especially when people within that church have legitimate disagreements about whether or not the community has sinned.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 3:36 PM

Those who rationalize allowing the corporate interests to impose poverty and suffering on the poor citizens of America, no matter how you dress it up as helping poor illegal aliens, you are actually helping to insure there will always be poor people in those countries to be exploited. You ignore the wider implications and are as Bush is rationalizing killing innocent Iraqis for power and oil, pretending that you are trying to spread "democracy'.

Matthew 25:45 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of my brothers, you did not do for me.'

Posted by: Jenny | February 21, 2008 3:41 PM

Good question!

I think one answer is that in practice we are called to overtly take action to do good as it is placed before us. That responsibility can come by one's own conscience, as directed by God, or even as the product of group consensus of which one is a member.

Obviously, given time, place, circumstances, we will be moved to pray for specifics, not always the same ones everywhere and always. Perhaps to be a bit trite, but still truthful, one can "think globally, act locally."

As Americans, some may be moved to take responsibility as they ought by the initial act of repentance - asserting that they are not helpless pawns in the face of evil being done in their midst or name, and perhaps through passive approval, a sin of omission rather than comission. HAve we really done all that Jesus would want us to? The answer will in most cases, be no. By acts of repentance evildoing among us can be exorcised and acts of doing good can positively displace evil. Such an environment creates zones of good - living in His Kingdom - that our neighbors can begin to share and live in, too.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 21, 2008 3:47 PM

"...we can dedicate ourselves to a world where war is not the answer"

I thereby give myself to a world of a just shalom.

I trust the four weeks of coming posts will be about a vision and strategy towards such a positive end; and not just a "US military needs to leave Iraq" message.

(I posted this before. It escapes me what I violated.)

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 21, 2008 3:59 PM

Mr. Wallis,

You are free to repent of any real or perceived 'evil' you wish to repent of. Such is your right.

For myself, as one who has faith in Christ as well, I do not join you. Instead, I see us having done something well worth doing--freeing a country of a dictator whose time had long come.

If you are looking for culprits, Mr. Wallis, might I suggest looking at those who are actually putting bombs on the mentally impaired so that they will go off in market places. Or what about those who make the road side bombs that are harming and killing soldiers, our soldiers, Iraqi ones, and any others on our side.

Your attempt to make the US the 'bad guy' is sad, but you have the right to do in our free society. So while your denigrating soldiers, be sure to thank one for the right to denigrate them.

Posted by: jazzact13 | February 21, 2008 4:15 PM

Why couch your politics in a Lenten message. With your ability to lament for world needs, you must be lamenting for the victims of 911 and the tragic unborns, denied life.

Posted by: Pat | February 21, 2008 4:20 PM

Is this call for repentance similar to Sojourners sending out an email asking its readers to forward an email to Burger King -asking the "King" to repent for paying the tomato pickers too little? If anything the "King" should repent for its french fries. Wallis and Sojourners make light of asking for repentance?

Posted by: Larry | February 21, 2008 4:23 PM

In God's Politics (page 166) Jim talks about "Dietrich Bonhoeffer's painful decision... to join the plot against Hitler." Jacques Ellul's "decision to support the resistance movement against Nazism" and "asking what he (Gandhi) meant when he said that nonviolent resistance is the best thing but violent resistance to evil is better than no resistance at all." At another place in the same book he calls for a conversation on the nature of evil in the emergent movement and notes the lack of an adequate understanding of evil (if as some of you are probably thinking it is as simple as "George Bush" then I guess "evil" will cease to exist in just 9 months with the end of his presidency! How quaint.)

Sadam gassed thousands of his own people. He ruled through absolute, ruthless terror. His treatment of women was appalling - all things I would think Sojourners would find "evil." If so, then what should have been the response? If not, then why not and exactly what is "evil" and what should have been the response?

Posted by: John Kludt | February 21, 2008 4:26 PM

John - Be prepared for a long answer about how the U.S. supported Saddam in the 80s and gave him weapons, etc... While there are some very good points to be made in that history, you won't get an answer to your question about what to do today because there are none.

Posted by: Eric | February 21, 2008 4:31 PM

And how about mourning for all those killed on 9/11 and all those hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam Hussein, his sons, and henchmen?

Posted by: judithod | February 21, 2008 4:46 PM

And how about mourning for all those killed on 9/11 and all those hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam Hussein, his sons, and henchmen?

Been there, done that.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 21, 2008 5:06 PM

John Kludt: "Sad[d]am gassed thousands of his own people. He ruled through absolute, ruthless terror. His treatment of women was appalling - all things I would think Sojourners would find 'evil.' If so, then what should have been the response? If not, then why not and exactly what is 'evil' and what should have been the response?"

Those are legitimate, pointed, and difficult questions. I have responses, not answers.

1) The facts about Saddam mentioned by John are not in dispute. But we know that they are not the reasons why the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

2) There are a number of horrible governments around the world violating human rights (e.g. North Korea). Should we invade those nations and topple the governments? If we should, how long before we destroy ourselves as a nation by bleeding ourselves dry of blood and treasure? If not, why Saddam and not Kim Jongil or Robert Mugabe or the regime in Myanmar (or any of the others)?

3) What would the Iraqi people like for the United States to do? Given the divisions in Iraq--religious, ethnic--is there such a thing as the "Iraqi people"?

4)Is foreign policy, most of the time, about choosing the least evil option from a range of evil ones?

Posted by: carl copas | February 21, 2008 5:19 PM

The guys who reputedly hijacked the planes were
Saudis. Saudis bankroll alQa'ida.

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | February 21, 2008 6:13 PM

"Taxes aren't high and Social Security is not failed. Only a libertarian crybaby would put these issues on a par with 50 million dead children. I'm surprised to read this."

I didn't say they were on par. I have to mention abortion a certain way on this board to avoid the "conservatives only want to talk about abortion" chatter.

So, I and I, do you think I need to repent of 50 million dead babys? To Ted's point, small changes in tax rates and social security have the capacity to result in deaths. If one advocates a fiscal policy, are they required by God to know the outcome? If the outcome is not what was thought, is that person required to repent, lest they be held to account?

These are the questions you have to ask when you tie repentance to policy decisions.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 21, 2008 6:36 PM

Jesse wrote:

"Personally, I have never been able to understand national repentance because you can't repent for someone else's sins. Old Testament rules do not apply here, since Moses (and priests) was a mediator between God and the Israelites (e.g., they offered sacrifices for their sins)."

The body of Christ, as understood by many through the Church's history, consists of the universal priesthood of all believers.

If you don't like repentance, how about intercessory prayer for others? While doing it you can't say, "Thank God I am not a sinner like those I pray for!"

I prefer to ask for God's mercy and forgiveness, but I also do not mind taking responsibility for just the same sins, in other words, I repent of the sins of the community of which I am part. But for the grace of God, I would do worse.

"If my people who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

And yet, we can know that not everyone in the nation had done just the same wrong things or to the same extreme, but responsibility for one another means that when sin happens corprorately, all share the blame, for all were supposed to be their brother's keepers - and were not.

The arguments we're seeing here are indicative of an awful lot of pride endemic in our society and our churches. We already know how God favors the proud and mighty.

I guess we can hold off repenting a while longer, maybe until things really get bad - for they are about to become far worse. Will we then blame others, find scapegoats, rather than acknowledge our own sin, our own complicity?

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 21, 2008 7:30 PM

Some are saying that national repentance is an invalid concept because in this dispensation the death of Jesus provided all the substitutionary atonement necessary. If this is so, why then, after our initial conversion, must we ask forgiveness when we sin?

