"At what point does willful ignorance become a sin?"

Ignorance of what? At what point did policy disagreement become a sin?

"How long before the church truly stands up to vote for a "right to life" for all children that goes beyond the unborn to include the children of those who we thought were our enemies?"

But Sojo's stance is that unborn children do not have a right to life. At best you are calling for churches to disregard the unborn and focus on ending the war in Iraq.

I have always seen the Iraqis as human beings. It is tragic that terrorists and insurgents are willing to murder their own people in order to make our efforts more difficult. This is not the fault of peaceful Iraqis, but it is hardly unfair to lay the blame at the feet of the real murderers in Iraq.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 12, 2008 12:01 PM

"Translation:"

Into strawmanese

"We know our cause was just from the beginning, so the Iraqis have no complaint whatever against us. "

I didn't say or imply this.

"We were just trying to help them out."

I didn't say or imply this.

"So a few got killed along the way. "

Nowhere in my statement was I this glib.

"If it weren't for these pesky insurgents and terrorists, who began showing up after our "mission was accomplished," we could finish our job"

Other than the use of the term "pesky" and the "mission accomplished" jab, do you disagree with this statement?

"everyone would be happy."

I didn't say or imply this.

"The Iraqis themselves are to blame"

I said the opposite of this.

"not us."

Of the American troops and the insurgents/terrorists, which group is more deserving of the murderer appellation?

"This rationale is the same as that of a chronic wife beater who blames her for the abuse he inflicts on her."

A more apt (though still imperfect) analogy would be a man who engages to marry a woman with an abusive ex-boyfriend. The ex becomes enraged that she has found a new lover, and beats her, and the husband-to-be underestimates the threat presented by the ex.

"Peace,"

Now that's glib.

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

Of the American troops and the insurgents/terrorists, which group is more deserving of the murderer appellation?

You know full well that if it weren't for American troops there would have been no insurgents.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 12, 2008 12:26 PM

oh... and so were their families and perceived allies.

Posted by: Steve s | March 12, 2008 1:03 PM

Rick ... the "insurgents" that existed before we went into Iraq were quickly massacred by Saddam Hussein, no ifs, and, or heads...oh... and so were their families and perceived allies.

True, perhaps, but irrelevant. We went in supposedly to take out Saddam because we had heard he was in cahoots with al-Qaeda when by all accounts bin Laden himself wanted Saddam out anyway. Then it was WMD, which were never found (and were likely destroyed per the U. N.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 12, 2008 1:09 PM

"You know full well that if it weren't for American troops there would have been no insurgents.

Correct, sort of.. But it still doesn't answer the question I posed to Don, nor does it negate its premise.

"But it was based on things I've read from you "

No it isn't. I've written nothing resembling your remarks.

"who are of a similar mind to yours."

If I am accountable for the statements of everyone who has supported this war, can I hold you accountable for the statements of everyone who opposes it?

"I don't sense Rev. al-Rikabi playing the blame game here."

Really? Then explain this statement:

"The church in the U.S has played a major role in supporting that destruction. "

I know you agree with it, but that doesn't change the fact that it lays blame on the church. A call to repentance is pointing fingers.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 12, 2008 1:32 PM

At what point does willful ignorance become a sin?

Posted by: carl copas

Carl this reminds me a little of Congregation where a person has a giagantic burden on their heart , perhaps its the homeless , maybe its for the unborn , or for the poor , and they feel the Lord has put the burdenon their heart to do something about it , and maybe He Has , but they get quite upset when the Church Board , Mens Ministry , and some other parts of the church who are already doing things are not as caught up in their burden as others . Then the person grows angry at the others . I see this often in Christianity , unless you agree with me you are a sinner , my burden , my understanding , even at times you agree but its the method of help that is disputed .

This rationale is the same as that of a chronic wife beater who blames her for the abuse he inflicts on her.

Peace,

Posted by: Don

I did hear or see any of Kevin's comments even come close to your translation . Made a good point , such as the unborn . f someone does not promote a burden that the Lord has put on OUR OWN HEART , be very carefull about slamming another , just may be God has put another burden on their heart .
You don't think you mis represnted those sentiments , then obviously Kevin would have agreed with you . I know you are quick to reply aggressively and firmly if your words are ever mis represented , an I believe you have every right , indeed , its hard enough understanding others at times using the exact words , consider sharing the same standards .

Posted by: Mick | March 12, 2008 2:08 PM

"So are you now saying that the Scriptures are invalid?"

No, I'm saying that Al-Rikabi is pointing fingers.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 12, 2008 2:43 PM

Mick (and Kevin):

Yes, I was wrong--Rev. al-Rikabi is assigning some blame here. But let's look a bit further at this situation. And If I truly misrepresented, I am sorry. But could the two of you indulge some of my thought processes here?

