I fully agree with both Amanda and with Another nonymous. If we begin talking with Iran, we may find that we have more things in common than those things that divide us. For one thing, a mutual dislike of Al-Qaeda and their agenda.

And if not, it's always worth the effort to dialogue first. Hostilities with Iran will surely complete the job of bankrupting ourselves that the occupation of Iraq began, with no chance for recovery.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 23, 2008 12:19 PM

I wonder if it isn't the current Iranian administration that we have to convince of the power and desireability of 'reasoning together.' It still takes two to tango, even now in 2008. Note that God says, "let US reason together. . ." I frankly imagine that the US administration would have not problem with a reaosnable discussion with President Ahmadinejad if he could find it in his heart to stop talking about the imminent destruction of other countries in the area, if he could stop telling us Americans how bad we are, if he could, in fact, begin to act like the head of stare that he supposedly is.

It takes two. . . .

Posted by: joekc | May 23, 2008 12:40 PM

Unbelievable. The leader of Iran has called for the imminent DESTRUCTION of the U.S. and Israel, and it is OUR job to "reason" with him? It is amazing to me that we think this is even a possibility. I am not saying that a preemptive war is the answer, but why with all of these articles on Sojo is the U.S. ALWAYS the bad guy? And RJohnson, do you honestly think that the reason Ahmedinejad wants to destroy the U.S. is because we are "encamped within a few hours of his border"? As people who are trying to weave our faith into this complicated picture, why can't we ever seem to recognize how much THEIR faith plays a part in this? Ahmedinejad is not just angry because we are over there now- he is part of a group that believes Islam is going to rule the entire world through subjugating it by destruction and death. Do your homework. This kind of madman cannot be stopped by diplomacy. And as for the Christian response, you may be willing to lay your own life down, but should we expect our nation simply to cease and desist in their responsibility of protecting innocent lives? All of this banter just sounds so unrealistic and idealistic to me. We live in a fallen world, and there are people out there who hate us, and it is not ALWAYS OUR FAULT.

Posted by: hildil | May 23, 2008 1:58 PM

he leader of Iran has called for the imminent DESTRUCTION

hildil:
Ahmedinejad is more of a figurehead than a true leader. He isn't really in charge. Our first job is to find out who we should be talking to. He's not likely to be the one.

Don't forget that Nikita Khrushchev asserted that the Soviets would bury us. Just like the Islamists, the Communists believed that they were destined to take over the world too. That didn't keep us from engaging them in diplomacy. And Khrushchev and the Soviets were far more powerful and influential than Ahmedinejad and the Iranians could ever hope to be. (Likewise, don't forget that the Iranians are Shi'ites, which makes them automatically suspect among about 85% of the remaining Islamic world.)

Yes, we should remember we live in a fallen world, and we shouldn't fail to take Ahmedinejad's bluster seriously. But that shouldn't stop us from talking to the Iranians.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 23, 2008 4:04 PM

RJohnson - Long before the last invasion of Iraq people like the current president of Iran was calling for the complete destruction of Israel. I have to agree with Joevk - it takes two to tango. What about Ahmadinejad's recent comments about gays and his treatment of this group in his country. I do not think this person is reasonable - so that means we must go to WAR! No, that is short sighted logic...there has to be an alternative...possibly a third way?

It is the responsibility of the Church to say the US's war making is wrong AND Ahmadinejad's threats and treatment of women and gays is disgusting. AND is the responsibility of the Church to think of ways to resolve conflict and not just complain that the US is 'war-mongering' and write letters to our Congressmen. Sadly, as long as people on this website are mean spirited to one another (and the Church at large is fragmented) can we really expect the world to do something the church isn't willing to do? ...Like resolve our differences peacefully... No, we as Christians must embody the message of peace and reconcilation before we complain about the US or Iran's war-like ways.

Posted by: Zach | May 23, 2008 5:03 PM

When discussing tango partners in this particular pas de deux it might be worth remembering that in the immediate aftermath of 11th September 2001 the government of Iran offered to help the USA locate and root out the Al Qaeda leadership. I believe that offer was sincere. Shi'ites have no vested interest either politically or theologically in supporting schismatic Sunni "ultras" of the type personified by Osama bin Laden. Quite the contrary.

Their reward was to be lumped into the "axis of evil", with consequences that are still being played out in Iraq.

Ahmedinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric (and his gay-bashing, and 1001 other nasty - from a western view-point - little habits) do not make him an endearing and attractive character. However, the sentiments he expresses in relation to the state of Israel are widely shared across the Middle East, where the failure to secure anything approaching justice for the people of Palestine is a deeply-felt humiliation. It doesn't help, either, that the methods which have been used to try to secure justice for the Palestinians have been very largely counter-productive and simply ratcheted up the cycle of violence and counter-violence, so that the daily life and political discourse of both Palestinians (whether Muslim or Christian) and Israelis have been poisoned.

A way must be found of breaking out of this destructive cycle, and it won't be found as lomng as both parties (and their neighbours) insist that they and they alone occupy the moral high ground and start talking meaningfully to one another. It can be done. It has been done in an analogous situation in Northern Ireland. But it cannot be done (as successive British and Irish governments have discovered) without involving other regional powers and interested parties - and the people of violence (and their sponsors and ideologues) on both sides.

Sunday's Gospel reading in many Churches will include these words of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount:

‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Macho posturing and name-calling would therefore appear to be off the agenda of those who claim to follow Jesus. Serious engagement with those from whom we differ is not.

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | May 23, 2008 6:18 PM

As a young man, I was given an ancient little book full of insight for living in the Victorian era. One of the words to the wise was, "Treat another as a gentleman because you are, not because he is." The principle applies here. We should treat others in a Christian way if we are truly Christians. We are to love our enemies because Christ commanded it and He is worthy, not because our enemies are worthy.

Even taken strictly from a pragmatic world view, if enemies should never talk, then there would never be a peace treaty. Perhaps it is naive to think that an enemy can see reason, but it is arogant to assume that he cannot. If Jesus commands us to love our enemies, can we refuse because he is obviously naive?

Posted by: dlowen | May 23, 2008 7:40 PM

Rev. Hendler-Voss wrote:

God beckons us to come and "reason together." What will we choose?

First off, this is God calling for us to consider his reasoning, not necessarily the ranting of those who explicitly reject Jesus Christ as God.

But be that as it may, nobody is saying we should not consider Iran's positions or peace offers, the question is what is the best way for those negotiations to take place. Centuries of human experience with statecraft have led to the creation of the process of diplomacy, of which summit meetings between national leaders are only one facet.

The bottom line is we are talking with Iran, through our diplomats in the area and through intermediaries like the European Union.

So now that we are reasoning together, we can move on to the second question, which is "Should Iran be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon?" Given the oppressive and apocalyptic nature of the current Iranian regime, and their ties to active terrorist groups like Hezbollah, the answer is clearly "Not if we can stop it."

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | May 23, 2008 10:39 PM

Wolverine,

I have a couple questions for you:

Why should Iran not be allowed to have nuclear weapons when the US does?

Will the Middle East situation truly become more safe if the US tries to stop Iran's nuclear capabilities by using military intervention?

Why should the US be the only country that gets to decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and which aren't?

Why doesn't the US consider the situation from the Iranian perspective?

I look forward to your response.

Posted by: naomi | May 24, 2008 12:54 AM

Thank you Amanda,

Your post represents one of the reasons I return to God's Politics again and again. Well reasoned, factual stories, bearing on the real world, that are not so easily found on other Christian sites.

One unfortunate phrase that keeps recurring when you read about Iran and the Middle East is Christians taking a hard stance because someone or the other has "vowed to destroy Israel." Never mind the obvious fact, as we all know, that anyone can say anything.

What capability do these 'threateners' have? An Israel supported by Anerica can, militarily, take out any force on the planet. As Mrs Clinton will tell you, they can 'OBLITERATE' Iran.

But should it be so?

Jesus gives the excellent illustration of two brothers, one who agrees to something and the other who refuses, but, in reality, each ends up doing the opposite. Countries have been destroyed by others without anyone vowing to do so! Conversely some threaten but do nothing!

A good reason for not talking has not been presented, really, not on these pages and not elsewhere.

Now, what is wrong with sitting down with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and whoever and ask them the obvious question: why do you want to destroy Israel? Don't laugh, it may be happening 'secretly', anyway, already.

JamesMartin, Don, Rick Nowlin, Pastor Jeff Staples, Tony Dickinson, Carl Copas, Someone, please tell me:

Is having enemies (and therefore wars) good, perhaps, for the American economy and, therefore, good for the people of America?

I am just curious, like always, what percentage of the American GDP is raised from the military-industrial complex? Is this good or bad?