Some are saying because I didn’t vote for Bush, I need not seek repentance for his actions; because I don’t support this or that policy, I’m not responsible, therefore I don’t need forgiveness.

I say, if we as individuals--

--are not writing, calling and picketing our leaders for change, (re-the war, campaign finance, health care, education, whatever),

--are not getting off the couch, adjusting the thermostat and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, so that our leaders don’t feel the need to invade an oil rich country (let’s face it, that’s why we’re there),

--are not reducing our rampant consumerism and greed so that corporations don’t have the power to control our leaders and get a “by” to do just about anything to keep their stock prices and profitability up,

--are not supporting with our time and money, the programs necessary to make birthing their babies a meaningful alternative for desperate women,

--are not committed to fair trade with undeveloped peoples so that they can hope for a decent life,

--are not committed to buying, perhaps more expensive, locally produced goods from independently owned stores and to paying American workers a higher wage to provide them

--then we are complicit and we need to seek forgiveness.

--I know who I am (and I’m pretty sure all of you are, too)—a selfish, self-righteous, lazy, greedy, egotistical, and (because of my faults) self-loathing sinner; redeemed only by the loving Christ who dwells in me and in so doing makes be perfect and beautiful.

Posted by: Latebloomer | February 21, 2008 7:52 PM

I'll repent for the mistake of going to war in the first place if you'll repent for the slaughter that's likely to occur if the USA leaves too early.

Posted by: Cads | February 21, 2008 7:53 PM

Posted by: bud duncan today February 21, 2008 3:05 PM:

"Yes, yes, Donny. Now run along and finish your afternoon milk."

It's shameful the way Donny is treated here.

Jerry
St, Charles, IL

Posted by: Jerry | February 21, 2008 8:15 PM

I am not a Catholic; but Pope John Paul II had it right when he stated in the 1980s that "the responsibility for war rests not only with those who directly cause the war, but also with those who do not do everything in their power to prevent it". It seems to me that war and most especially modern war results in such evil and immorality that it would be hard to find any war to justify. I say this as a combat veteran of World War II. I have come to believe that Christian pacifists are reading their bibles most correctly.

Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | February 21, 2008 10:05 PM

I am not a Catholic; but Pope John Paul II had it right when he stated in the 1980s that "the responsibility for war rests not only with those who directly cause the war, but also with those who do not do everything in their power to prevent it". It seems to me that war and most especially modern war results in such evil and immorality that it would be hard to find any war to justify. I say this as a combat veteran of World War II. I have come to believe that Christian pacifists are reading their bibles most correctly.

Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | February 21, 2008 10:05 PM

I'm not interested in arguing the theology of national repentance. However, I think it is dangerous to presume that your political agenda is completely right and righteous. That's like saying that God belongs to one political party and not the other.

I voted for this president and am not ashamed to say that. Did Iraq go as planned? Certainly not - war is never predictable. We cannot change the war to this point, but we must seriously pray about where we go from here. I don't want to be standing here in ten years lamenting countless lives lost because troops were removed too soon...or too late.

I'm not saying George Bush is a hero by any means, but I'm not prepared to call him evil either. The reality is that the past is done and we need to intercede for our nation to seek God's will in an important election year. We need to pray for an end to the war and suffering in all areas of the world. Prayer is what will make a difference, not political mud-slinging.

Just a thought...

LA

Posted by: LA | February 21, 2008 10:06 PM

As an individual (55 year old Republican), I would like to personally repent for blindly following the agenda of violence (aka returning evil for evil). I have sullied the Name of our precious Jesus, for most of my life, by blindly following the belief that this is okay. In doing so, I have participated in the blatent disregard (and thus the oppression) of the poor of the world.

Six years ago, I began to face my blindness regarding Jesus' teachings & to search the public record for perspective, rather than to just believe what the media provides. This searching dropped me to my knees & has led me on an amazing adventure with Christ. Being 'dissident' is hard but I am genuinely walking in freedom.

I am not knocking anyone else, simply appologizing to the world's oppressed (& oppressers), for my part in the oppression. Please forgive me.

Side note: As to war, in 1971, I submitted to the draft (my number was # 23). I joined the Army, believing this to be a noble, Godly thing to do. On my first day of boot camp, at Ft Leonard Wood MO, SSGT Arroyo told us that, if we went to Vietnam, we could rape women before we killed them, if we found them attractive. This theme carried throughout many aspects of Military life. Remember the marching "cadence" songs?

Personally, I advocate totally disbanding our military & offering to freely become servants to all of mankind, in the Name of Jesus.

Posted by: Norm Lowry | February 21, 2008 10:11 PM

John,
When it comes to Darfur I think we can use our troops to protect the refugees and when they are attacked we kill the janjaweed. We can also use covert action to slow down the flow guns and resources to the government. I know that's not pretty but when it comes to protecting people like that I honestly think we must protect the people that have already suffered too much.

Norm,

You are forgiven.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 21, 2008 11:31 PM

LA writes, "Did Iraq go as planned? Certainly not - war is never predictable. We cannot change the war to this point, but we must seriously pray about where we go from here..."
In so saying misses the fundamental moral point: that the war in Iraq -- the invasion of a sovereign nation posing no verifiable threat to our own -- is, completely irrespective of its present or future outcome, a violation of Christian moral teaching (including "just war" teaching) and of international law as embodied in the U.N. charter. It is, then, the fundamentally immoral nature of the war which we must recognize and of which we must repent. My question is how long the wrath of God will press so heavily against this nation as to continue to blind the eyes, and harden the hearts, of many to this truth, making their/our true repentance impossible.

Posted by: Stuart | February 22, 2008 12:12 AM

Sadam gassed thousands of his own people. He ruled through absolute, ruthless terror. His treatment of women was appalling - all things I would think Sojourners would find "evil." If so, then what should have been the response? If not, then why not and exactly what is "evil" and what should have been the response?

Posted by: John Kludt | February 21, 2008 4:26 PM

Um, how about something really radical like going after the Saudis since 9-ll was apparently perpetrated by some of their lads? Oh, please forgive the common sense of this suggestion.

Posted by: babble on | February 22, 2008 12:39 AM

"I think Ignatius J. Reilley just might be tongue in cheek. Isn't that the name of the main character in O'Toole's wonderful and funny "Confederacy of Dunces"?"

If Peter O'Toole did to "Confederacy of Dunces" what he did to "Man of La Mancha", then poor on him.

"I live a couple of blocks from John Kennedy Toole's house."

The stench must be awful!

Posted by: kevin s. | February 22, 2008 1:50 AM

"The Bible is a human document "

What a lazy, insulting, dismissive thing to say.

James, are you a Christian?

The examples you give, although tired and expected, are indicitive of someone who wants to tear down Christianity.

What are your views?

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 22, 2008 7:09 AM

Nothing to write too long.The U.S problems in all aspects came as a result that the U.S are afread of their external enemies in the name of terrorist group and they stopped offering charitable gifts and supports to others. thats why the grace leftthem

Posted by: Aniekan-Abasi | February 22, 2008 8:23 AM

"James, are you a Christian?" Posted by: Paul Jamieson

I probably am not a Christian by your standards. Given many of the things that are being advocated by the reactionary conservatives here, I am fine with that. But I will add one thing. I am called to worship God, not the Bible.

"What a lazy, insulting, dismissive thing to say." Paul Jamies

Quite the contrary. I have thought long and hard about it to arrive at this point. I would posit that blind acceptance of these passages and the application of them in support of this war is evil and harmful.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 22, 2008 9:24 AM

Just a thought from reading all these anti-war blame America blogs on here a thought struck me. Would the God of the old testament have to repent of all the nations he told Israel to invade and leave nobody alive? Since God is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow would he also have to repent when he comes back a second time with a sword and to rule with an iron fist?