In your original post, Kevin, I didn't sense any willingness to recognize America's culpability in the tragedies that al-Rikabi is pointing out here. What I considered to be your central comment, the one that prompted my reply, was this statement:

It is tragic that terrorists and insurgents are willing to murder their own people in order to make our efforts more difficult.

Help me unpack this, will you both? 1. The reference to "our efforts" clearly implies--to me at any rate--a belief that we are doing the right thing by being there. 2. The Iraqis are being blamed for the murder and mayhem, but no acknowledgment of America's role in opening the doors wide for the insurgents to come in is mentioned. Therefore, blaming the victims is what I read here. And that is what led to my wife beater analogy.

Kevin, maybe that's not what you intended to write. Was it truly misrepresentation or misunderstanding? But that's how I read it. My comments were filled hyperbole, yes, and mixed with some bitter sarcasm (reflecting my own emotional reaction to this terrible tragedy). It's hard for me to read about this issue and not become emotional, because things since 9-11-01 could have, should have, gone so differently, in my mind.

Regarding the Rev. al-Rikabi's call for repentance, I read from him, "How long before more preachers preach that the life of an Iraqi is just as important to God as the life of a U.S. soldier?" What I read here is that, even if we believed we were right to invade Iraq, does that excuse America's churches for focusing only on praying for US troops only and not for the Iraqi people as well? Isn't some repentance in store for that problem? Maybe you don't believe we should repent for supporting the war in the first place, or that those churches that supported it should. But if we are unable to confess and repent of those areas where we clearly have fallen short, are we obeying Christ?

Finally, and I didn't address this before, both of you bring up the abortion issue:

But Sojo's stance is that unborn children do not have a right to life. At best you are calling for churches to disregard the unborn and focus on ending the war in Iraq.

Although al-Rikabi does bring up abortion here, this response has some red herring flavor to it, in my mind. I have never read anywhere that Sojo believes that unborn children don't have a right to life. Kevin has said this before but he has never documented it. And I've never read anything like this in their literature; what I have read is that our efforts toward protecting the unborn to date have not worked and maybe we need to try some different approaches.

I happen to agree with that: even though I would like to see more active protections for the unborn, I don't really think that's feasible right now. Hopefully it will be in the future. But that's off topic for this thread; maybe we can revisit it in a more appropriate setting.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 12, 2008 2:59 PM

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have OMITTED the WEIGHTIER matters of the LAW, judgment, MERCY, and faith: THESE ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Matthew 23:14
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 12, 2008 3:48 PM

"1. The reference to "our efforts" clearly implies--to me at any rate--a belief that we are doing the right thing by being there."

Yes, had we simply left after removing Saddam, both the US and Iraq would be in much worse shape.

"The Iraqis are being blamed for the murder and mayhem, but no acknowledgment of America's role in opening the doors wide for the insurgents to come in is mentioned."

We had a role in opening the doors. But that isn't the same as saying that Iraqi citizens do not have a right to life.

"Therefore, blaming the victims is what I read here."

But not what I wrote.

"Was it truly misrepresentation or misunderstanding?"

Misunderstanding infused with your own prejudices and your emotional reactions.

"It's hard for me to read about this issue and not become emotional,"

I gathered that. An emotional discussion is useless, both on a policy and a spiritual level. This isn't the sort of black and white issue that lends itself to emotional decision-making.

"What I read here is that, even if we believed we were right to invade Iraq, does that excuse America's churches for focusing only on praying for US troops only and not for the Iraqi people as well?"

No, and I have no qualms with this point.

"Isn't some repentance in store for that problem?"

Depends on whether the church has prioritized American lives in prayer.

"Finally, and I didn't address this before, both of you bring up the abortion issue:"

Actually, the author did, as you acknowledge.

"I have never read anywhere that Sojo believes that unborn children don't have a right to life."

If we have a right to kill them, they don't have a right to live. Those two rights are in opposition. Wallis has said more than once that abortion should be legal, saying that we shouldn't criminalize the decisions of women in lonely and dangerous corners.

So when someone says that they wish churches would be just as worries about born Iraqis as unborn children, I think it's fair to questions what that entails. If I wanted to be pedantic about it, I could suggest that treating Iraqi children as we treat the unborn would mean legalizing their intentional slaughter by armed servicemen.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 12, 2008 3:57 PM

"A call to repentance is pointing fingers."

You mean like Mark 1:14, Kevin? Or did you have Luke 13:1-5 in mind?

I'd always understood that obeying the call to repentance is part of the daily struggle of the Christian seeking to conform her/himself more fully to the mind of Christ. And the call is to constant repentance: Jesus uses the present imperative, not the aorist.

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | March 12, 2008 4:05 PM

Don ,

That was quite articulate and thanks . I really do not believe it is important as you to believe as a Christian we have to agree on this ,

I was looking at it from a perspective of needing to see from the passionate view of the editorialist or you were in sin an American pastors needing to repent on this issue dealing only with his policy view of Iraq ..

