Faith and Conscience in the Indiana Primary (by James E. Brenneman)
Tomorrow, Indiana residents will play a significant role in the Democratic presidential race. It has been a long time – at least 40 years – since voices in this great state in the country's heartland have had such influence and were so valued.
As a Christian liberal arts college in northern Indiana that is rooted in the Anabaptist-Mennonite tradition of peacemaking, global citizenship, and servant leadership, we at Goshen College have been much more apt to be skeptical and cynical about partisan politics. But I am seeing an enthusiasm on our college campus for this election like never before, and even a sense of awe that our voice is desired to be heard. We have just launched a Web site (www.goshen.edu/election2008) focused on faith and politics, with various perspectives from members of our campus community.
Recently, CNN even visited to interview a group of our students, all first-time voters, about how their faith impacts how they may vote (to air tomorrow, May 6, between 6-9 a.m.). One of our students, Sheldon C. Good, a junior from Pennsylvania, later expressed in his blog, "I have a unique worldview to offer, and politics can be an avenue to voice such a perspective. … In fact, I've never in my life felt like my thoughts mattered and were valued so much before." Each of the students articulated a commitment to the college's core values, particularly what it means to have a Christ-centered view of the world. Each expressed excitement about voting in these elections.Such an enthusiasm for voting hasn't always been the case among Mennonites who have often lagged behind other citizens at the voting booth, reluctance partly due to a history of persecution by governments, opposition to warfare and military service, and a commitment to Christ over country. Ours has always been a conscience and values-based approach – one we believe, now more than ever, has value for the world.
Voting our conscience is a privilege rooted in Christian scripture. The Apostle Paul, a Roman citizen, outlined this principle in 1 Corinthians 14:29-30: "Let two or three prophets speak; and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to someone sitting nearby (in the gathered congregation), let the first person be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged."
In this passage lies one of the central principles of the Protestant Reformation: the right to dissent, the right to express one's opinion, the right for a community to decide for themselves, and in this case, how to relate to the medieval theocratic church-state establishment.
A small group of Christian university students called Anabaptists/Mennonites used these principles to demand the freedom of individuals to assemble voluntarily and decide together what the will of the community was to be. Roman Catholic leaders and most Protestant Reformers couldn't accept such radical notions of "free choice" in worship and life, even the absolute right not to believe, and the total separation of church and state.
I pause every time I hear politicians and others claiming that our God-given right to vote freely has been "won" by soldiers on the battlefield fighting and killing others for these freedoms. I pause because 480 years ago, it was these nonviolent Christ-followers who believed that in order for complete freedom of expression to be truly free, those opinions had to be formed in an environment without coercion. Some 250 years before it came to be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and accepted by nearly every Western democracy since, the idea of separation of church and state and freely voicing one's conscience was defended through martyrdom by these early Mennonites. These early Christ-followers refused to kill for a right that they believed was given to them by God as stated in scripture.
I will vote my conscience in the May 6 primary and in the Nov. 4 general election, not because my vote may ultimately matter, though it might. I will vote my conscience, not because that vote has been secured by violence. Rather, I will vote based on Goshen College's Christ-centered core values of compassionate peacemaking, passionate learning, global citizenship, and servant leadership. And I will vote my conscience in solidarity with my Anabaptist/Mennonite foreparents who thought such a freely expressed vote of conscience was in keeping with biblical precedent and died defending that God-inspired principle.
As U.S. citizens, we may not always be sure whether to vote Democratic or Republican, but we should in every case vote our conscience. And in this election, I believe those who do will help create a better world.
Dr. James E. Brenneman is an Old Testament scholar and the president of Goshen College, a Mennonite college in Indiana. Brenneman, who has a Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University, spent 25 years in Los Angeles as a pastor with an interest in ecumenical conversations before returning to Goshen College as president in 2006.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Dr. Brennaman, thank you for the historical reminder that freedom is not always, indeed perhaps not usually, won on the battlefield.
Posted by: carl copas | May 5, 2008 12:57 PM
As Mother Theresa observed, it is a poverty to decide that another person must die so that you may live as you wish.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | May 5, 2008 1:13 PM
An interesting point, but our freedoms under the U.S. Constitution were not won by Anabaptists during the 1500s. Brave patriots who fought and died in the Revolutionary War won our rights to freedom of speech and religious liberties under the U.S. Constitution. Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died to free our black brothers from slavery. Passive resistance has its place, but it is not the way that Americans have won and sustained their freedoms.
Posted by: Historian | May 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Voting is biblical and it opened my eyes to actually think before I vote in the General Election. We do not vote for someone because someone tells us to, but we vote to make our viwes and beliefs known. I and fellow citezns decide what our country is going to be. thank you for this article, it helped clarify and teach me more about biblical activism.
Posted by: Nathan Padilla | May 5, 2008 2:35 PM
It's impossible to reconcile the Gospel and the witness of the Apsotles, to a political party that represents hedonism and Godless secularism over all, with its grasp on abortion, redefining marriage in opposition to the teaching of Jesus and representing the tax collector attitude that Jesus compared a sinning brother that refused to be honest to.