You miss the context in which God formed Israel in the first place -- to bless the rest of the world, to show it "how things should be done." God cleared the "Promised Land" of those pagan nations who wouldn't worship Him; trouble was, Israel didn't either so he had to discpline that nation as well.

Today, however, God has but one nation, the church of Jesus Christ, which has the same charge -- to bless the rest of the world.

He will not be mocked. Justice will be served. The USA is the greastest country in the world and we do not have to not have to repent of helping to rid a great evil from this world and trying to free an opressed people.

Excuse me? You must remember that we have supported tyrants as well and in some cases still do -- the Saudi royal family, the apartheid regime in South Africa (specifically during Reagan), right-wing regimes in Central America and others that escape me right now.

The President of this great Nation will be remembered as the liberator. The one who started the end game with Islamo-fascism and the one who brought relief to the African Continent.

There is no such thing as "Islamo-fascism"; that's just a made-up word to 1) draw attention from our failures to treat all people in the Middle East even-handedly and 2) find yet another enemy to defeat to justify remaining in power. And as far as Africa, Clinton started the process; I don't even remember an American president even going to Africa on a state visit before him.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 22, 2008 10:15 AM

"The Bible is a human document and passages such as the ones you referred to do not reflect God as revealed in Jesus. "

This may not be lazy, but it is awfully vague. What are you saying here? Did God not bring about war? That, on account of the Bible having been written by humans, that large swaths of these texts are inaccurate? That seems to be the implication of what you wrote.

Setting aside the question of whether OT scriptures validate the Iraq War (I have not seen them used here to that end, btw) such an interpretation would call into question the need for Christ in the first place. Christ was sent to save us from God's wrath because we are sinners worthy of destruction.

So the question of whether God would have to repent of his own wrath is valid, if one believes we must inherently repent for ALL war.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 22, 2008 10:18 AM

ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR EVIL TO INCREASE IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO DO OR SAY NOTHING.

A DEFINITION OF "FOOLISHNESS" IS TO CONTINUE TO DO SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT ACHIEVE GOOD HOPING THE NEXT TIME GOOD WILL COME OF IT.

JIM MISSOURI

Posted by: JIM | February 22, 2008 10:58 AM

Paul Jamieson,

"What a lazy, insulting, dismissive thing to say.

James, are you a Christian?"

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan:

"There you go again."

There you go again, questioning someone's salvation just because they say something you disagree with, or I would say more accurately, you don't understand. You don't have the slightest clue where James is coming from with that statement, but you thought the worst of it, and of him.

Doug--

"The USA is the greastest country in the world and we do not have to not have to repent of helping to rid a great evil from this world and trying to free an opressed people. "

Two problems:

1. In your mind, USA is infallible and cannot make mistakes. You are equating the USA with God. I think this is a great country, too, but we don't do everything right, and we have done things that are shameful, still do shameful things, and will continue to do shameful things because...we are a nation made of extremely fallible humans.

2. If you go here:http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

and read the letter to President Clinton written by neoconservatives (note, this is straight from the Project for a New American Century website), you will note that their agenda has always been to do something in Iraq to further U.S. interests in the region. 9-11 provided the convenient excuse to go in there and stabilize U.S. interests. U.S. interests = oil. So, given this was always their aim, it is hardly a stretch to think that the reasons you propose for us being in Iraq, especially considering the conspicuous lack of WMD's, was nothing more than a convenient excuse for the Neocons to go in and do what they wanted to all along.

Posted by: squeaky | February 22, 2008 11:22 AM

I am not Catholic, think Lent is absurd..

Fine for yourself if you feel that way, but don't use your own opinions here to disparage your brothers and sisters--Catholic or not--who think Lent is worthy of observing. Remember Romans 14:4.

And I also thank God that we started the process of liberating Iraq, so that the Good News of the Gospel can be preached there someday.

Are you aware that the Christians in Iraq (yes, there are Christians living there) were not under pressure of persecution from their Muslim neighbors until after Saddam Hussein was overthrown? And that persecutions are occurring now? If you don't know that, learn about what's going on and don't be so quick to praise the "liberation" of Iraq until you do some reading on the subject.

In other words, I think our actions in Iraq are a great and wonderful thing.

If this sentence weren't so tragic, I would be laughing. How great and wonderful it is indeed to see tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis killed, many of them children. God, who you may remember doesn't fail to take note when a sparrow falls to the ground, knows the numbers. How do you think he feels about all the innocent deaths?

Be careful what you praise.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 22, 2008 12:45 PM

Wow JIM, I've never heard those quotes before. How insightful... Make sure you use italics along with all caps next time and they'll be even more poignant.

Posted by: Ross | February 22, 2008 1:26 PM

About as bad when he supposedly flooded the planet, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, had his people kill every captive except the virgin girls, sent multitudes of plaques and other calamities throughout the years and so on?Posted by: aaron

If that is the attitude you derive from a literalistic view of the Bible, then "thanks but no thanks."

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 22, 2008 1:49 PM

All well and good, Kevin, but I hardly think that simply declaring our actions in Iraq to be "wonderful" is a very thoughtful or well-developed reflection on military issues, or even on our actions in Iraq.

Even if one might be inclined to agree with that sentiment, one would like to see some substantiation to demonstrate its validity.

Therefore, your suggestion that this is a 'good faith' disagreement is a bit lacking, in my view.

D

Posted by: Don | February 22, 2008 2:04 PM

""God, who you may remember doesn't fail to take note when a sparrow falls to the ground, knows the numbers. How do you think he feels about all the innocent deaths?"

He knows the numbers, but he also knows that we do not know the numbers (and neither do you). He examines the heart, and he is not going to punish a person for good faith disagreement over military issues, even if that person happens to disagree with YOU."

Why do we not know the numbers, or even want to know the numbers? Why has the decision been made to obfuscate the numbers, and to prevent them from even being counted? Why is there a campaign to discredit any meaningful attempt to count?

Is it really God keeping us from knowing the numbers, upon advice from His political and military advisers?

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 22, 2008 2:50 PM

"All well and good, Kevin, but I hardly think that simply declaring our actions in Iraq to be "wonderful"..."

Actually, Don, that wasn't Kevin; it was the guy (or dame) who said Lent is absurd.

Posted by: I and I | February 22, 2008 3:02 PM

The God of Mercy was always depicted as the God of the Old testament and even his judgement was merciful compared to what he could have done

True, I suppose he could've had the virgins killed too. Praise be his mercy.

Posted by: aaron | February 22, 2008 3:22 PM

Payshun--
"The only notable exception was the flood which was nothing more than Sumerian myth and a absolute necessity when you look at how powerful the Nephilim were."

I don't wish to take the conversation off track, but I'm curious to know your interpretation of the Nephilim. I've always wondered who they were and where they came from.

I'll save comments on the flood for a later time. Then I'll really risk taking this off track!

Posted by: squeaky | February 22, 2008 3:35 PM

aaron--what's your agenda here? I get the impression from your comments that you lean towards atheism. I don't care if you do, but I would like to know where you are coming from.

Posted by: squeaky | February 22, 2008 3:38 PM

Squeaky, that was the first of Rev Salguero's threads, not the second. Sorry.

D

Posted by: Don | February 22, 2008 3:42 PM

"All well and good, Kevin, but I hardly think that simply declaring our actions in Iraq to be "wonderful" is a very thoughtful or well-developed reflection on military issues, or even on our actions in Iraq."

Fair enough, and I find the repentance rhetoric to be a bit overwrought as well. This highlights one of the problems with this war, which is that one must either be rabidly for or against it. A lot of people (including myself) are in the middle.