I gained from his perspective , his Mom is a Christian , his Dad is a Muslim . They must have had some very interesting dinner conversations , grace must have been interesting to boot .

Red herring issue was not the intent , if I knew you better Don perhaps I could think of a better issue more suited to an issue you believe heart and mind for that perhaps some on the left do not consider as important .
The point was because a brother does not share your zeal for a particular issue , I don't think we as brothers should be so quick to judge their heart or need for repentance on an issue such as this . The terrorism going on in Iraq now is caused by our ivasion . What was the Terrorism before called , orderly terrorism ? Or Darfur for that matter . I agree invading Iraq wasa big mistake , that is my opinion , not a Fact I am willing to bet my eternity on .

I do believe Christians of good heart and mind can support the over all cause in Iraq . I share more of your perspective on aspects of it . But much of my objection also is not that terrorism should NOT be confronted , but we need to be better at picking when and how . Barek Obama articulates this quite well in my opinion . I don't see his words ever being condemned here , whcih is interesting , but another red herring i guess. I figured they should be condemned because i agree with him . ;0)

Also I have not heard about the poor people in Afganstan , you see his message was also quite narrow , should I one better him and say we should be praying for all people in conflicts , not just Iraq .

I think you may be totally missing my point here , but I do thank you for articulating yours . It made more sense

I really have a problem myself when people in my denomination tell me God told me to tell you , I think that is what got me going here .

Posted by: Mick | March 12, 2008 4:08 PM

"and America in following the neo/cons, have not done anything wrong at all, but done what's absolutely right"

Posted by: N.M. Rod

That is clear to you . I oppose the war ? Because I don't oppose it in the idealogical manner you do ? That I will not claim God's favor over my opinion to a person who believes the mission is just and right . I do not have the Self Righteous strength to tell Moms and Dads their kids died for something that God did not tell my heart that we need to repent for , but NM ROD does .

Should we ask for repentance for WW 2 also , many believe that here , just when do we not ask for repentance , when it does not go against your political views .

Perhaps we all need to repent more often . I know i do , but please , don't tell me why , I leave that to God .

2 Chronicles 7:14

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and 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."

Posted by: Mick | March 12, 2008 4:26 PM

Page 195 of The Great Awakening:

"My religious and moral view is that abortion is wrong, even when the circumstances are wrapped up with great difficulties and inequities."

Posted by: Rachel | March 12, 2008 4:45 PM

I used to have as my almost exclusive reading materials, during the Clinton era, The American Spectator, National Review, NewsMax, American Spectator and World Magazine, as well as Chuck Colson's and Focus on the Family's mailings.

And therein lies at least part of the problem. While I never subscribed to any of them, I used to look at some of those once in a while, as well as watch the 700 Club and listen to Christian radio, until I realized that most of their reporting was suspect when compared to the mainstream media -- and I mean the very same stories. I realized then that their protestations about the "bias" of the MSM represented little more than a proverbial case of the pot calling the kettle black.

These days especially there's seemingly a medium out there for everyone to tell folks what they want to hear without appropriate filters, nuance or context, and as someone who has spent much of his adult life in the media it drives me crazy.

But going back to "repentance," the Scripture references should remind us that, whether we like it or not, we're somehow all connected. Interestingly enough, on another thread some people called on Barack Obama to dissassociate from Louis Farrakhan even though there were a couple of degrees of separation -- what's the difference here?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 12, 2008 5:18 PM

Mick is right that not all issues that are important to one Christian are necessarily important to others, and that nobody should try to impose their own perceived importance on others.

However, in the cases that Rev. al-Rikabi is speaking of, in the case of individual Christians and churches that already publicly articulated their support for the Iraq invasion, they have thereby demonstrated that it was and is an important issue for them. Therefore, shouldn't the human dimensions of the tragedy that has resulted--both directly and indirectly--from that invasion be equally important to those same individuals and churches?

Posted by: Don | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

"My religious and moral view is that abortion is wrong, even when the circumstances are wrapped up with great difficulties and inequities."

That doesn't contradict the fact that he thinks it should be legal. If we are discussing rights, legality is the issue. If I have a right to kill you, do you consider yourself to have a right to live?

"what's the difference here?"

I'm not asking Obama to repent of the sin of having been endorsed by Farrakhan.

"I was referring, of course, to invading the country in the first place."

Right, but you are also trying to suggest that we are guilty by virtue of our continued occupation, are you not? Or are you arguing that our occupation is an act of repentance for the initial war effort? Please elaborate.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 12, 2008 6:08 PM

Mick: "Carl this reminds me a little of a Congregation where a person has a giagantic burden on their heart , perhaps its the homeless , maybe its for the unborn , or for the poor , and they feel the Lord has put the burdenon their heart to do something about it , and maybe He Has , but they get quite upset when the Church Board , Mens Ministry , and some other parts of the church who are already doing things are not as caught up in their burden as others."