Posted by: Testing it | May 5, 2008 2:38 PM
"a political party that represents hedonism and Godless secularism over all, with its grasp on abortion, redefining marriage in opposition to the teaching of Jesus and representing the tax collector attitude that Jesus compared a sinning brother that refused to be honest to"
That's a rather harsh summation of the Republican Party, if you ask me. Lighten up on them!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 5, 2008 3:12 PM
"Let two or three prophets speak; and let the others weigh what is said."
Surly Paul wasn't thinking way out into the future about a pair like Hillary and Barrack was he? "Prophets" there is the key word in the scripture. Come on lets not make it out to refer to something it was never intended.
The fact that this years nomination process is coming down to non-traditional key states like Indiana has to be a slap in the face to all those states that juggled their schedules in order to get their voting date on or near Super Tuesday - which seems so long ago now...
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 5, 2008 3:28 PM
"Brave patriots who fought and died in the Revolutionary War won our rights to freedom of speech and religious liberties under the U.S. Constitution."
Prior to the Revolution, American colonies enjoyed more freedom of speech and religious liberty than did most if not all of the rest of the Western world. Those issues had very little to do with reasons for the revolt against Britain.
"Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died to free our black brothers from slavery."
With that I agree, although I note that if the colonies had remained part of the British empire, slaves in the American South would have been emancipated more than 30 years prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: carl copas | May 5, 2008 3:40 PM
Bravo, neuro-nurse; I was thinking the same thing.
The problem with our concept of freedom, precisely as defined by the pro-war party, is that it is "freedom to:" freedom to do what I want, spend my money as I want, etc. Biblical freedom, OTOH, is precisely the opposite; it is "freedom from:" freedom not to be controlled by the oppressive, dehumanizing forces that determine the world's priorities. Since violence is the most powerful and destructive of these forces, it is literally impossible that "freedom from" can be won by violence. We may have won a kind of freedom by waging war - even, I'll grant, an important kind - but it is not the freedom promoted by the Gospel, and it is well to bear that distinction in mind.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 5, 2008 3:42 PM
"Historian" has a very strange interpretation of American History.
The Revolutionary War freed the American Settler elite from British rule but did little for the slaves of the period, indentured labourers or native American Indians who continued to be subjected to appalling abuse by their so-called "Christian" masters.
Union soldiers fought for a great many reasons but freeing black slaves was not the main one, just as freeing Jews,homosexuals,gypsies etc from the persecution of Hitler and the Nazi regime was not the main reason why the allies went to war in WW 11. Many black Americans still had very few religious and political liberties or freedom of speech at the end of the American Civil War. Most black Americans did not get the vote in the Southern States until well into the 1960's after the civil rights campaign which was inspired partly by Gandhi's campaign of passive non-resistance in India aagainst the then might of the British Empire.
Posted by: Florence (UK) | May 5, 2008 3:53 PM
An interesting point, but our freedoms under the U.S. Constitution were not won by Anabaptists during the 1500s.
Well I suppose it depends on whom you mean by "we". If you mean "we" as in the folks who landed on Plymouth Rock - then yes I suppose you could say that. But let me challenge you to take a larger picture of "we":
1) African Americans who were enslaved in the Americas for 400 years, won their freedom through non-violent means.
2) Women won the freedom to vote through non-violent protest.
3) Unborn children are having their right to live advocated for through (largely) non-violent political action.
On and on the examples go...
Posted by: splinterlog | May 5, 2008 4:03 PM
Dr. Brenneman,
Thank you for your encouraging commentary. It is refreshing to be reminded that there are indeed others motivated to vote one's christ-centered consciousness.
Posted by: Quetzal | May 5, 2008 4:06 PM
One of our students, Sheldon C. Good, a junior from Pennsylvania, later expressed in his blog, "I have a unique worldview to offer, and politics can be an avenue to voice such a perspective. … In fact, I've never in my life felt like my thoughts mattered and were valued so much before."
Relax Sheldon, eventually you'll find out that they don't really care about your opinions, what they really care about is coaxing you into repeating their slogans. (This largely goes for both parties, BTW.)
If you want to have your own voice heard, you're going to have to do more than just vote.
Wolverine
PS: Since we're on the subject of the Democratic primary, whatever happened to Barack Obama?
Posted by: Wolverine | May 5, 2008 4:13 PM
Historian,
I disagree with you that thousands of union soldiers died to free my/our black and brown people. But I do agree that many black union soldiers did. The white ones actually were mixed. Some fought and died to keep the nation together or for other reasons. That doesn't negate their sacrifice but please let's not ascribe nobility to something that isn't.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 5, 2008 4:40 PM
“I pause because 480 years ago, it was these nonviolent Christ-followers who believed that in order for complete freedom of expression to be truly free, those opinions had to be formed in an ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT COERCION.”