As such, of what would I even repent? I don't think Bush lied us into war any more than any other president has. I strongly disagree that we have not shown regard for innocent life.

I do think that our strategies resulted in more loss of life than necessary, but I also attribute that to an insurgency that is willing to kill Iraqi citizens in an attempt to change their minds. I think the surge has produced very real gains, and I think we should remain in Iraq so long as we can hope those gains will continue.

I think leaving now will result in a tremendous number of deaths. I think failure to remove Saddam (which Jim supported, though his proposed strategy was utterly implausible) would have resulted in same.

But if I articulate this nuance, I'm labeled as a warmonger, which is the same result as if I had said it was wonderful.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 22, 2008 3:51 PM

I think you'll find them, well, interesting.

Peace,

The thread where everone who doesn't see things in your own unique special way is a racist?

Posted by: aaron | February 22, 2008 4:00 PM

No the thread where you stick to your position regardless of the facts, and where when you can't win the argument with logic and evidence you whine about being labeled a racist even though no one called you a racist.

I don't recall anyone specifically calling me a racist in that thread, nor my whining about it, perhaps your reading comprehension could use a booster shot, Bud.

Posted by: aaron | February 22, 2008 4:30 PM

On the main page of the blog there's a monthly archives link in the left frame.

Posted by: aaron | February 22, 2008 4:37 PM

aaron,
thanks for the help. I see it now--although it wasn't on the home page, it was on the left side of the thread I click on.

thanks!

Posted by: squeaky | February 22, 2008 4:44 PM

No doubt at all--the same aaron.

Unfortunately, I lent a sympathetic ear to a movement that Don thought was an overtly racist movemen

Ah, that's not what I said. If you recall, I said that the ADL (Anti-Defmation League) indicated that the Minutemen (the movement you "lent a sympathetic ear to") was allied and connected to groups that are overtly racist. That's not the same thing.

But if you want to continue insisting that the Minutemen are only involved with "property rights," I suppose that's your perogative. I, however, won't back down from the contention that the Minutemen's agenda re. immigrants carries some racial overtones.

But let Squeaky read our debate himself. It's off topic for this thread, so I won't debate it again here.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 22, 2008 4:56 PM

ahem, er, Don--Squeaky isn't a dude...

=)

Posted by: squeaky | February 22, 2008 5:07 PM

We are so inspired. You are so right on!

Announcing: Christian Action Against Apathy
(Nashville, TN)

When: March 19, 2008; 3:30 p.m.

Where: Centennial Park, Downtown Nashville, TN

What: This event is a peaceful Prayer Walk and Prayer Vigil. We will be walking from Centennial Park to the State Capital Building. Please bring signs of confession to God for the innocence lost, for the violence, and destruction of war. Because March 19 is the fifth anniversary of the War in Iraq, we will make this date one of repentance on behalf of those opposing the war.

CHRISTIAN ACTION AGAINST APATHY MEET-UP GROUP.
http://christianpeace.meetup.com/5/

Posted by: Joshua Stump | February 22, 2008 5:11 PM

This conversation has turned uninteresting. The racism charge has been bandied about w/r/t the immigration issue frequently, and the conversation tends to turn manic pretty quickly, so Aaron has a point.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 22, 2008 5:26 PM

To get back on the topic at hand.

Kevin, I agree that not all must be either "rabidly" in favor of or against our Iraq policy. But painting all opponents to the Iraq invasion as asserting that Bush lied is also overstated. To my recollection I never said that Bush deliberately lied to get us into Iraq. However, I clearly believe he took the evidence that supported his case for war and ignored the evidence that urged caution about invading Iraq. I also believe that it is clear that certain people within his administration were planning an invasion long before Bush even ran for President, and that 9-11 gave them the excuse to make their case to Bush and, therefore, to the American public. Therefore, the invasion had nothing really to do with 9-11 or with stopping terrorism, though that was how Bush sold it to us. Maybe that's too nuanced a distinction from "Bush lied" for you, but I believe the facts of the case bear this out.

Your point about the insurgency's responsibility for much of the loss of civilian life there is certainly valid. But the insurgency is a direct result of our invasion and of our failure to plan for the possibility of an insurgency (go back to my point about Bush's ignoring of evidence that urged caution--we know he was warned about the possibility of insurgency). So while we're not responsible for the insurgency itself and for the resulting loss of life, we are responsible for the opening that we gave the insurgents.

Yes, leaving now will result in a lot of problems. Therefore I'm not in favor of an immediate withdrawal. But neither am I in favor of an indefinite stay. The Bush team might be making commitments to the Iraqis to stay there for decades, though we don't know for sure. That concerns me.

We need to find a way to repair as much of the damage we caused as we can, and at the same time end our open-ended commitment. We simply cannot afford to stay there and pay for it on the backs of our grandchildren.

BTW, I don't think Rev Wallis' proposal was "utterly implausible" and you can't give me any evidence to prove that it was--it's only your unsubstantiated opinion. It was at least worth a try before launching the invasion, and some people in very high places who saw it thought so too. One said it just might have worked. If it had, look at all the misery that would have been spared.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 22, 2008 5:43 PM

I and I wrote: "We could think about it this way: several of the moral precepts of Confucianism and Buddhism are similar to those of the Ten Commandments [...] we can still assume that because God is the Author of all that is good, these precepts came from God."

The northern Indian monk Siddhartha Gautama who became known as the Buddha (which means "one who is awake") did not claim that his teachings came from God. He claimed that through his own human efforts he realized four "noble truths": the nature of suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.

After attaining this enlightenment, for 45 years he taught others how they too could, through their own efforts, realize the nature of suffering, abandon the causes of suffering, attain well-being, and practice the path that leads to well-being.

Part of the Buddha's "Eightfold Path" that leads to nirvana -- complete liberation from suffering -- is ethical behavior, which includes the "Five Precepts" which disciples of the Buddha agree to follow: to abstain from killing (not only humans, but any sentient being); to abstain from taking what is not given; to abstain from false or malicious speech; to abstain from sexual misconduct; and to abstain from the use of intoxicants.

The Five Precepts cover some of the same ground as the Ten Commandments. The difference is that the Buddhist precepts are not the "commandments" of a god. They are simply the teachings of a wise and compassionate human being about how to live in a way that reduces suffering and enhances well-being. To violate the precepts is not a "sin", and will not be punished by a "god". Rather, violating the precepts tends to produce suffering, and following them tends to produce well-being.

The Buddha frequently advised his disciples not to take anything on faith -- including his own teachings -- but to determine for themselves, from their own experience, whether his teachings produced the results that he claimed for them.

To the extent that there is commonality in the ethical teachings of various traditions, both religious and secular, I think it is simply because certain types of behaviors do, in fact, objectively, empirically, tend to produce well-being for oneself and others, while other behaviors tend to produce suffering.

Posted by: SecularAnimist | February 22, 2008 5:47 PM

It was essentially to have the UN use the massing of US troops on Iraq's border to try and broker an agreement with the Baathists to force Hussein to step down and turn him over to a UN war crimes tribunal.

There were about 11 points and a lot of detail, but I cannot recall all of it. You might try searching the Sojo archives for it--he released it around Feb. or early Mar. 2003.

D

Posted by: Don | February 22, 2008 5:57 PM

"The northern Indian monk Siddhartha Gautama who became known as the Buddha (which means "one who is awake") did not claim that his teachings came from God."

secular animist (great name, btw), it's true the Buddha did not attribute his teachings to God. But it may be that God authored them anyway. C.S. Lewis (I can't recall the precise citation) suggested that sometimes even pagan religions faintly reflect some Divine precepts. Greg Boyd has suggested something similar in his recent book, "God at War."