Mick, I understand what you're saying. My question, "At what point does willful ignorance become a sin?" wasn't meant rhetorically. I really wonder what our responsibility as Christians is, insofar as educating ourselves re: things being done in our name, whether by our nation, our local congregation, or for that matter our high school booster club.

I don't expect a definitive answer; indeed, I don't even know if it's a legitimate or proper question to ask.

Posted by: carl copas | March 12, 2008 6:21 PM

My question, "At what point does willful ignorance become a sin?"

Posted by: carl copas

Its a good question , but I don't think I have the insight on it . Paul teaches us that eating certain food is a sin if you think it is . If its not a sin to us , he warns us not to eat it in front of someone that believes it is a sin .
So the sin is in our mind , are we going against God or not .

I am wishey washey here . I have tried to rationalize many things I have done before I got saved in my 30's , because I was not a Christian , BUT it was still sinning against God I was committing , even if I was ignorant , down deep I think I knew anyway but that is a different subject .

Here we have a subject many here see starting from a different point . First I believe terrorism does at times needs to be met with force . Some here believe that we should never use force. So from the get go we are little mis matched .

So fighting terroism is a sin ? Is this in the repentance or part of it ?

So for someone like me , we are repenting for a stupid Commander in Chief or a lousy strategy that caused so many innocent people to loose so much , did not accomplish much , looks like it made the world more dangerous .

I do support fighting terrorism . Still do .

One of the reasons we repent is because we realize our sin , admit it , and seek forgiveness . And not to do it again , I belong Bible believing church , we always prayed for peaceful solutions , but I bet the majority in my congregation would believe terroism is a threat that needs to be dealt with .

Yes we do believe in National repentence, I think Kev is wrong on that .

I think the church needs to be on the same page here , and I don't think we are .

At least the vocal ones here appear to be preaching that even standing up to Terrorism is always a sin . And the folks who think that a good Muslim is a dead Muslim are clouding the issue .

Posted by: Mick | March 12, 2008 7:07 PM

Reading the above debate, especially with Kevin, I wonder if it could be reframed in a way that's agreeable to all.

If churches have devalued the lives of Iraquis, even if through simply ignoring them and their plight then that is worth repenting of.

This devaluing or ignoring could be repented of irrespective of ones views on the invasion and the ongoing war. And there would only need to be repentance for those who recognise that they have forgotten the Iraqui people in this.

I believe that that is the whole point of the initial blog, that Iraqui's were (are) not perceived as people of inherent worth and value. I know it's not universally true, but obviously in the experience of Rev Al-Rikabi it has been a common exprience.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | March 12, 2008 7:42 PM

Kevin, you need to read Jim Wallis' new book The Great Awakening. He takes a clear moral stand against abortion.

Posted by: Rachel

Here is part of an article on Wallis that goes along with your quote. . I think the problem is that on this blog , the massive thrust is against the religious right , and supporting only issues that the religious left supports .

If the blog he controls was as fair to ALL issues important to people of faith as he is in front of the cameras and written media , this organization would grow . party not being such a great thing .

Quickly . At least i join ;o]

Note he speaks to the secularist fundamentalist wing of the dems .

, this 30-year preacher and activist has grave reservations about abortion. “It’s important for Democrats…to talk first about how they are going to be committed to really dramatically reducing unwanted pregnancies, not just retaining the legal option of abortion.” And while compassion compels Wallis to champion basic rights for gay couples, he does not voice support for gay marriage.

A few leading political figures in both political parties are chafed by Jim Wallis. Jerry Falwell recently behaved badly toward Wallis on a Fox News program.

Former Nixon cohort, now Christian leader Chuck Colson mischaracterized him when he wrote that Wallis thinks “the religious left is more in tune with the Bible than are conservatives.” Not so, replied Wallis in an open letter this week to Colson “I challenge Democrats on abortion, and I challenge Republicans on war and poverty.”

Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.” Referring to the disastrous statement by Howard Dean that Job was his favorite New Testament book, Wallis exhorted “…the worst thing anyone can be is inauthentic when they talk about religion or faith.”

Posted by: Mick | March 12, 2008 7:47 PM

This is for Rev Omar-
I do pray for the people of Iraq and the soldiers and the insurgents. I think your article was an attempt to reach out for prayer to keep all the above safe and to end this war. I do not know which group will be chosen to stop this awful tragedy and I really do not care which group does. God will choose the correct vessel. I think we want others to approve of what we are asking God to do in prayer. I think Mother Teresa said it best "In the final analysis it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway." Keep the faith.

Posted by: Kandy | March 12, 2008 8:32 PM

An open letter to Chuck Colson - Feb. 24, 2005
by Jim Wallis

On Monday, Feb. 21, 2005, Charles Colson, in his daily radio commentary, criticized what he perceived as my message. I'm sending my response in this "open letter."