Might this have a bearing on why the USA, the leading manufacturer and exporter of weapons worldwide, nevertheless is defended for its peaceful ways by good, patriotic Christians on these pages, even as they demonize 'enemies' who live so far away that most of their critics do not even know the first thing about them?

Why do you have "In God We Trust" on your currency?

Kevin S,

As someone once said, you seem to have a remarkable mind reading gift, more precisely the gift of reading Obama's mind.

It's scary!

But, why don't you simply answer the question that Amanda tells us has been posed, already, anyway, by Mohammed El Baradei and, doubtless, others, in regards to:

"the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons but morally acceptable for others to rely on them."

Is this question important as far as Christ is concerned? How about yourself? Is it important to you? Can we forget about what is in Obama's mind, for a moment, and read what is in yours?

As you do so you may pause to consider the significance of the USA spending 16 billion dollars maintaining your nukes, or the 200 billion dollars in Iran and Afghanistan this year (if Amanda's figures are accurate). Is this significant to you as AN AMERICAN AND A CHRISTIAN? What does Obama think of that?

Anyway,

Naomi,

I am not an American, not even been there. But I'll bet you, at least as far as SOME here are concerned, God absolutely does adore Americans above all others, and even then, NOT ALL AMERICANS.

No, God discriminates. Depending on political leaning and party, and perhaps color, there ARE superior Americans (made in the image of God rather more closely than all others), who can do no wrong.

And, to these America belongs to God. More than any other country it has the right to bomb anyone anywhere. Any reason will do. Like if the other country is, you know, really inferior (maybe Arabic, Persian, African, you know ...)

Sorry all, but,

From reading God's Politics regularly I have to arrive at this conclusion. And from watching TBN once in a while I also have to come to the conclusion that these good people's viewpoint is shared by a good percentage of American evangelical Christians and, therefore, hardly 'strange', if I know what I'm saying!

HAVE A LOVELY WEEKEND, ALL!

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | May 24, 2008 5:05 AM

Naomi: Great observations/questions. The answers to your second post can be found in the answers to questions in your first post. The presumption on the part of those who hold to Americanism is the superiority of US culture and economics exclusive of all others. So the answer to questions in your first post are : Yes, yes and yes. That is why we get to decide the fate of the world. We wear the white hats, we are the sole harbingers of all that is good and right in the world. This is why God will judge America when she "puts herself in the place of God"

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 24, 2008 8:27 AM

Even Obama continues to flip-flop on whom he will talk with and when. His foreign policy advisors have been forced to step in to "clarify" his confusing comments (e.g., one day, Iran is just a "tiny" country that doesn't "pose a serious threat" to the U.S. and the next, Iran is the "greatest threat to the U.S., Israel, and the Middle East" but all because of the Iraq war). Examine history--those talks between heads of state don't just happen; they require months, sometimes years, of negotiations so that neither side stands to lose "too much face" when the meetings actually occur. Talk is cheap; real results involve educated homework.

Posted by: judithod | May 24, 2008 11:10 AM

According to Hildil "The leader of Iran has called for the imminent DESTRUCTION of the U.S. and Israel, and it is OUR job to "reason" with him?"

Hildil. Could you show us where Ahmedinejad called for the destruction of the U.S.? I think this statement is false and obscures the fact that it Is the US who is the one making dangerous and all too credible threats toward Iran. The current administration has threatened Iran with military strikes frequently and shown that these are not idle words by our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In other words it is the US (and before that Britain) who are the aggressors in the region whose actions have taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilian non-combatants. As far as Iran we have a sordid history of staging a coup against the democratically elected Mossadegh in the 50s and supporting Saddam Hussein in a ruthless attack on Iran. The question the writer is asking is, if anything, understated. It is a question about the equal application of law and moral judgement. It appears to me that you are so blinded by the media generated fears of Iran that you are willing to support large scale violence against them not based on their actual aggression but on what they could or might do.
And that you are willing to let a single unwise statement by an Iranian politician (appealing to resentment of Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians) to represent an entire nation and to allow this statement to prevent a long term effort to communicate with the leaders and people of Iran.

It is also clearly on the record that this administration has refused talks with Iran and that Iran has sought open talks and negotiations. Those who suggest otherwise are engaging in self delusion.

Moral authority comes from consistent and exemplary behavior. The US has been at its best when we lead by example. Iran is not some evil other. It is a complex , rich , and layered society which stretches as far back as any in history. They are a part of our common humanity, and part of the world community with all their faults and strengths, just as we are. Why in heaven's name would we not talk with them. What are we afraid of? Talk is one of the few things, even after the economic devastation of Republicanism gone bonkers, which we can still afford.