The very next sentence:
“Some 250 years before it came to be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and accepted by nearly every Western democracy since, the idea of separation of church and state and freely voicing one's conscience was DEFENDED THROUGH MARTYRDOM by these early Mennonites.
So, they had the idea of freedom of expression but were killed for trying to act on this idea. Looks like they were a few, “soldiers on the battlefield fighting and killing others” away from realizing this idea.
Posted by: DITE | May 5, 2008 4:43 PM
Since we're on the subject of the Democratic primary, whatever happened to Barack Obama?
Staying in the game despite attacks on his personal life by racists who can't handle a little bit of truth.
Posted by: splinterlog | May 5, 2008 4:43 PM
"I pause every time I hear politicians and others claiming that our God-given right to vote freely has been "won" by soldiers on the battlefield fighting and killing others for these freedoms."
You "pause..." I cringe.
Thank you for this article and permit me a plug for the MCC (Mennonite Central Committee). In 2003 I picked up a Time magazine in a hospital waiting room. On the cover was the heading: "Should Christians Try To Convert Others?" (paraphrase). Inside was an interview with to young men from the MCC working in a predominately Muslim country. Their response was that they never try to convert others to their religious persuasion but only go where needed to care for "the least of these." I have been a regular donor ever since. I greatly appreciate your inspiring and courageous work.
I am from Indiana and look forward to finally voting FOR a candidate instead of voting AGAINST a candidate.
Posted by: jackfate | May 5, 2008 4:48 PM
"Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died to free our black brothers from slavery."
That's why Bull Connor and his ilk were "free" to use attack dogs, fire hoses and other murderous violence against black folks simply for existing for another hundred years until Christian non-violent resistance changed everything. People still couldn't vote or own property or marry whom they chose and didn't even own their own bodies but were often forcibly sterilised. National eugenics campaigns, under the guise of scientism, gained the force of law in the first three decades of the 20th century, aimed at genocide of non-white Americans and immigrants.
The war betwen the states was waged after the South seceded; the North attacked to disestablish separate northern and southern nations, not for any particular human rights issue. In fact, even to Lincoln, compromise consigning African Americans and others to slavery and apartheid was a reasonable price to pay to keep the greater goal of Union intact.
Because the subsequent peace was imposed by force on people who hadn't been morally convinced, white Southerners then launched a terroristic insurgency which the federal government, having achieved its main aim of political unity, quickly acceded to in terms of its re-establishment of white supremacy and domination, for another hundred years.
The post reconstruction period receives short shrift in history, because it is such a dreadful and shameful episode. Looked at in detail and in context, it provides a powerful lesson in how using war to achieve moral aims is practically misguided. Any definition of "freedom" used to justify it demeans any genuine understanding of human rights.
No, any honest appraisal shows that only Jesus had it right: love your enemy and do good to those who spitefully use you, offers the only hope for a world of men and women who will try justify their fellow men as people to be destroyed in the name of their own "freedom" to be selfish.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | May 5, 2008 4:50 PM
DITE makes the quip about anabaptist martyrdom (a lot like that of the early Church martyrs, before Constantine and Rome hijacked the Church to "Holy War" for the next 1500 years:
"So, they had the idea of freedom of expression but were killed for trying to act on this idea. Looks like they were a few, “soldiers on the battlefield fighting and killing others” away from realizing this idea."
DITE, you have your War Jesus, while we serve the Prince of Peace. The latter is going to be saying to a whole lot of folks who killed in His name, "Depart from me, ye accused, I never knew you."
Maybe you'll have better luck with the former, whoever he is. I do not know him.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | May 5, 2008 4:57 PM
Another Anon,
When you wrote "The problem with our concept of freedom..." I wanted to know to whom you are referring when you say "our"?
Eric
Posted by: Eric | May 5, 2008 5:07 PM
Forty-five years ago, I took a political science class. The instructor half-jokingly told us that we can be sure that we voted for the right candidate if he loses the election. Since then, I have voted for the winner exactly once. That candidate was Jimmy Carter, who I believe to be the only true Born Again Christian who has served in my lifetime.
To this day, I have trouble believing that Evangelicals fell all over themselves to elect George Bush. After all, discerning Christians should be able to tell when a politician is pandering by paraphrasing Bible passages and mentioning the name of Jesus Christ at every opportunity. When he was asked in the 2000 debates which philosopher was most influential in his life, he practically blurted out our Lord's name before the question was completed. Then he couldn't explain how his life had changed.
Here is a copy of a letter to the editor that I never sent because there have been more eloquent appraisals of the situation that exists today:
If ignorance is bliss, then we must be the happiest people on the planet. The proof is in the pudding of political mud pies being thrown about with the adolescent glee of "gotcha" politics.
Hillary lied about creating jobs for WNY? How could anyone be so naïve as to believe that one junior senator could control the agenda of a divided Congress—much less gain the signature of a president on a mission from God to bring this nation to its knees? Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't realize that was what George Bush has been doing for the last 7 years? But I digress.