Dear Chuck,

In your commentary, "Moral Equivalency: The Religious Left Gets It Wrong," you critiqued me as a "leader of the religious left," quoting The New York Times. And you particularly focus on abortion, saying that I consider "all moral issues to be equivalent," and that since I say the Bible talks much more about poverty than abortion, I believe "the religious left is more in tune with the Bible than are conservatives."

As you may know, I'm currently traveling around the country speaking about my new book, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. And in all my speaking and media appearances, I say no such thing. What I do say is that there is, in the words of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, a "seamless garment of life" in which all issues that infringe on human life are important.

I challenge Democrats on abortion, and I challenge Republicans on war and poverty. In a recent interview with Christianity Today, I said: "It's important for the Democrats to change the way they talk about a moral issue like abortion, to respect pro-life Democrats, to welcome them in the party, and to talk first about how they are going to be committed to really dramatically reducing unwanted pregnancies - not just retaining the legal option of abortion, which Democrats are going to do, because that's part of their plank." But I also said, "My hope is that Republicans can broaden their conversation about moral values beyond just abortion and gay marriage to poverty and the environment and the ethics of war."

I believe deeply that Christians must seriously be concerned about everything that threatens the lives of people created in the image of God. Abortion is important; war and economic justice are also important.

You also ask your listeners, "Why help the poor if we don't believe all lives are equal in God's sight? If you support ending the life of a child because it will be born into poverty, how can you logically call yourself an advocate for the poor?" The reverse is also true. If you support protecting an unborn life but don't provide the necessary support to the mother and child in poverty after birth, how can you logically call yourself pro-life?

As I told Christianity Today: "Christians can't say, 'All we care about is someone's stance on abortion. I don't care what they do to the economy, to the poor, I don't care what wars they fight, I don't care what they do on human rights.' It's almost like we care about children until they're born and then after that, they're on their own. We're cutting child health care, cutting child care for moms moving out of welfare. No, you can't just care about a child until they're born."

My message to both parties - to both liberals and conservatives - is that protecting life is indeed a seamless garment. Protecting unborn life is important. Opposing unjust wars that take human life is important. And supporting anti-poverty programs that provide adequate support for mothers and children in poverty is important. Neither party gets it right; each has perhaps half of the answer. My message and my challenge are to bring them together.

What I'm saying around the country is that there is a new option for American politics that follows from the prophetic religious tradition. It is "traditional" or "conservative" on issues of family values, sexual integrity, and personal responsibility while being very "progressive," "populist," or even "radical" on issues such as poverty and racial justice. It affirms good stewardship of the earth and its resources, supports gender equality, and is more internationally minded than nationalist - looking first to peacemaking and conflict-resolution when it comes to foreign policy questions. The people it appeals to (many religious, but others not) are very strong on issues such as marriage, raising kids, and individual ethics, but without being "right-wing," reactionary, or mean-spirited, or using any group of people - such as gays and lesbians - as scapegoats. It can be pro-life, pro-family, and pro-feminist all at the same time. It thinks issues of "moral character" are very important, both in a politician's personal life, and in his or her policy choices. Yet it is decidedly pro-poor, pro-racial reconciliation, pro-environment, and critical of purely military solutions.

That's the message that is resonating around the country, Chuck. Not that all issues are "morally equivalent" but that, indeed, as you say, the "first one, the right to life, is non-negotiable." Perhaps the difference between us is that I believe that non-negotiable right continues after birth.

Blessings,
Jim

Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 12, 2008 9:00 PM

Mick,
even if we'd found WMD and nukes, there could still be a need to call for repentence, on the basis of devaluing the lives of Iraquis where we have ignored them and their plight.

Posted By trent

Trent I know some what you are saying is true , but your on one side I am on the other on our views here . Repentence needs to be sincere , Americans tend to see the world revolving around them and even our own troops in what they are going through tends to be ignored here in our own country . But I think you are unaware of just what lengths American Forces put themselves into danger just to protect the lives of innocent civilians .
The bad thing about war is it is a bad thing . Innocent lives are lost . In the repentance I hope we acknowledge the men and women , sometimes to their own detriment that lost lives , injured or just subjected themselves to both who did do just what you say we should be repenting for .

Many anti war protests have called American soldiers terrorists , you do realize that . Repentance is not for just forgetting the Iraq's innocents either .
Even those soldiers who are totally against the war will proudly tell of some efforts they were part of or witnessed protecting innocent civilians . Not enough yes .