Posted by: jonabark | May 24, 2008 1:26 PM

"But, why don't you simply answer the question "

You take me to task for answering questions, but to the question of why it acceptable for some states to have nuclear weaponry and not others, I will say this:

The question of possessing nuclear weapons is not one of moral authority, but one of policy. We are not going to drop a nuclear weapon on anyone unless provoked to do so by virtue of them having dropped a nuclear weapon.

We utilize nuclear weaponry as a strategy to prevent nuclear war. That has been our strategy for decades. As far as policy goes, it is beneficial to separate that haves and have-nots as it relates to nuclear warfare.

But again, I would like to see Barack Obama take this issue head on.

As far as mind-reading goes, it isn't mind-reading to discern from public statements what one might expect from a candidate. In fact, we are required to do so as voters. I made a similar point when we were disussing how the senator might have treated the Irag War.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 25, 2008 2:42 AM

"The question of possessing nuclear weapons is not one of moral authority, but one of policy."

That has to be your analytical paradigm, because if you came to the conclusion that the possession of nuclear weapons should be subject to moral authority, you would then have to answer whether we as a nation have the moral authority to possess nuclear weapons. The answer just might be "no" and you would not be prepared to come to that conclusion because of course America has to be the strongest nation on earth- after all you live there and would not want it any other way.

"We are not going to drop a nuclear weapon on anyone unless provoked to do so by virtue of them having dropped a nuclear weapon."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki being (conveniently) the exception, of course.

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 25, 2008 9:57 AM

"That has to be your analytical paradigm, because if you came to the conclusion that the possession of nuclear weapons should be subject to moral authority, you would then have to answer whether we as a nation have the moral authority to possess nuclear weapons."

Or tanks, guns, a military or police force etc...

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki being (conveniently) the exception, of course."

You seem to have made a point, but have not done so. We are not going to drop a bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki for a variety of reasons, not least of which the fact that we have learned lessons from those two incidences.

I've asked this before, but do you think it would be acceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons?

Posted by: kevin s. | May 25, 2008 4:58 PM

Thx, Amanda, for a very thought-provoking article and the reminder that, for Christones, taking up arms can only ever be an absolute last resort. There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus to suggest that sabre-rattling is remotely consistent with the Christ-life and a purportedly Christian nation cannot be reminded of that enough.

"We are not going to drop a bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki for a variety of reasons, not least of which the fact that we have learned lessons from those two incidences." Kevin S

Help thou my unbelief, but you'll forgive me for confessing that the moral duplicity that has characterized the current U.S. administration renders some of us skeptical that we should trust the U.S.'s nuclear wisdom merely because of some nebulous lessons supposedly learned post-WW2.

Posted by: canucklehead | May 26, 2008 12:03 AM

canucklehead: "Help thou my unbelief"

Oh ye Canadians of little faith
Oh vous Canadiens de peu de foi

Posted by: carl copas | May 26, 2008 11:21 AM

I see there are many insightful posts with respect to our responsibility as Christians, notwithstanding the usual rationalizations and justifications presented by those who believe that we are living in a "different and more dangerous world". What could possibly be more dangerous than gaining world dominance—politically, economically, and militarily—at the expense of losing your own soul?

When Jesus said, "Put away thy sword", He did not say we had no right to defend ourselves. Rather, He forbade the notion of pre-emptive strikes out of fear and ignorance. Implicit in the words "turn the other cheek" is the undeniable fact that we each have only two cheeks to offer.

The militaristic drumbeat of Neo-Cons promotes the notion that giving one's life for another involves the taking of lives judged to be irredeemable by our arbitrary standards of "acceptable" behavior. Those who risk their lives to promote peace and understanding are judged to be "naïve fools". I guess that makes Jesus the biggest fool of all, since he gave his life so that ALL who come to believe in Him may have eternal life. He set no time limit or deadline on when that should occur.

Yes, radical Muslims have promoted Holy Jihad against any and all who will not submit to Islam. But our policies and actions in the world community belie the fact that our leaders believe in a world dominated and controlled by Christians.

I may have said it before, but I will say it again here:

This God's Creation, but it is Satan's World until the day that Jesus returns in all His Power and Glory. We cannot and will not convert the world to anything but a false Christianity by secular means. We cannot win by playing the Devil's game. We have tried that and now we are getting burned by our own hubris and arrogance.