Barack Obama is a "closet" Muslim because his middle name is Hussein? Yeah, and I'm a demoted "saint" because my middle name is Christopher. His pastor leads a "cult" that hates America? Well, you can cherry pick sermons for a few sound-bites or you can listen to Bill Moyers' interview with Jeremiah Wright in which those same sound-bites were replayed in their original context.
I will leave it to Republicans to point out the nonsensical accusations leveled against John McCain. I am a lowly registered Democrat who hasn't voted for the presidential candidate of either major party since 1988, when I had to hold my nose as I pulled the lever.
Here is something for y'all to chew on until November. How can we be sure we will even have an election? Everything is in place to declare Martial Law. George Bush has proven in the past that he will do whatever he pleases, notwithstanding the will of the people. Dick Cheney will again say in the same self-satisfied way, "So?"
Posted by: JCinSunnyLA | May 5, 2008 5:22 PM
Another nonymous and Carl Copas:
Hey, I know this is off topic for this thread, but I found a copy of Neibuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society in my son's room.
He's at college of course. So maybe this isn't so off topic after all. He's attending Goshen College. Thanks, Dr. Brenneman, for your comments. Thank you and all at Goshen College for your historical stand for peace and reconciliation in the face of misunderstanding and hostility. Finally, thank you for your commitment, as you put it, to Christ over country. May God be with you all.
Carl, I promise I'll take a look at Niebuhr's book.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 5, 2008 5:39 PM
Barack Obama is a "closet" Muslim because his middle name is Hussein? Yeah, and I'm a demoted "saint" because my middle name is Christopher.
Then I must be a demoted apostle because my middle name is James! :-)
Thanks, JCinSunnyLA, for the smile. You should have sent that letter.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 5, 2008 5:45 PM
Splinterlog,
"Staying in the game despite attacks on his personal life by racists who can't handle a little bit of truth."
What attacks on his personal life? Did I miss something this weekend? Who are these racist you speak of and what truth can't they handle?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | May 5, 2008 6:36 PM
"How can we be sure we will even have an election? Everything is in place to declare Martial Law."
Wow
Posted by: J. P. | May 5, 2008 6:39 PM
As far as Dr. Brenneman's original article, the freedoms we enjoy in the west are the product of centuries of toil and struggle. I think a lot of people deserve credit, many of whom bore weapons and others did not. Much as I disagree with pacifism I can respect an honest pacifist and I won't begrudge the Mennonite martyrs some credit for the stand they took for freedom of conscience.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 5, 2008 7:15 PM
Wolverine,
How come you are throwing me and all the "dishonest pacifists" under the bus?
Man, isn't anybody gonna show us hypocrites any love?
Cool runnings and level vibes, Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | May 5, 2008 7:41 PM
"When you wrote "The problem with our concept of freedom..." I wanted to know to whom you are referring when you say "our"?"
OK; that was a rather big generalization. I mean those who hold to the conception of freedom that typically means "the freedom to do as you please, even if it means driving a gas-guzzling Hummer that is polluting everybody else's air and giving the earth a fever." This is not my conception of freedom personally, but I know many people who adhere to it to some degree, and are perhaps even willing to die for it.
"Well I can agree with your premise here Anom , but the opposite of the republican party is definetly not the democratic party , was not sure if you were implying that ."
I wasn't. Both parties have their problems, and tend to fall into the mentality I described above, each in their own way. That's why I said, in an earlier thread, that as a Christian I could never run for president. If I said what needed to be said, neither party would support me. Of course, n_n's post was ironic, as was my response.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 5, 2008 8:36 PM
"Of course, n_n's post was ironic, as was my response."
I beg your pardon?!
The truth be told, I really don't see much difference between the two parties. I plan to vote for the least bellicose candidate - and that ain't Clinton!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 5, 2008 8:58 PM
"Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" -TJ, 1776
Just a reminder from those who brought you the American Revolution.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 5, 2008 10:01 PM
Pacifism is not identical to non-violent resistance. The civil rights movement was not a pacifist movement, it was a movement of non-violent resistance.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | May 5, 2008 10:11 PM
Well -- I'm not saying I particularly like it-- but had our founding fathers not given in to slavery, this nation would probably not have been formed. The part that makes running a nation difficult is knowing when to compromise and when not to -- and all those decisions are subject to armchair historians to pick apart for the entire future before you.
I am deeply grateful for the role the Mennonites and Anabaptists played in our freedom. I also salute their work with the underground railroad during slavery. If you ask me, that's going to war for a cause in the best sense of the term.
Posted by: frankie | May 6, 2008 10:39 AM
Pacifism is not identical to non-violent resistance. The civil rights movement was not a pacifist movement, it was a movement of non-violent resistance.
Actually, several forms of pacifism exist. Non-violent non-resistance is one, though actually a rather rare form. Non-violent resistance, defined as a refusal to take up arms for a cause yet willingness to accept the consequences of disobeying the law when done for that cause, is indeed one form of pacifism. Civil rights era "direct action" (as Dr. King called it) may legitimately be considered a form of pacifism.