Posted by: Mick | March 12, 2008 9:17 PM

Mick,
I don't want to be on an opposing side to you.
I agree that repentence needs to be sincere. I even agree with Kevin that repentence on this may not be the domain of the state (as opposed to where repentence was for demonstrably wrong policies or decisions or actions on the part of the state such as Australia's recent apology to it's indigenous people).
I was not intending to make any judgement on american troops and their efforts to protect civilians (I don't think Rev Al-Rikabi was either). His concern was more of those 'at home' who have ignored the humanity and plight of the Iraqui people.
And I would agree to you that any and all Christians and churches who have dehumanised the soldiers or who have ignored their humanity and plight ought also to be called to repentance.
When we keep the focus on the people (created in God's image) and off the policies we find our common ground as joint heirs of God.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | March 12, 2008 9:45 PM

was not intending to make any judgement on american troops and their efforts to protect
civilians (I don't think Rev Al-Rikabi was either

Posted by: Trent

I realize that Trent , I have read many of your posts and have gleaned you are fairly fair level minded mate , for an Aussie that is . But when people are dying , know people who have died or wounded , this will be a contentious subject . A couple of years ago our school district had a big
debate over a Vietnam Class it offered because of some of the materials used , we had the VETS come out , Activists of all shapes and brands who still had emotional baggage they were dealing with about it .

"THus I am hardly a liberal. Both liberalism and conservatism are not useful prisms through which to divine ultimate reality, but purely human and flawed constructs."

Posted by: N.M. Rod

And you made me look judgemental , as I was being . You were still wrong however . ;0)

Posted by: Mick | March 12, 2008 10:03 PM

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, a pro-life Catholic, was denied the opportunity to speak at the 1992 and 1996 Democratic conventions.

As someone who voted for him twice (and later regretted doing so), I can tell you that abortion had nothing to do with his not being allowed to speak -- because in fact other anti-abortion Democrats were.

Here's the real story: Back in 1991 Casey had been running around the state badmouthing Bill Clinton, then running for president; at one point he said to his fellow Democrats, "Pick a winner." Well, Clinton still won the nomination and Casey decided he wanted the opportunity to address the convention. But the people who were running things told him that he had to endorse Clinton, which he refused to do, and that's the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak. (This came from Paul Begala and James Carville, who would know since they ran campaigns for both men.) So Casey, obviously miffed, wrote an editorial which was published in the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page was rabidly anti-Clinton, basically lying about what happened (which the Journal had no problem doing).

Incidentally, Casey was indirectly part of the reason Rick Santorum ended up in the U. S. Senate; during the 1994 campaign Harris Wofford, the man he appointed to replace Sen. John Heinz, killed in '91 in a chopper crash, waffled on the abortion issue and Casey then pulled his endorsement. (Of course, Casey's namesake son knocked off Santorum in the 2006 general election.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin (the real one) | March 12, 2008 10:22 PM

Right, but you are also trying to suggest that we are guilty by virtue of our continued occupation, are you not? Or are you arguing that our occupation is an act of repentance for the initial war effort? Please elaborate.

I'm not really sure what you are asking. If our invasion was morally wrong and unjustified to begin with, which is what I believe, then the whole operation is and continues to be morally wrong and unjustified. I cannot in my mind separate the initial invasion from the continuing occupation. If we hadn't done the former, there would be no need for the latter. So how can we be "doing the right thing" now if it wasn't the right thing from the beginning?

Mick:
I'm not following your logic either. Here is what was on my mind: you complained about Christians who browbeat other Christians because they don't share the same concern about a particular issue that they have.

So I'm thinking that perhaps Rev. al-Rikabi is speaking primarily to those Christians who made support for the war in Iraq their issue and is saying that they ought now to consider making the human tragedy that Iraq has become their issue too.

I thought Omar's purpose here was to encourage us to pray for the people of Iraq. It seems we have strayed so far from that purpose with our vapid wrangling over things such as who should repent, over what should they repent, and whether Rev. Wallis said this or didn't say that over abortion.

It's late. Maybe I can put some better thoughts together in the morning. And maybe I'll say a prayer for Omar's family in Iraq before sleep overtakes me.

Blessings,

Posted by: Don | March 12, 2008 10:31 PM

"Is that a sin? Because the way you were talking it sounded as though it were."

It is not a sin.

"Speaking of which, kevin -- again, show me where Wallis said specifically that abortion should remain legal."

He said in the comments section that he opposed ban that would "criminalize a desperate choice", which precisely echoes the passage in God's Politics where he says the same thing. The "desperate choice" is abortion. Criminalizing is a clever talking-point way of saying "rendering illegal".

Rick, you know full well that Wallis thinks abortion should be legal. Why are you playing this game?

"I cannot in my mind separate the initial invasion from the continuing occupation."

Well, we could simply have captured Saddam and left Iraq to its own devices, in which case this blog might not even exist.

"So how can we be "doing the right thing" now if it wasn't the right thing from the beginning?"

Because foreign policy is never perfect, and we have the opportunity to correct mistakes. That means we can look forward as well as backward.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 13, 2008 2:30 AM

I honestly don't really know why repetitive posts that offer no additional insight or growth are made here.

Just to assert that one can't possibly agree, ad infinitum and ad nauseum?