As for the responsibility to protect innocent lives, we don't seem to be too interested politically in protecting the innocent lives of those who have nothing to offer that would be in our "national interest"—i.e., the self-interest of those who determine our policies. Thus, we find that the importation of prescription drugs from Canada is forbidden on the premise that they may be dangerous, while the production of those drugs or the compounds needed to produce them is outsourced to China (google Douglas Turner for the full story).

Now, here is a possibility that no-one has mentioned:

Perhaps the real reason that we invaded Iraq was for the purpose of isolating Iran in preparation for a larger war. Many Muslims are anticipating the emergence of the Mahdi—an Islamic Savior who is "destined" to convert the entire world to Islam. Some versions of the legend envision the return of Christ to state that He is really a Muslim. I believe that many uninformed Christians will fall for the notion that the Mahdi is really the antichrist and will accept the one who defeats him as the "real deal". I doubt that Satan's deception could be so transparent and obvious.

On the other hand, I have heard it said by some callers on talk radio that Obama is the antichrist. The Bible makes it clear that any speculation before he is revealed is fruitless. Frankly, it is my opinion that no-one will be condemned for voting him into power before he is revealed. We are only condemned for worshipping him as God.

In conclusion, what makes the "my country, right or wrong" crowd so sure that George Bush isn't that dreaded Man of Sin? He believes that he has a direct pipeline to God. He refuses to admit to making any mistakes. He has the power to declare Martial Law and cancel the elections. He is in his mind a "wartime President" that must "stay the course" at all costs. And who can ever forget his momentous speech promoting the notion of alternative fuels and energy independence as some radical new idea that Democrats never thought of 30 years ago? But such is the stuff of modern-day politics in America and the party of "ideas".

Posted by: Hermes (formerly JCinSunnyLA) | May 26, 2008 3:38 PM

This God's Creation, but it is Satan's World until the day that Jesus returns...

"The earth is the LORD'S and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein."--Psalm 24:1

Satan has no claim on what God created.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 26, 2008 6:08 PM

Canucklehead said:

"merely "

I say:

"not least of which" and "merely" are not synonymous. You managed to pull a couple of my pet words verbatim in your initial dig, so you might accord similar respect to my argument.

"You seem to have made a point, but have not done so."

Of course I did, which is why you reverted to the "I know you are but what am I" schtick.

But I will elaborate. The question of whether a nation ought to have nuclear weapons is answered by how said nation will implement their use. This, of course, is predicated upon the devastation that use of even one nuclear weapon would incur.

If we are to engage nuclear weaponry from a moral lens, we are then left to consider, in equal measure, tanks, guns, et al...

"I really would not need to answer that since it is an Iranian policy devoid of any moral imperative, according to your world view."

I'd ignore the category error here if it weren't relevant to the question. A weapon is not a policy.

At any rate, you rather clearly do not ascribe to my worldview, so I am asking whether, in accordance with your worldview, you think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. You seem to have a strong opinion about this.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 27, 2008 1:33 AM

"Just when it seems that God will not tolerate one more prayer from blood-covered hands, God beckons: "Come, let us reason together." Come, let us reason together."

Rather so I believe God is saying come unto me asking for forgiveness of your sins, then turn from your evil ways for my mercy and grace awaits.

military spending - 7 billion more than rest the planet combined in 2008 - nuff said!

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 27, 2008 6:48 AM

"If we can negotiate with a tyrannical government that had over 200 nuclear warheads aimed at nearly every state in our Union, why can't we negotiate with a tyrannical government that does not have such capacity to destroy us?"
Posted by: RJohnson | May 23, 2008 6:41 PM

The answer my friend is hidden within your rhetorical question - If Iran had two hundred nuclear warheads do you think we would be contemplating an attack. We have no one to keep us in check at this point so our War Horse trots on from border to border plundering and pilfering as the Romans of old. Time marches on!

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 27, 2008 7:20 AM

"I know you are but what am I?"

Now where did I hear that?

Oh ...

Chris Rock, as ''Mays Gilliam', running for President of the United States of America, North America', against 'Sharon Stone's cousin' in HEAD OF STATE, during a Presidential 'debate' which is as intensely and invigoratingly intellectual as it gets here sometimes!

Ha ha ...

Tremendously AUDACIOUS stuff, 'Head of State'.

I have been told that it's a terrible movie ...
As a matter of fact a friend said to me "I do not watch such rubbish." She can tell before seeing?