Posted by: carl copas | February 22, 2008 6:30 PM

Would you say the same thing about a person who does not agree with YOU on abortion?

I know you didn't ask me, but since I do think abortion is murder...

Would I say that I can't judge a man's soul, even if he disagrees with me about abortion? Yes.

While I cannot imagine how anyone would justify killing an unborn child for light and transient reasons, and I do not understand how it could NOT be murder, I can understand that God sees into men's souls, and can see and understand what I do not.

So, yes, we can disagree about even Abortion, and I can and do withold judgement of another's soul. Doesn't mean I won't argue or state I believe it to be murder... God has, in His wisdom, given me freedom from having to determine another's status, as far as salvation and the inner heart are concerned. And for that, I am grateful. It is a burden I do not wish to carry.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 22, 2008 8:43 PM

I ask those who consider abortion to be the intentional killing of human life, as I do, to move beyond being narrowly anti-abortion, and apply the same pro-life principles derived from the same central teachings of Jesus - Matthew 5, 6 and 7 - consistently.

I would also ask that, since abortion-on-demand is the law of the land, upheld by a majority of the Supreme Court, including conservative justices appointed by Republican Presidents, that a person who finds that abortion is a great moral failing, not be told to leave the country simply because he criticises such moral failures, or to be accused of judging the country and all its faith traditions "pure evil," as someone has done in regards to another advocating the sanctity of human life and nonviolent resistance as a consistent ethic.

Is an apology too much to ask for?

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 22, 2008 9:14 PM

Is an apology too much to ask for?

Yes, am sure it is, which is why I have not asked for one.

Interpret the Gospel as you see fit. Do so prayerfully. Then accept that YOU are not the arbiter of truth. And that YOU have no reason, foundation, or evidence to assume that all who disagree have not "grown" as much as you, are not as "righteous" or "spiritual" as you, or will inevitably arrive at your conclusions. YOU could be wrong, and them right.

The Pharisees of Christ's day had the same attitudes and the same arrogant condemnation of others for not being as enlightened as themselves.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 22, 2008 9:59 PM

I forward this comment from Jonah House:

From: Jonah House

Dear Friends,

I've been thinking about March 19th, and wanted to share these thoughts with you...Susan Crane.

Five or Seventeen?

It jolts me to hear "fifth year anniversary" and "beginning of sixth year of the war in Iraq" when we all know that the US never stopped bombing Iraq since January of 1991. That's 17 years! Remember the no-fly zones? Remember looking on page 12 in the papers and seeing a one inch article about how "sheep were bombed yesterday in Iraq" or some such "news"?

I’m reminded of Carolyn Forche’s book of poetry: Against Forgetting. In it she reminds us that Hitler asked his military cabinet before his invasion of Poland in 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

The media cultivates amnesia in us; the government requires such mindlessness in us. And yet we have a responsibility as a peace community to remember the nation that Iraq was before 1991: the water systems, the electrical systems, the educational, medical and agricultural systems that were, in some ways, more advanced than what we have today in the states. We have a responsibility to remember the carpet bombing that in 42 days
systematically destroyed objects “indispensable to the survival of the civilian population” which is against the Geneva conventions. In those 42 days, Iraq was bombed to a pre-industrial age and then, through sanctions, Iraqis were denied trade, telecommunications, power, sanitation, water repairs, seed, food, medical supplies
and equipment.

And how many Iraqi people have been killed? Must be more than 1,000,000: a number too large to comprehend, unless you're an Iraqi mother or father or child who has lost a family member. And how many Iraqi people have suffered? The stories of suffering are heartbreaking: the terror of the bombs, soldiers breaking down doors, poisoning from depleted uranium munitions... These stories could fill all the books in the world.

And so we move forward and support all the nonviolent actions on March 19: we’re thankful for the work people have put into planning many good and creative resistance actions but we must urge remembrance of the many years our country has punished, bombed, poisoned and killed people of Iraq and done all in its power to destroy their
country.

Posted by: Mike Wisniewski | February 22, 2008 10:26 PM

I consider both Henley and Frey to be less than a fount of wisdom.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 12:10 AM

I might also offer you some perspective - if my family is largely of American Indian descent, just how ought we to view the abysmal treatment we endured at the hands of the ethno-centric, selfish colonists? That you call genocide "trivial" is a monumental act of self-serving wilful ignorance.

"Genocide"? Please. You insult our intelligence, and dilute the meaning of the word with misapplication.

But, if you belonged to some tribe, are of native indian descent... YOU have not been wronged. And no man can alive today can apologize for any wrongs done by dead men.

If anyone dared speak, and pretend to "apologize" for me, he would incure my wrath. I did no wrong, I carry no guilt for the misdeeds of countrymen before me.

That's what I think of the sophistry of such "apologies". They cheapen the wrongs of the past, and insult the innocent of the present.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 3:26 AM

The Watcher = troll formerly known as Mark?

I'm beginning to believe so. When Bud Duncan first suggested it a few threads ago, I resisted the thought. But the argumentative style--which consists of a lack of any real argumentation, just insulting epithets and stubborn insistence in rightness--appears all too familiar.

Not sure what the moderators can do. Anyone can change his/her identity, get a new email address and begin posting from a different IP address.

D

Posted by: Don | February 23, 2008 9:23 AM

If anyone dared speak, and pretend to "apologize" for me, he would incure my wrath. I did no wrong, I carry no guilt for the misdeeds of countrymen before me.

But while we aren't personally guilty of the misdeeds of our forebears, we continue to benefit from them, in this case most particularly, the continued use of the land we stole from the First Nations.

And "genocide" indeed is an accurate term and not misapplied. Read some history and you'll learn about things like deliberate infecting of native communities with smallpox and re-education programs for Indian children to try to get them to think like us. And you might even run into statements from prominent Americans to the effect that we would do the Indians a lot of good by killing them off.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 23, 2008 9:30 AM

"But painting all opponents to the Iraq invasion as asserting that Bush lied is also overstated. To my recollection I never said that Bush deliberately lied to get us into Iraq."

I don't think I painted the opposition at all in my comment, though I would say the majority here, including Wallis, think that he lied us into war.

Squeaky,

Essentially, he wanted to get an international police force together to arrest Saddam. To wit, this would have been accompanied by a small security force designated to ensure a smooth political transition. He envisioned a scenario similar to the one in Bosnia.

At that point (or perhaps just previous to that point), he would have negotiated with Saddam's loyalists to prevent an insurgency.

I guess I can't say conclusively that such an approach would not have worked. However, given that thousands upon thousands of troops were unable to stop the insurgency from taking hold, I fail to see how an international police force (itself representing diverse motivations w/r/t Iraq) would have been able to achieve success. And negotiating with Saddam loyalists is easier said than done, to say the least.

I don't know how fervently Wallis believed it would work. At the time he wrote God's Politics, he probably felt that he had to concede that Saddam needed to be removed from power. It didn't seem like a very serious solution, but more a dodge so that he couldn't be accused of not having a plan.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 23, 2008 11:00 AM

On the other hand, each day when you get up in the morning, and go to work, or whatever you do that day.. When you go buy food at the store, pay your house payment or rent or lease, when you choose what computer to buy, or you need new underwear.. What relevance has slavery of more than a century ago to that?

More than you think -- because I recognize that due to the changes that have been made I can do all those things, which wasn't always the case and may not be if things were not addressed. I don't take for granted that I can publicly advocate for racial equality, justice and reconciliation today without being attacked as a dangerous left-wing subversive, which was indeed the case even in my lifetime. Every time I enter a voting booth I pause to remember -- and I've said this to poll workers -- "People died so that I can do this."