It is probable that not all the participants in this direct action were pacifists in principle (that is, believing as a matter of principle that it is always wrong to resist violence by force). But that doesn't change the pacifist nature of the direct action itself.
Don
Posted by: Don | May 6, 2008 11:07 AM
There are four positions that those claiming to be Christians (but certainly not just them) have taken:
1) Pacifism
2) Nonviolent resistance
3) Just War Theorists
4) Holy War practice
Pacifism takes the position of "do not resist evil" to mean that withdrawal and non-participation are what is morally imperative in the face of evil. Those so labelled often suffer from a criticism that they won't fight or sacrifice but still enjoy any benefits obtained by those who do.
Non-violent resistance means active and aggressive opposition in support of moral goals, but will not use violence. Those who engage in it will be killed as often as soldiers and make great effort and sacrifice, but will not kill anyone themselves. Examples of adherents in modern times have been the Danes in resistance against Nazi rule, Ghandi in South Africa and India, Martin Luther King and many others in America and the Dalai Lama and Tibetans. Only active good is permitted to fight evil, and the humanity of others is affirmed, even those whose actions are opposed.
Just War allows limited use of evil to fight a greater evil, on the theory that a good end can justify an evil means, if the proper relativistic measurements are employed to ensure that the amount of good achieved is greater than the amount of evil utilised. If it takes killing a million enemy civilians, to prevent the deaths of a million and one of one's own nation, then Just War theory has been satisfied. In actuality there have been formulated standardised criteria for Just Cause for and Just Waging of war, but in retrospect, it has always been significantly violated in every war, calling into question whether it is faithfully applied or simply used for hypocritical justification. In the runup to wars, it is often invoked by religious figures in support of politicians who have determined on a course of war, but the actual required criteria required by honest usage of Just War Theory are conveniently never detailed.
Holy War sees war and destruction as positive goods in themselves, since the enemy is seen as wholly evil - therefore to use any means for complete destruction of the enemy is wholly good.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | May 6, 2008 11:46 AM
Don: "Hey, I know this is off topic for this thread, but I found a copy of Neibuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society in my son's room . . . Carl, I promise I'll take a look at Niebuhr's book."
Don, feel free to contact me at bhikku_bum@yahoo.com. Another nonymous and I plan to read the Niebuhr book this summer and discuss by email. We'd love to have you join us.
Posted by: carl copas | May 6, 2008 11:52 AM
Wow, I can't believe some of these posts (and this article) -- SO unpatriotic! I'm NOT a big fan at all of Country music, but the following lyrics say it all:
"I'm proud to be an American,
Where at least I know I'm free.
And I won't forget the men who died
To give that right to me!"
Some of you ARE forgetting the men who died. The men who died to free the slaves in the Civil War, the men who died at the Alamo to free Texas from Mexican tyrrany, the men who died on the beaches of Normandy to free Europe from Nazi control, the men who died in Korea to give the South Koreans freedom from evil communism, and now the men who died in Iraq to free those people from Saddam Hussein's torture chambers and rape rooms. I won't forget them! Happy Memorial Day!!
By the way, speaking of the Indiana primary, I'm an Indiana Republican who voted for Hillary Clinton this morning! Why? To cause the evil Barack H. Obama the most trouble I can possibly give him! He's evil, folks! Do you remember in a Debate, when he was asked if he had any regrets as a Senator? His one stated "regret" was that he couldn't have done more to help Michael Schiavo kill his wife (Terry) any faster. EVIL!
Posted by: Al N | May 6, 2008 3:27 PM
Al -
What exactly do those lyrics say? There are so many grammatical errors I can't really tell.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 6, 2008 3:37 PM
Another Non (sorry, I just realized it's not "Another Anon),
Thanks for clarifying who "our" includes. I agree with you that a definition of freedom that is no more than "I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else" is warped.
As several of the founders made clear, the country and Constitution to which they were giving birth was meant for people that held to a moral code that was simply more than "if it's legal, and I want to do it, I should do it."
Posted by: Eric | May 6, 2008 4:03 PM
"As several of the founders made clear, the country and Constitution to which they were giving birth was meant for people that held to a moral code that was simply more than "if it's legal, and I want to do it, I should do it.""
I couldn't agree more, and I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who are offended by how often that link is forgotten. It's not a right vs. left thing.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 6, 2008 4:15 PM
Wow, did you really just applaud all killing in war and condemn as evil someone who supported euthanasia? Do you see any conflict here at all??
Posted by: mel57 | May 6, 2008 4:20 PM
Al -- I wonder if you would also then salute the folks who died during the Civil Rights Movement to secure the right to vote for folks like my aunts, uncle and cousins who live in the South.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 6, 2008 5:08 PM
mel57: "Wow, did you really just applaud all killing in war and condemn as evil someone who supported euthanasia? Do you see any conflict here at all??"
I believe Al N is attempting a "Comedy Channel" parody of conservatives.