Anyway, I think it's hilarious and I would assume that this election year it would provide comic relief - especially with the candidates you've got lined up.

It seems quite prescient to me ... Imagine a black man in with a chance to win the American Presidential election ... Surreal, right? Only in America, right? Wrong, actually!

Sadly, of course, in the movie, Mays' double/bodyguard is shot right after the win is announced, by someone who possibly is out to assassinate the President-elect. Scary ...

Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | May 27, 2008 9:40 AM

P.S. - Get ready for an "October Surprise".

Posted by: Hermes | May 27, 2008 2:02 PM

Hermes:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Satan does not have any dominion over any governments. Satan can only tempt us and offer power to the kings of this world through God's sufferance. His reach is limited. Christ saw to that when he overcame death. Satan was defeated at that moment.

In Matthew 28, Jesus said, in part, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." Tell me, how much more authority will Jesus have after he returns than he already has?

To be sure, all things will not be made fully right until Christ returns. But we don't have to wait until then to see God's Kingdom manifest here and now. The Kingdom has already broken into history.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 27, 2008 2:41 PM

"The question of whether or not a country should possess nuclear weapons is one of policy, not morality."

Your reasoning represents a false dichotomy and merits no further consideration.

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 27, 2008 7:25 PM

JamesMartin, I think this is as much a red herring as it is a false dichotomy. The topic, after all, is talking to the Iranians, not Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.

We should be able to discuss the wisdom of engaging Iran diplomatically without being sidetracked by the nuclear issue.

After we begin talking to the Iranians, and once we begin establishing the boundaries of our common ground with them, then will be the time to bring up the nuclear concern.

I don't think anything will be accomplished on that front if we continue the sabre rattling and if we fail to begin viewing the Iranians as a human community, a nation, with hopes and dreams, some of which are not unlike our own, though others of which may baffle us.

The nuclear thing is simply a convenient excuse for us to see the Iranians as an "other" and thus to dehumanize them, so we can continue refusing to talk to them (as well as threaten to bomb them). I think it would be wise, for the sake of this conversation, to ignore the incessant prodding we are exposed to on the nuclear matter.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 27, 2008 9:37 PM

"JamesMartin, I think this is as much a red herring as it is a false dichotomy. The topic, after all, is talking to the Iranians, not Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program."

Yeah, Don. It is just another bad faith attempt to obscure the issues. What did Solomon say? There is nothing new under the sun.

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 27, 2008 11:07 PM

Sorry for the typo (should have been: posed NO immediate or proximate threat). I was flying by the seat of my pants and they caught fire.

Posted by: Hermes | May 28, 2008 1:13 AM

Canucklehead:

I read the report about the Canadian finance minister's leaving "sensitive" documents in his girlfriend's apartment. Is he a legitimate Antichrist candidate? We'll have to wait and see!

Kevin wrote:
So, do I understand you correctly to say that we should engage the Iranians diplomatically without deciding for ourselves whether it is acceptable for them to have nuclear weapons? Is that what you are saying?

Let me put it this way. Isn't it possible that Iran's threat to develop a nuclear weapon is at least in part a response to the U.S. Administration's belligerence toward them? As I and others have repeatedly mentioned but you have failed to acknowledge, Iran was prepared to assist the U.S. in ridding Afghanistan from the Taliban. Their government was beginning to moderate. But what did they get in response from the U. S.? The declaration that they were part of an "axis of evil." The Iranian response to this insult was to close ranks, forget about moderating, promote Ahmedinejad, and threaten to develop a bomb. Was Bush's axis of evil declaration entirely responsible for this? Probably not. But it certainly didn't warm the Iranians' heart. And it demonstrated the severely short supply of authentic wisdom in Washington (I'm not just speaking of Bush personally here).

Isn't it just possible that a turnabout on our part by showing good faith to Iran in opening dialogue and diplomacy--since we were the ones who snubbed them--could begin the process of defusing tension and eventually help change Iran's mind re. developing a nuke? Isn't it just possible that continuing our belligerent stance toward Iran--which is what McCain wants to do--will only prod them further down the nuclear pathway?

It's a two-way street, Kevin. If we don't want Iran to go nuclear, then we must treat them like we recognize them to be part of the human community and recognize those things that we hold in common with them--a dislike of Al-Qaeda being not the least of those. But if we continue speaking threatening words to them--if we continue treating them like a pariah--then they will respond in a way that we can expect someone who is being threatened would respond. Why should they respond any other way?