Please understand -- I'm not angry or resentful in the least and was raked over the coals by my own people up until the 1990s for not venting. But to say that it doesn't matter anymore is to ignore history; I prefer to build upon it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 23, 2008 1:01 PM

But Rick, I saw you post that you would prefer a black president.

So, after all this... You're still hung up on race. It is YOU who cannot get past it.

120 years ago, in a fabled little town in middle America, smith and jones were in business. One day, they had an argument. They got so angry they got into a fight. That fight escalated until the families were in that fight. Soon the town members got into the fight. People got killed. People went to jail.

Today, kids in school named smith, can't hang around with ones named jones, because they're mad at each other.

Why? Not because any of this is relevant. But because each succeeding generation chooses to pick up and carry an animosity.

You cannot make any "structural" changes in society which will ease your mind. There's no change to be made which will "solve" this in your mind, I am sure.

You use this as an excuse for all kinds of unrelated demands. Get it out in the open, and let it be judged... what changes could "cure" this in a generation? If you think you're going to eradicate all forms of prejudice, you're mistaken. There's prejudice against ugly people, fat people, old people, young people, tall people, short people, rich people, short people. There's religious bigotry. (Yeah, I have definitely been on the losing end of that one before, denied jobs, etc, becasue of it)

But how do you get beyond this? It's a burden you choose to NOT pick up.

Like our little fable of Smith and Jones, There is no criminal guilt among the living. There is no real wrongs to right against each other.

They just have to lay it down... Or just not pick it up.

And that's where we are as a society. The laws have been righted. Long ago. And now the people have to let it go. We have to lay this burden down and walk away from it. There is no other answer. Nothing done in the present can CHANGE the past, and if the past is the reason for conflict for hatred or some "burden" for your soul to carry, there is nothing that can be done in the present to relieve you of that burden.

Only you can let it go. I do not impose it on you. Your neighbor does not impose it on you. Nobody does. Only you. And only you hold the key to relieving that burden. Only you can let it go and free yourself.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 1:23 PM

The invasion of Iraq has been met by too much silence in churches throughout our country. That is disturbing. It is not likely that voices of repentence will be heard in churches until voices of regret and remorse for the passive silence are released. Before the invasion Christian churhces in Iraq were open with freedom to worship. Those churches have been closed down and all that remains is an underground movement. Those who gather for worship do so with a fear of being executed, living constantly with open persecution. If there are voices of outrage about this violation of freedom in a "liberated" Iraq the volume is too low or muted by the collective voices of Christian persecution in our country, voices of people who have no clue about the meaning of persecution. Repentence is not an option for those who are crying about being victims of discrimination while lamenting the violations of their rights.

Posted by: Earl Troglin | February 23, 2008 2:56 PM

There are 2 very weird and illogical arguments being used by many supporters of the invasion and occupation of Iraq that go something like this:1) It is not a sin for my country to start an unprovoked war of aggression and engage in collective punishment of a country or city, the predictable costs of which are tens of thousands of non-combatant civilian lives, because I will also be killing some bad people.
2)It is not a sin for my country to start an unprovoked war of agression and engage in collective punishment of a country or city, with the predictable result of tens of thousands of non-combatant civilians killed, because other countries and political decisions have also brought about injustice , violence and evil.

The decision to conduct a massive aerial bombardment and military invasion of Iraq, which began with a warning from Mr. compassionate conservative not to mess with the oil wells, was not about communism or abortion or 911 or the American Civil War or even Vietnam( though that should have served as an historic warning).
It was not promoted as an effort to end the tyranny of Saddam( a man particularly favored by Ron Reagan) . It was built on the lie that Iraq posed an imminent threat to American and international security because of its "weapons of mass destruction".

The UN opposed the war and most of the world opposed it. Its support required a massive media campaign of misinformation built around lies by the administration and by highly compromised and untrustworthy Iraqi expatriates. What little good which might possibly have come from the end of Saddam was mangled by Rumsfeld, Cheney and and Bremer's mismanagement. The VP never even divested of Halliburton stock and Bush senior profited enormously through the Carlyle group.We continue to pressure the Iraqi government for oil deals which are not in the best interest of the people of Iraq.

The trail of crimes and stupidity and theft which has accompanied this war has filled dozens of Books and led to a massive renunciation of citizen support.

The religious right that supported this war once claimed to stand for life. That is a hard position to justify now. I walked away from any association with this movement in the 80s when we were home schooling and we saw this movement engaged in a massive falsification of American History and justification of historic violence. All of my worst warnings about where this movement was headed have been exceeded.

When will we ever learn?

Posted by: jonabark | February 23, 2008 4:37 PM

Watcher--the underlying theme of your last post is that the only reason racism exists is because those who have been victims of racism won't let it go. It's hard to let something go when it still exists and still effects millions of people. To ignore the roots of racism only continues to perpetrate it.

You are taking a position where you blame the victim rather than the perpetraters. You seem to think that if only the victims would "get over it", it would go away.

"There is no criminal guilt among the living. There is no real wrongs to right against each other. "

If this were true, you might have a point. But since it isn't, any point you are trying to make falls flat.

Posted by: squeaky | February 23, 2008 5:50 PM

Payshun:

You say that blood of slaves flows through your veins. So, what if you're from some other place, and there is no slavery in your past?

You are somehow fixated on the idea that rape occurred somewhre in your past, and it colors your skin. Does this diminish you?

We are ALL products of our parents and thier parents, and thier parents before them. I know that in my past, there were horrors committed that caused my ancestors of a couple generations back to leave, and they came to America.

But they chose to leave those horrors dead in the graves. They did not pass them on. They exist in history books, but they laid nothing on thier children about them, they chose to let those burdens lie in the grave and not pass them to thier children.

I am no victim because of them. I deserve nothing because of them. I must deal with the world and our country as it is, warts and all. I have no excuse for wallowing and moaning about how others don't like me, or how my grandparents were singled out to be ostracised, or couldn't get jobs in many places... Yes, I know those prejudices existed.

They may STILL exist somewhere, in some minds. But I don't let that stop me. Rather, the fact that grandson of an immigrant family has successfully become fully American, embraces his country and identifies, not as skin color, or historical culture, or any other such thing... but as being of the nation that holds "...that all men are created equal..."

I know where my ancestors came from. I know what happened there. I know what they faced here. But more importantly, I know WHERE I AM. And I know that I am now "from America". Injustice to me is abhorrent. Perhaps for similar reasons it is for you. But I carry no personal burden from the past. I have only let it strengthen my convictions of what is right, justice, liberty.

I can't walk away from that and I would not want to. It's a part of my history and a part of my current circumstance, not because of something I did but what was done to me and my family. I see slavery, freedom, horror, tragedy, hope, love, grace, perseverance and laughter every time I look at skin.

I submit, it's time to stop. There is only so much looking back we can do... Then we have to look forward. Stop trying to see slavery, racism, crime, horror, and everything else in skin color.

See you. See humanity. See what you want to be and become. Let the color go. Let the past become our guide, not our limitation.

Please.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 8:35 PM

I consider both Henley and Frey to be less than a fount of wisdom.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 23, 2008 12:10 AM

That's not surprising as you appear to occupy your own little world where you function as the sole fount of wisdom. That's also evident on another thread where you're trying to tell us you can't post your "facts" b/c they keep getting deleted. Have you no shame, my friend?

Posted by: babble on | February 23, 2008 9:07 PM

"I submit, it's time to stop. There is only so much looking back we can do... Then we have to look forward. Stop trying to see slavery, racism, crime, horror, and everything else in skin color.

See you. See humanity. See what you want to be and become. Let the color go. Let the past become our guide, not our limitation.

Please."