Posted by: I and I | May 6, 2008 5:14 PM
I and I -
Let's hope.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 6, 2008 5:33 PM
Another nonymous, I and I:
You two are typical of the liberal arrogance that Barack H.Obama represents. You probably think I'm also "bitter" and that I "cling to" my guns and religion, too (even though I don't own a gun. There was nothing "comical" to my post. I am, unlike B.H.Obama, PROUD of my country!
I guess we could all sit around, humming, singing "Kum Ba Ya", and just HOPE that despots like Hitler, Hussein, Southern slaveowners, and Korean communists will stop their treachery.
Mel said: "did you really just applaud all killing in war and condemn as evil someone who supported euthanasia? Do you see any conflict here at all??"
>> NO conflict at all! I didn't applaud "killing", I applauded the SACRIFICE of the "men who died" for my freedom, and for the freedom of others. Many here do NOT appreciate their sacrifice. But I DO condemn as evil someone (B.H.Obama) who supported an adulterous husband (Michael Schiavo) who tried to kill off his handicapped wife as quickly as possible -- so that he and his mistress could still get some life insurance money before it ran out! B.H.Obama actually REGRETTED not taking a stronger stand to help Mr. Schiavo!
Posted by: Al N | May 6, 2008 5:46 PM
Al -
You really do come across that way; I honestly thought you were writing a parody too. If you knew me, furthermore, you would know that I'm not a person who is often described as "arrogant." Everything I post here, I post from my heart, from my deepest convictions and, most importantly, from my faith. If you can't imagine how that could be the case, you might want to do some soul-searching before posting here again.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 6, 2008 5:54 PM
Al N, I don't really know what's arrogant about the comments that I and I and Another nonymous wrote here in response to you.
On the other hand, you rode into town here with your six-guns ablazing with: Wow, I can't believe some of these posts (and this article) -- SO unpatriotic!, following it by denouncing one of our presidential candidates as "evil."
I'm wondering who the arrogant one is, to be quite honest.
Moreover, "this article" happens to have been written by the president of the college where our younger son attends. I have met him. I would never call him "unpatriotic," though that's a common misunderstanding of the peace-witness Christians like the Mennonites. That's because for 500 years, they have put loyalty to Christ and his Kingdom above loyalty to any earthly kingdom. Sometimes that witness has cost them their lives. Before denouncing his article so arrogantly and dismissively, you might want to take the time to learn about the Mennonites and their witness.
Finally, I don't believe in human sacrifice. That's paganism and close to blasphemy. Christ on Calvary is the final sacrifice. Our freedom is a gift of God's grace, not the result of human sacrifice.
God's peace,
Posted by: Don | May 6, 2008 5:55 PM
Al
Hitler was certainly very evil but in order to defeat him the so-called Christian democracies allied with an equally evil dictator Stalin and left half of Europe under his control at the end of WW 11. No freedom for Poland etc.
Here in the UK during the 2nd World War it is well documented that many British civilian families were appalled by the way the American military treated its own non-white troops. (Not that we treated many of our Commonwealh troops much better. One British officer was told to abandon his Indian troops at Dunkirk and was court martialled for managing to get them off the beaches and safely back to the UK)
Saddam was also very evil but most educated people believe the coalition invasion of Iraq was illegal under International Law and that ordinary civilians including women,children and the Christian minority are now in a far worse position now than they were under Saddam. American military atrocities at Haditha, Abu Graib etc are hardly something to be proud of.
The Schiavo case is interesting medically and ethically but Christians can have different opinions on the best management of these complex cases without being damned as "evil". ( Whether or not the husband commited adultery is not really that relevant.) Personally I believe that it is better to start ones life in the next world than exist in a vegetative state in this one.
Thousands of unnamed people die in the developing World every day because of the greed and unethical business practises of UK and US companies,which attracts far less attention than the death of Terry Schiavo.
True patriots see both the good and the evil in their countries political and social systems and work hard to make things better.
Posted by: Florence (UK) | May 6, 2008 6:30 PM
lloyd,
play nice.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 6, 2008 7:12 PM
Wow a darkness seemed to creep into the sight at about 6:41PM.
Posted by: Jeff | May 6, 2008 7:20 PM
Yes, Lloyd; that was out of bounds.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 6, 2008 7:31 PM
I have to agree. That was out of bounds. Please apologize.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 6, 2008 7:40 PM
Wow, the tide has turned.....it's getting dicey here. The spurious comment about Michael Schiavo blows me away. He killed no one. His wife was essentially dead, presumably from her own actions prior to the stroke. We have no right to judge a man who lived with a wife who was in a constant vegetative state. He is a human being and I'm happy to leave the judgment to the Lord. All reasonable medical authorities knew that his wife was never going to be 'normal' again. Give up the judgment. I didn't hear Barack make that statement but I would guess his reference was to the constant barrage of criticism and name calling that accompanied that continuing story. That her parents only got interested when there was money should be of interest to you, Al N, if you are consistent. This man did not murder his wife. He wanted her suffering to end. Have you ever been with a dying person? I watched my mother die and as she breathed so slowly, I told her it was okay, she could let go, we were all going to be okay and it was her time to go to God.....but as she drew her last breaths, I wanted to yell........NO! Don't go! I don't want to lose you!........but it wasn't my choice. She needed to go. I wanted to hold on. It's very painful. I am certain that Michael died a little every time he saw his wife for all those years that she lived in that vegetative state. Barach wanted him to know that many of us understood the medical problems here and that we did not blame him for seeking love outside of his marriage to a woman who was now incapable of loving him back. How can we judge what's in the heart of another person?