I have to wonder how much of Washington's goading of Iran is related to an unspoken desire for revenge over the events of 1979-80. If so, and to whatever extent, we need to recall God's words of warning against vengeance and leave that matter up to him. Otherwise, we just dig ourselves further in a hole. Don't forget what desire for revenge did to Hamlet.

Hermes wrote:
But Christ did not see to it; His Father did. Christ conquered DEATH, not Satan.

Wrong again:
"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The prophecy said that the seed of the woman (Christ) would bruise the head of the serpent. Christ's victory over death was simultaneously and assuredly the bruising of Satan's head, because it came at the same time as Satan's "bruising" of Christ's "heel" (the crucifixion). Yes, Satan is alive--for now. But he isn't well.

I'm not trying to downplay the reality of evil, or the reality of Satan's influence. But the notion that Satan is in control of things here on earth is just not supported by Scripture.

And I never said that any earthly government is (or could be) the Kingdom of God manifest on earth. I only said that the Kingdom has broken into history and that Satan cannot truly be in control of anything.

Peace to all,

Posted by: Don | May 28, 2008 8:08 AM

Hi Don,

What did Jesus mean by "the prince of this world"?

Does 'world' refer to a geographical reality or a spiritual one?

Is the world an evil place through which good manisfests itself or a good place where evil happens etc? Does God intervene to see that His will prevails, always, or ... Is He waiting for a particular time, of judgement, or cleansing, as He, meanwhile, allows the enemy to have a few 'victories'?

I don't know ...

Kevin,

Should IRAN be allowed to have nuclear weapons? That is a very very good question.

[Tongue in cheek] I would say absolutely NOT.

God knows there are enough nuclear weapons in the 'right hands' to annihilate the planet many times over already.

We do presume they are in the 'right' hands, right?

But, one might also argue that the answer to your question, Kevin, is, it depends on who you ask.

Or on who the 'permission giver' is.

Asking the Israelis and Americans, for example, is disingenious, do you not see that?

Now, I'll ask you Kevin, if these weapons are so lethal that you wouldn't allow Iran to develop one measly one, why do we not question here the necessity of anyone, I mean any nation, having any nuclear weapons? We all know some have hundreds of them ...

WHY?

And, I doubt that talking to Iran has anything to do with your government's deciding if they DESERVE a nuclear bomb.

That was decided a long time ago. Even their developing nuclear power for energy purposes would be difficult for 'you' to allow.

But, why force their hand? Just be nice, okay?

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | May 28, 2008 8:55 AM

What did Jesus mean by "the prince of this world"?

Alu, didn't Jesus say this BEFORE his resurrection, when perhaps it was more true than it was afterward (and is now)?

I don't know... but my take on theology tells me that Satan's defeat at that time was definitive if not absolutely final.

I'll go out on a limb and say that the binding of Satan (Revelation 20) took place at that time--i.e., at the time of the resurrection of Christ. The specific nature of that binding is so that he "could not deceive the nations" (Rev. 20:3). Some say that this won't occur until after the second coming. (And some say that nations certainly have been deceived in recent times, too--more on that later). I'm not so sure, because, you see, I'm not a millennialist; my view is close to Augustine's as outlined in Civitas Deo. I think the "thousand years" is a present reality--the Gospel age--so I don't look for a future "millennial kingdom" that will feature a more complete binding of Satan. In my view, when Jesus comes back, it will be time for final judgment and a new heaven and new earth, not some worldwide Kingdom with Christ physically and personally ruling from Jerusalem. And as far as the nations being deceived, I take that to mean that the Gospel cannot be prevented from going forth so long as the present age lasts.

but these are areas where I think we can disagree. At any rate, I just can't consider that Satan is really in control of anything, despite frequent appearances to the contrary.

Peace!

Posted by: Don | May 28, 2008 9:43 AM

The bottom line, Kevin, is the matter of trust. You not only don't trust the Iranians, but you don't believe it is ever possible to trust them.

I, along with many of us, see things differently. Trust is a two-way street. I have no doubt that they trust us much. If we aren't willing to talk to them, we can never establish the possibility for trust, let along build a foundation for it. We didn't trust the Soviets all that much either, but that didn't keep us from talking to them. In the case of the Iranians, it's certainly worth the effort to try.

Until they demonstrate an interest in ceasing this activity, it is certainly a matter of central importance whether they have a nuclear weapon.

So they have to stop their inflammatory posturing before we do. This is just silly and juvenile behavior. We can both continue acting like two immature children arguing over something in a sandbox and threatening to throw sand in each others' eyes, or we can decide to act like grownups.