Watcher,

I can only deal w/ the stuff that is acknowledged. When I am mistreated because of my skin color that means I must deal with that and make choices based off of that. To quote Dr. Phil, you can't change what you can't acknowledge. That doesn't mean that's all I am. Quite the opposite, I am a human being, worthy of dignity, grace and love, because God said so. I am a prince in the kingdom of heaven. But my racial history is the foundation where hope and joy, worship and healing can come to restore the nations.

What I will become I cannot say but just like a moth or butterfly must have their wings strengthened in struggle so must some of us that have had more horror fill our lives grow wings in adversity. When we do over come and become (which we won't till death) I will be sitting at the right hand of Jesus and hugging him. So will you if you overcome. Not only is the past our guide but it is the salvation for the future.

That's how I see the horror of what happened to my family and to me. The power of their strength flows through my veins. I am a better person because they chose to survive and live. I am a better person because they gave me the freedom to use the past to heal the future. I urge you to take that up. Please use the past wounds of our society and make it better for those that can't.

Please.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 23, 2008 10:12 PM

"But racism remains. Just as a whole host of prejudices remain. You can't make them go away. They never will. You can do your best to try to get people to abandon them, to convince them that justice and colorblindness and all those things that they use to look down on other people should not exist, or be used to harm them.

But they will remain." The watcher

With thinking like this no Prophet would have ever spoken out against injustice and none would have ever needed to die.

Payshun I think our watcher wants you to just understand that you need a better attitude, after all, bubba's will be bubba's don't you know?.

Watcher
I find your pious platitudes,(like the one quoted below), to be extremely offensive.

"Will you let this burden you... Your children, their children, their children, and their children? Or will somewhere along the way, someone say to their children. "Yes, this exists, but you can't let it bother you. Go live right, live justly, BE the ideal you want in others, and let God set the wrongs right?" The Watcher

Posted by: wayne | February 23, 2008 10:46 PM

Payshun and Rick.

Thank you for so concisely stating how African Americans still to this day suffer from the effects of racism. I think that it is so ironic that some of the more conservative posters on this blog would have you just "forget about it" and act as if it does not exist when they are many of the same ones who have very long memories about real and perceived offenses committed by those whose political viewpoint they do not share, or of offenses committed by the real or perceived foreign enemies of the United States. In reading these posts, I am both heartened and saddened. I am heartened to see both of you stand for what is right on the one hand. I am saddened to see those who would dismiss your perspective and experiences on the other hand.

Peace to both of you and to others of good will on this blog.

Jim

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 24, 2008 6:41 AM

Mick,

"Racism is no reason to expunge your own prejudices , and especially to defend Paysun .
He has no market on prejudice . "

What do you mean? I dont' understand what you are saying here.

Posted by: squeaky | February 24, 2008 11:11 AM

James
Once again your thoughts are well reasoned and well stated.
This constant cry to get off the racism track and the accusations of diminishing what others have to say by bringing in the "race card" may, at times, have some credence, but not nearly so often as those who say such things assume it to be.
The reality is that since Racism is always going to be with us we all need to be diligent about pointing it out. Racism is ingrained in this country's past and present and therefore will most probably be in its future. That much of what the watcher had to say is true. For anyone to tell Rick and Payshun to just get over it and be all they can be would almost be comical if it wasn't so dismissive and ethnocentrically biased.
From everything Rick and Payshun have let all of us know about themselves, everyone of us should be able to see that they have obviously done just that, despite whatever racist barriers they have encountered.
The fact that men and women of color do succeed is not a reason to deny racism. Its roots are deep indeed and need to be expunged wherever they are found. We all should be on our guard for when they are discovered in ourselves and in our society. A true Repentant attitude would seem to dictate that we do so.If I were either Rick or Payshun I would think it obvious that the watcher has never repented of his own attitude in this matter. "Watcher" maybe you should "watch" yourself.
You cannot forget what you repent of or you will lose your way. Instead of turning 180 degrees away from the repented path you will quite likely find yourself walking in circles.
Mick
I also do not understand your comments and would ask that you clarify them.

Posted by: Wayne | February 24, 2008 12:10 PM

Can we generally put a lid on referring to people on the board in the third person as a means of insult? It's petty.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 24, 2008 2:21 PM

Correction: anticipation of the celebration of Christ's resurection - or do you think Easter is absurd too?

Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 24, 2008 5:42 PM

Mick,
I have never said that government is a solution; I did say it's a tool but then I also agree w/ other forms of individual and corporate societal transformation. Forms like NGO's, churches, volunteer service (and other forms of self and community uplift) can transform this society.

Who are your experts? I was an African-American Studies major in college, so to be fair I probably know more about the social construction of race than anyone on this board. That's not an arrogant thing to say, it's just I spent years studying about the roles African-Americans played in United States history and how race was formed in the first place. I am not saying that makes me an expert on race but it definitely makes me aware of things that others may not know.

I will never say that black conservatives are not black enough. That's just dumb. (But it's always odd to see black conservatives considering republican policy goes against their community interests.)

Squeaky,

Regarding Goliath you might find these verses interesting.

Numbers 13:32-33
32So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size.

33"There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

It would seem that God did not kill off all the nephilim during the flood. According to tradition these men were Goliath's ancestors.

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 24, 2008 7:47 PM

I will never say that black conservatives are not black enough. That's just dumb. (But it's always odd to see black conservatives considering republican policy goes against their community interests.)

What? How does it go against thier "community" interests?

What "community" is this? Maybe "black" conservatives identify themselves other than political "blackness", and find that being an American is all the "community" they need. Maybe they're just part of the community of man, and don't really need to segregate themselves.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 24, 2008 8:02 PM

An interesting take on the subject of the sons of God and Goliath.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/goliath.html

p

Posted by: Payshun | February 24, 2008 8:39 PM

Not all sahre Ricks or Paysuns views, to say they are not black enough I find obscene. Thier encounters with prejudice are just as horrific, jut as painfull, a conclussion that sees govenment as part of the lingering problem.

In reality, like it or not, most African-Americans actually do share our views. Black conservatives, however -- what few there are -- are inherently dishonest as to how the problems came about and how to solve them, which is why they're generally dismissed; not one has any serious pull within the black community.

What "community" is this? Maybe "black" conservatives identify themselves other than political "blackness", and find that being an American is all the "community" they need. Maybe they're just part of the community of man, and don't really need to segregate themselves.

That's not how it works. First, as conservatives are always looking for black faces to sell their unjust and racially regressive agenda, these black conservatives were recruited and are highly, highly paid; I know this to be true because the right wing tried to recruit me almost 10 years ago. (In essence, they have to practice affirmative action in order to argue against it. Do you think for a second that Clarence Thomas is where he is just because of his credentials? Not even he believes that.) And in fact, conservatives actually don't have much respect for blacks in general; if they did they would have far more authority than they do.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 24, 2008 9:21 PM

That's not how it works. First, as conservatives are always looking for black faces to sell their unjust and racially regressive agenda, these black conservatives were recruited and are highly, highly paid; I know this to be true because the right wing tried to recruit me almost 10 years ago. (In essence, they have to practice affirmative action in order to argue against it. Do you think for a second that Clarence Thomas is where he is just because of his credentials? Not even he believes that.) And in fact, conservatives actually don't have much respect for blacks in general; if they did they would have far more authority than they do.

To think that this is even allowed here, while I get sources to information deleted AFTER posting... Is incomprehensible.

"all conservative black people are liars and dishonest, they're traitors to thier 'community'."

This is personal insult to a huge array of people who neither deserve it, nor does your obvious personal prejudice appear anything remotely civil.

It is so patently transparent, and obvious desperation, when one has to resort to declaring that those on the opposite political side do not believe what they say, and are all wholesale corrupt and immoral.