And I don't see what's gained by trading posts, either, if you won't be convinced - for there's certainly no way a person against their will can ever be convinced other than how he or she currently sees things, either.

I would guess there's no more commonality other than to respect that someone has certain opinions and this is what they are.

When someone "knows" what someone's position is, regardless of what explanations to the contrary are made, and that it is "wrong" because it's not just the one they hold, then this is probably the terminal point for productive or insightful discussion of that.

There are probably any myriad of things to do in life at that point that are more productive of the limited remaining amount of time each individual has on this earth. Sometimes you just have to let it go, no matter how convinced you are you're in better command of the facts.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 13, 2008 3:52 AM

"Because foreign policy is never perfect, and we have the opportunity to correct mistakes. That means we can look forward as well as backward."

It's just too bad we can't raise the dead and heal the sick
who bore the brunt of those mistakes.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 13, 2008 3:55 AM

Let's get real. There are many situations in which if you mention the Iraqi people as in need of prayer, or even grieve the deaths, you are looked at as if you were the nerdy kid who farted in choir practice. Yes, this happens in churches.

The long and the short of it is, if a critical mass of conservative evangelicals had some passion for human rights and social justice, this country would not have attacked Iraq. Bush and Co. knew about Christian apathy and played on it. "Keep them preoccupied with sex..." laughs Karl Rove the agnostic.

And as this blog is showing, a lot of Christian conservatives refuse to admit they used poor judgment. I wonder if this is one reason why there's been a spate of anti-Christian books lately. I'll bet every single one of them (except Hitchens') points to the Iraq War and the free pass given to Bush by evangelical Christians to help make their case that religion is nonsense. So this totally preventable moral debacle has created religious problems in this country as well as loss of life overseas.

I suspect Rove must be laughing at evangelicals right now. He may be agnostic, but he knows the psychology of conservative Christians and how to manipulate it.

Posted by: I and I | March 13, 2008 9:09 AM

Posted today on the BBC online (italics mine):

Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Catholic archbishop in Iraq who was kidnapped last month, has been found dead near the northern city of Mosul.

An Iraqi police officer and morgue official confirmed reports that the archbishop's body had been found buried near Mosul, where he had been abducted.

The Vatican said Pope Benedict XVI was profoundly moved and saddened by Archbishop Rahho's death.

He was kidnapped soon after he left Mass in Mosul on 29 February.

According to the SIR Catholic news agency, the kidnappers told Iraqi church officials on Wednesday that Archbishop Rahho was very ill and, later on Wednesday, that he was dead.

It is not clear whether he was killed, or died of natural causes. Nobody has claimed responsibility for his death.

The archbishop was the latest in a long line of Chaldean clerics to be abducted in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003.

Three people who were with him at the time were killed by gunmen.

A Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said: "The most absurd and unjustified violence continues to afflict the Iraqi people and in particular the small Christian community, whom the Pope holds in his prayers in this time of deep sadness".

Earlier in Iraq, a car bomb in the capital Baghdad was reported to have killed at least seven people, and wounded at least 20.

According to AP, the bomb was in a parked car in Tahrir Square, a central commercial district just outside the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses much of the Iraqi government and the US Embassy.

The attack is the latest in a series in Baghdad, following several months of relative calm.

Posted by: Don | March 13, 2008 10:15 AM

My mind is certainly twisted.

I thought a series on the war on this blog would concentrate on how the conflicts on the ground could be lessened through a vision and strategies for peace.

What do I not understand? We can spend the rest of our lives arguing over why we entered WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq or the Civil War.

I opposed the war from its first public consideration primarily on appeals from American Evangelical missionaries and Evangelical Arab Chrisitans. I know only a few churches. I have not been in one that 'rallied to support the war."

I affirm the extent to which Evangelicals have had open hearts and minds towards peoples of the world--and think we can only respond with enthusiasm to Rev. Omar's call we see more deeply the humanity of all. In my thinking we can only dare defend the taking of human life if we can first see the face of the 'enemy', the dignity and divine nature of their humanity, the innocents around them--and then conclude a moral necessity that we personally ought blow their brains out in front of their children.

This of course demands we also face squarely the evil in our own lives and the evil in the world which we attack.

I think there no way to stand in the midst of the evil and weigh the true cost of our actions/inactions apart from standing in the strength, wisdom, justice and love of God. There is no way to confront the evil which Jesus took on at the cross aside from the receipt of the depth and breadth of His love.