Moreover, maybe their belligerance is a response to ours. You apparently don't even want to consider that possibility. And maybe they are arming people who want to harm us out of fear of what we are threatening to do to them. The Soviets armed our would-be enemies as well, as we did theirs. That didn't keep us from diplomacy.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 28, 2008 12:23 PM

"You not only don't trust the Iranians, but you don't believe it is ever possible to trust them."

Which Iranians? The ones in charge. No, I don't think it is possible to trust them.

"If we aren't willing to talk to them, we can never establish the possibility for trust, let along build a foundation for it."

I trust Albania. We haven't spoken with them much. We know by actions. We are not attacking Iran, but Iran is attacking us. It may be a two way street, but one of the lanes is rather wide.

"We didn't trust the Soviets all that much either, but that didn't keep us from talking to them."

The question is not one of trust, but how Iran will use the interaction with United States leaders. We inherently give them leverage by conducting diplomative talks. What do we get in return? These questions are at the heart of successful diplomacy.

"So they have to stop their inflammatory posturing before we do."

It isn't posturing. Iran is taking steps to back up their rhetoric, and so are we. But yes, one of the reasons we have an army is to force concessions out of our adversaries. Do you think the Soviets would come to the table were it not for our military power? Diplomacy doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Your sandbox analogy is ridiculous. There is every reason to take a strong rhetorical tact with Iran, and it has nothing to do with immaturity.

" You apparently don't even want to consider that possibility."

I have considered the possibility, and opted for a much more likely possiblity that gels with Iran's history.

"And maybe they are arming people who want to harm us out of fear of what we are threatening to do to them. "

If that is the case, then they have declared pre-emptive war.

Would you consider the possibility that maybe Iran's intentions move beyond simple self-preservation? Would you consider the possibility that they are one of the many entities in the Middle East that would like to destroy Israel? Is it possible that, given that their actions and words align, that they are actually endeavoring to achieve what they say they want to achieve?

You never answered my questions about nuclear weapons. Should the United States allow Iran to have nuclear weapons or not?

"The person making the argument holds his opponents to an impossibly high standard of having actual knowledge and proof of the point they are trying to make."

God forbid.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 28, 2008 2:06 PM

"And I am as guilty as anyone. I feel a little foolish - and quite un-Christian(!) thinking of clever things to write in response to Kevin S!" Alu

and I guess small things amuse small minds like ours, Alu, so here goes...

"I've answered this question repeatedly" Kevin S

which, of course, assumes that addressing a question or responding to it is equivalent to answering it...

or not responding to it, as the case may be...

take 2:

I'll concede your point on the distinction between "not least of which" and "merely" and eagerly await a delineation of the lessons the U.S. has learned post-Hiro/Nagi. And we'll consider that Agent Orange debacle in Vietnam a minor hiccup while the lessons were being learned, I guess.

Posted by: canucklehead | May 29, 2008 2:09 AM

Robert Alu, it would be great to converse with you personally. I can be reached at jgmartin82@hotmail.com

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 29, 2008 9:44 AM

When people bring up "antiChrist" and end times in a discussion about foreign policy it makes me want to run to the nearest rational humanist blog to engage in foreign-policy discussion that is free from such nonsense. Thanks to the cooler heads who diffused that tangent.

Posted by: I and I | May 29, 2008 11:18 AM

Hermes, I have a book recommendation for you:

A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, by Kim Riddlebarger. Baker Books, 2003.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | May 29, 2008 1:48 PM

Bingo, Alu, Don!

Posted by: canucklehead | May 30, 2008 1:18 AM

Don't worry, Hermes. Riddlebarger is a convert away from that kind of thinking.

D

Posted by: Don | June 2, 2008 10:53 AM

Hi everyone,

PEACE and warm greetings!

Very well said.
I only have two propositions:

1) Lets talk Peace. There's no other way to Peace...peace is the only Way.

Isolating Iran much less obliterating it using the US stockpile of nuclear weapons is next to impossible. The same with Iran's threat to destroy Israel; Hey you're not God.

Indeed, the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. He created Man to be with Him, not to lord it over one another.

2) Stop proliferation of armaments & weaponry. Only manufacturer of nuclear arms and other weaponry gets the money and reaps profits whenever there are wars.

Give more funds for education, health, food shelter, peacebuilding efforts and environmental protection.

Thanks and GbU!

Posted by: danny E. | July 4, 2008 12:17 AM