That is not even plausible, much less likely. As for the rest of what you say... I think you have pretty much laid bare that your life consists of hate, prejudice, and anger.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 25, 2008 3:55 AM

To think that this is even allowed here, while I get sources to information deleted AFTER posting... Is incomprehensible.

Never mind that -- because what I said is true on its face. And what payshun said represents the big picture.

I think you have pretty much laid bare that your life consists of hate, prejudice, and anger.

To quote our LORD: "Physican, heal thyself!"

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 25, 2008 8:05 AM

It is time to stop responding to The Watcher who is mark and who is clearly violating the rules of conduct for the blog. I , for one, will email GP and ask for his removal . I believe that feeding his attention-seeking, unruly and improper posts is counterproductive.

Posted by: jonabark | February 25, 2008 10:41 AM

Quote:
To think that this is even allowed here, while I get sources to information deleted AFTER posting... Is incomprehensible.

Never mind that -- because what I said is true on its face. And what payshun said represents the big picture.
==============

no. Not even close. Not by a million miles. To state that political disagreement is not possible. That the only possible means of disagreeing with you... Is to be dishonest, corrupt, and vile to the core... Is incomprehensible.
==============

This isn't "liberal". This is as closed minded and prejudiced a statement as I have EVER seen in my life. Further, it is absurdly racist. To assume that race trumps everything else, and that EVERY person of a specific race MUST THINK one way, or else be condemned publicly and without reservation is beyond ANY kind of sensibility I can even imagine.

I cannot imagine any justification for this, let alone consider it "enlightened".

==============
I think you have pretty much laid bare that your life consists of hate, prejudice, and anger.

To quote our LORD: "Physican, heal thyself!"

==============

And then to claim the authority of God for your political and moral condemnation of others for failing to conform to your "order"...

If THIS is what beliefnet is about, and what Sojourners considers "enlightenment", then we have no common language, no common morality, no common God. We have no means of even communicating, because the concepts in our language do not mean the same things.

If I were to be on a conservative political forum, and saw someone post this about someone who was "liberal" and make the same accusation toward all people of some race, I would probably be FAR more strident in my condemnation. But I can't be quiet about this. My conscience does not let me.

I don't come to pretend all is peace and light. But if we can't agree that this kind of prejudice against people is wrong, then there is no wrong, only expedient moralizing. Despite my disagreement, and so vehemently with people of opposite political, I cannot imagine this is actually true as a rule.

While I am certain there are many motivations for how one chooses thier political and societal principles or beliefs, not even I can even imagine that all "liberals" are unbelieving of what they say. Or that they are paid to say what they say. How could you accept such a premise about others, as a group?

I cannot imagine that any honest, decent person can.

Whether I ever get to post another comment here... at least determine in your hearts that good people CAN disagree without resorting to believing that they are all paid liars there to hurt you. I beg of you. Reject this kind of poison. It serves none of us.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 25, 2008 11:45 AM

To state that political disagreement is not possible. That the only possible means of disagreeing with you... Is to be dishonest, corrupt, and vile to the core... Is incomprehensible.

Which is precisely why I offered that quote in the first place. You see, you're convicting yourself of that very thing with every post you make.

To assume that race trumps everything else, and that EVERY person of a specific race MUST THINK one way, or else be condemned publicly and without reservation is beyond ANY kind of sensibility I can even imagine.

But what black conservatives do is to deny or spin history and ignore their personal experiences, often for monetary gain. They're not called "sell-outs" for no reason.

Whether I ever get to post another comment here... at least determine in your hearts that good people CAN disagree without resorting to believing that they are all paid liars there to hurt you.

With all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about. It is an actual fact that black conservatives are, as a rule, highly paid to promote the conservative agenda, and saying it isn't so doesn't change things (indeed, I could make a six-figure salary if I ever became a conservative writer).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 25, 2008 12:05 PM

And liberal writers who are highly paid are also sell-outs?

Name one black "liberal" writer liberals have had to subsidize because liberals promote a racially regressive agenda that blacks reject. That, as most people except conservatives themselves understand, is absurd.

But to avoid having to confront the fact that conservative blacks are right and you aren't, you have resorted to this absurd fake morality play.

The problem is that, in the eyes of almost all African-Americans, conservatives regardless of race are dangerously wrong but want the authority to dictate the agenda for the black community, which blacks are too smart to allow. Need I remind you that conervatives hated MLK Jr. back in the day but have the audacity to say that he would have supported their cause (based on his actual writings, that's riduculous).

You can't refute the message, so now you've resorted to racism and character assassination.

I don't need to refute the message myself -- it collapsed long ago under its own weight.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 25, 2008 12:53 PM

I am sorry you have so invested in the emperor's clothes. But the emperor is naked. You are wrong. What you think you know is an illusion and a self imposed one at that.

The way the political winds are blowing today is a direct refutation of what you just said -- it's modern conservatism that has been exposed as fraudulent and fatally flawed beginning in 2004. In fact, this blog would not exist if what you said were at all true. Go ahead and live on your right-wing island if you so desire, but we who live in the real world understand what's really happening.

Oh, and BTW, your first sentence was said about, not by, Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 25, 2008 1:42 PM

Payshun -- I know that. That's the point.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 25, 2008 2:36 PM

If evangelism is forbidden, than Christians are persecuted. I didn't know that about the alcohol, but any regime that replaced Saddam was likely to ban that.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 26, 2008 10:21 AM

If evangelism is forbidden, than Christians are persecuted.

My denomination is actually skirting that -- we're evangelizing Iraqi refugees who have fled to Syria, where we have a church and dental clinic. So when and if they go back they will hopefully establish a beachhead.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 26, 2008 12:28 PM

I think this was made very plain when GWB made the unbelievably insensitive comment to conservative Black leaders that the current Social Security system shortchanges African-Americans because they don't live as long as other Americans do.

Posted by I and I

Wow I have read editorials by black people stating the same thing . Insensitive ? Making people live longer to collect SS was a bit insensitive in my book . Allowing people to fund a system that pays back as if it was run by loan sharks .
Black men live shorter lives according to stats , they are Americans . What would you say , so what if we have system that collects equally from all races , but pays out on a higher percentage to the dominant race . Or just ignore that fact to be sensitive ?"

I will never say that black conservatives are not black enough. That's just dumb. (But it's always odd to see black conservatives considering republican policy goes against their community interests.)"

Paysun said

Strange , that is what they say about your views .

"With all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about. It is an actual fact that black conservatives are, as a rule, highly paid to promote the conservative agenda, and saying it isn't so doesn't change things (indeed, I could make a six-figure salary if I ever became a conservative writer)."

Rick stated

No you couldn't .And you know what you are talking about . You just have no respect for yourself , obvious ,
out .. You could make 6 figures as a liberal writer in my opinion . Get rid of your edge , open your heart up a bit . Maybe open it up alot .

Posted by: Mick | February 27, 2008 12:51 AM

And you know what you are talking about. You just have no respect for yourself, obvious, out. You could make 6 figures as a liberal writer in my opinion. Get rid of your edge, open your heart up a bit. Maybe open it up alot.

You don't know how the process works, as the right wing has plenty of foundation money available through think tanks and media open to any African-American who is willing to turn on the "civil-rights establishment" -- as I mentioned earlier, it tried to recruit me back in the fall of 1998 when I actually did that once. The "other side" has no comparable contacts, which is why it would be more difficult.

And as for my "edge," if you don't have one you have no business being a writer in the first place because then you have no convictions to speak of. People want to read something that's different, unique, even at times offensive. I found that I had quite a following when I was a campus newspaper columnist because of that.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 27, 2008 9:07 AM