Is the Gospel powerful enough to bring to bear on the evil, sin, and death of this world? Did Jesus die in vain? Are we helpless to engage in the real peacemaking necessary 'on the ground.' Can the Gospel be brought to bear on any level deeper than a polictial shouting match US military in Iraq?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 13, 2008 10:31 AM

Omar,

I appreciate your article. I was just reading a book by Anthony Bloom ,the late Metropolitan of Russian Orthodox Church in Britian. He quotes Martin Niemoller who was head of the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany. Niemoller said "There is one thing that I can never forgive myself for. It never occurred to me during this struggle that our persecutors were the lost sheep of the fold Christ and were my own charges."
I know that Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was alos of that church did pray for his jailers and others.
That is what the Prince of Peace asks of us, to be unnatural in worldly terms.
yours Paula

yours

Posted by: paula | March 13, 2008 10:41 AM

My good friend Rick Nowlin wrote:
"You know full well that if it weren't for American troops there would have been no insurgents.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 12, 2008 12:26 PM"
My own thoughts:
Suppose I walk up to the proverbial NRA member in a bar somewhere and taunt him verbally until he shoots me to death. He is 100% responsible for murdering me. (I am 100% responsible for being the kind of jerk that would provoke such an incident.) However you feel about our invasion of Iraq, we did not cause the hatred that has Sunnis and Shiites murdering one another, along with the occasional British or American in uniform.
It is a tragic situation, but are the postings on this blog helping? Elsewhere, folks on these blogs have found ways to be peacemakers. May I respectfully suggest it be tried more consistently in this thread?
…
Don wrote, in a post I mostly agree with: "I have never read anywhere that Sojo believes that unborn children don't have a right to life. … And I've never read anything like this in their literature; what I have read is that our efforts toward protecting the unborn to date have not worked and maybe we need to try some different approaches. I happen to agree with that: even though I would like to see more active protections for the unborn, I don't really think that's feasible right now. Hopefully it will be in the future. But that's off topic for this thread; "
My own thoughts:
No, it’s not OFF-TOPIC in the least. All of our sins are connected to our one sin of rejecting Christ and his ways. Some here have never acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus; the rest are denying some or even most of his claims on our subsequent behavior. But we are all sinful. It might help me, and all of us here, to think of this while posting.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | March 13, 2008 12:05 PM

Do you read the posts before you criticize my comments, or do you get right to it? I was responding directly to a quote from Omar's post.

Yes, I did; it was still a hijacking because the first thing that people think when they hear "right-to-life" is "abortion" (which, I understand, Islam opposes and Louis Farrakhan has spoken out against). I for one have never thought that way and don't appreciate when such words are used to justify what Vance Havner called "political projects [that] look like moral issues." It's also why I almost never use the term "pro-life," even though (like you) I believe that abortion should be illegal.

He is describing the American middle he claims to represent. Nobody who thinks abortion should be illegal would write the quotes above. Period.

As for Wallis' quote, there probably is specific reason for what he said and I can guess what that is. For too long the never prudent anti-abortion movement has focused almost exclusively on legal, cultural or diaconal issues but don't consider the bad relationships, often informed by economic issues, that foster unwanted pregnancy in the first place -- deal with those and you pretty much eliminate the problem. After all, that's how it was dealt with at the turn of the last century and the laws later caught up to the what had become the cultural consensus. Wallis interviewed Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, who in 1999 published one of my favorite books, "Blinded by Might," which addresses the topic.

Besides, some years ago a woman I know told the story abour her mother, who had had a medically-necessary abortion, being subsequently visited by some ardent "pro-lifers" who somehow had gotten wind of what had happened, showed up unannounced and proceeded to lay a guilt trip on her. That's the kind of thing Wallis was hinting that we need to avoid.

However you feel about our invasion of Iraq, we did not cause the hatred that has Sunnis and Shiites murdering one another, along with the occasional British or American in uniform.

But we sure aided it at times when it suited our purposes. We supported Iraq in its war against Iran and the Afghan militias that later became the Taliban -- and that's just for starters.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 13, 2008 12:54 PM

But he isn't going to say that because he believes abortion should be legal.

Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't want to be at all affiliated with the "pro-life" movement and thus lend his name to people who, basically, can't stand him otherwise (they will always say "So-and-so believes abortion should be illegal, as if he/she supports the cause uncritically). And even were that the case, who are you so jacked-up about "legality" when it refuses to address the other issues? And as I mentioned before, when the cultural consenses changes, which we certainly don't have now, we can talk about banning abortion again. Not before, and Wallis certainly understands that.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 13, 2008 1:19 PM

"I'm not really sure what you are asking. If our invasion was morally wrong and unjustified to begin with, which is what I believe, then the whole operation is and continues to be morally wrong and unjustified."

You see Don I am not sure about that . Honestly . If I was as sure as you were I would be supporting Obama instead of John McCain . The occupation was morally wrong because of wrong information . We disagree on that I believe ? I think you believe it was wrong no matter if that was true, I was never really in favor of this war just because I did not understand everything , still don't and I did not assume the worse of Bush which most of the debate from the peace side was getting all the attention . I think most Americans sort of hoped we were right ? Congress giving up their Constitutional Responsibility in time of war was a big thing for me , interstingly the dems and republicans all coming down together made me follow along like a puppy too I guess.

But now if we leave , the consequences may , and I believe with a greater chance of