Posted by: Rosemarie DeJohn | May 6, 2008 8:32 PM
Rosemarie DeJohn,
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Yes, I've been with many dying people in my nursing career. Death is part of life, and it can be a beautiful transition from this world to the next. Medical technology can save or prolong lives, but it can also make death horrible, ugly.
It seems to me that most people, in this country at least, don't want to think about death - we deny it, reject it, fight it, and think that every day above ground is a good day.
Why would a Christian think that anyway?
Without medical technology, Michael Schivo would have buried his wife shortly after she arrested.
Just because we can keep someone 'alive' doesn't mean we have to or we should.
Withdrawing care from his wife was Michael Schivo's legal right - and it should have been a personal decision. These decisions are made every day. We never should have heard of the Schivos.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 6, 2008 9:08 PM
For those who want to follow Jesus, if you think that a liberal or conservative is your enemy, then you must make special effort to love that liberal or conservative.
For those who aver that violence is redemptive, do you think then it would then have been appropriate for oppressed African Americans in the sixties to have risen up in violence and started a racial war against their southern white oppressors, killing them instead of loving them and practicing non-violent resistance to the evil done by them?
How would that have been superior to what Jesus told us our attitude to our enemies was to be - to return good for evil?
I am sure everyone knows full well what the result would have been - hatred, violence and genocide, all of it seen as fully justified and vindicated by the white power structure. That is just what the white southern power structures were ready for, what they wanted - to provoke violence, so they could be justified in their own hatred and violence.
It's a kind of Charley Manson mentality that wants Helter Skelter, not that of Jesus. What was the spirit motivating the man who shot and killed, in a spirit of violent retribution, Martin Luther King? Was James Earl Ray the apostle of freedom, or the non-violent Dr. King?
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | May 6, 2008 9:11 PM
At the time, I thought the Schiavos were doing the right thing in fighting to keep their daughter alive. But when it became a political football that Congress started kicking around, it seemed obvious that Terri Schiavo's welfare wasn't really the issue. Congress never should have intervened in a private, family issue like that.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 6, 2008 9:38 PM
Don, PX, and Rosemarie DeJohn,
You really, really, REALLY need to read the WHOLE story of Michael & Terry Schiavo! Rosemarie's story of her mother's end is indeed touching, and it's so totally, totally different from the Schiavo tragedy!
Michael Schiavo was an adulterous man who lived and slept with another woman for YEARS while his still-married-to wife Terry lay in a nearby hospital. He impregnated this woman with two children while still married to Terry. He would go months without visiting his REAL living wife, but then only increased his visits when the press started paying attention. On one visit, a nurse overheard him saying, "Why won't you die, B*tch!" (paraphrased)
Meanwhile, Terry's parents (and siblings) pleaded with Michael to "do the right thing" -- to divorce Terry, marry his mistress, and turn over all medical decisions to those who still truly loved Terry. But NOOOOOO! Why couldn't Michael do this? NOT because he was "honoring Terry's wishes", but because she had a huge lawsuit payout (over $750,000) -- that was being used up in paying for her expensive medical care. It was in Michael's financial interest that Terry die -- so that HE and his mistress could get their greedy hands on Terry's money. The ONLY good news to this tragic story is that Terry's money actually DID run out, very near the end.
My point: When Barack H. Obama was given the opportunity to state a "regret", he regretted not helping this sleazy man end his wife's life sooner. He could have stated some regret about staying in a racist, un-American church for 20 years -- but he MORE regretted not helping a man kill his wife.
Posted by: Al N | May 7, 2008 10:53 AM
Don,
Am I arrogant? Yeah, sometimes. But the arrogance I was addressing was the arrogance of anti-American liberals like Barack H. Obama, who look down their elitist noses at those of us who they think are "bitter" and "cling to" our religion.
Further, I was NOT talking about "human sacrifice", I was talking about "self sacrifice", a quality that Jesus both advocated and demonstrated. Despite the politically correct pacifist re-education, MOST of the Union soldiers died to free the slaves. All of the dead Allied soldiers on the Normandy beaches died to help free Europe from Hitler. My Dad's cousin died in Korea to help keep the South Koreans free from communism.
Another example of this elitist arrogance is Florence's "most educated people believe the coalition invasion of Iraq was illegal". Oh really?? The majority of Americans who reelected Bush in 2004 would tend to disagree! But then again, we're still bitter and clinging to our religion, aren't we? Try this one: Iraq fired on our planes! That's an act of war, so we responded appropriately. Can you deny that? Of course that's NOT the primary reason for the war, but it proves it was NOT illegal.
Posted by: Al N | May 7, 2008 11:15 AM
Al N. can you give me an example of how in the world this statement is factual? "anti-American liberals like Barack H. Obama,"
I've never heard anything come out of the guy's mouth that would even closely resemble an anti-American remark. All that I know that he has done is to spend his life working to get a good education. Spend time voluteering to work in organizing groups in his community. Run for state and federal level offices and now a run for the highest office in the land. Does he have flaws like the rest of us, most certainly. Does he have special interest ties like most politicians - yes he does. Does he not profess to be a Christian, yes he does. Will I vote for him - probably not - but "anti-American" I just don't buy it.
I agree with others here that have stated that the American government had no business being invloved in the Schiavo situation. And quite honestly neither do/did all the Monday morning quarterbacks.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 7, 2008 1:04 PM
Al N,
In the first place, PX is an abbreviation for Pax Christi, not my initials
Second, as I said, Michael Schivo's decision to withdraw care from his wife was personal - it NEVER should have become fodder for the press. Therefore, I don't need to know anything more about Michael Schivo. His rights and his privacy were violated.
Third, I do not trust what I read in the media. Why? Because your strong opinions about Michael Schivo are not based on your personal knowledge of the man, but what you've read and heard in the media - things that are really none of your, or anyone else's, business.
Finally, I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me. You say that Barak Obama is 'evil' and use his comment about Terry Schivo as evidence to support that assertion. I may feel strongly, I may even sincerely believe that gw bush is 'evil' because of his manipulation of public opinion resulting in the invasion of Iraq - but I'm not going to make that statement publicly. I don't know gw bush, I don't know his motivation, just as you don't know Obama or his motivation.
Voting for a presidential candidate in this country is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Feel free to vote for which ever candidate you feel best addresses your concerns, but please don't tell me that whoever you decide to vote for best represents Christian values - none of them do.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 7, 2008 2:22 PM
Don,
Is your son still in Tanzania? How's he doing?
There's a good possibility I may go to Tanzania next year to teach care of neurosurgical patients to Tanzanian nurses.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM
Al N said, "All of the dead Allied soldiers on the Normandy beaches died to help free Europe from Hitler. My Dad's cousin died in Korea to help keep the South Koreans free from communism."
The act of dying on the beaches of Normandy did nothing to help free Europe from Hitler and your Dad's cousin dying in Korea did nothing to keep South Koreans safe from communism. It was the act of killing German and North Korean soldiers that accomplished that. Killing of fellow human beings is not a quality that Jesus either advocated or demonstrated.
Posted by: Tim | May 7, 2008 2:39 PM
Despite the politically correct pacifist re-education...
Don't equate pacifism with political correctness. Or with re-education (I'm assuming you mean "revisionism" here). Pacifism is at least as old as Christianity itself, so it hardly smacks of political correctness. In fact, Christian pacifism has throughout most of history been decidedly incorrect politically.
I'm not pacifist but I respect the position. You said you live in Indiana; I don't know how far from Goshen you live, but ought to consider visiting Goshen College some day and learning what pacifism and Christian peace witness are really about.
Regarding the Schiavo case (and I do commend you for spelling the name correctly), Neuro-nurse is correct. It really is none of our business. But since the media--and Congress--tried to make it our business, I'll repeat an old adage: there are two sides to every story. Given the complexities of this case, maybe more than two. You have chosen to see only one side. You need to take some time and learn different perspectives, especially before denouncing people such as Obama for making offhand comments.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 7, 2008 2:42 PM
Neuro:
He came home last month after being there three months. He had a wonderful time, and learned a lot.
He'd like to go back, if for no other reason than to have people he can practice Swahili on.
Don
Posted by: Don | May 7, 2008 2:46 PM
Further, I was NOT talking about "human sacrifice", I was talking about "self sacrifice", a quality that Jesus both advocated and demonstrated.
But earlier you wrote:
I applauded the SACRIFICE of the "men who died" for my freedom, and for the freedom of others. And in your first post you expressed similar sentiments.
I'm not going to get into hair-splitting with you over the similarities and differences between self-sacrifice and human sacrifice as a religious rite, but this does sound like the "sacrifices" of our soldiers are efficacious in securing our freedoms. This is theological language, like it or not. And it suggests a theology I'm very uncomfortable with from the perspective of orthodox Christianity. That's all I'll say.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 7, 2008 2:53 PM
Thanks Don,
I had to take a haitus from God's Politics for the semester, so I lost track of what the "regulars" are up to.
I'm sure your son gained a very valuable perspective during his time in Africa. It's kind of hard to spend any time there (other than as a tourist) and not come away changed.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 7, 2008 3:55 PM
Thank you n_n.
And welcome back! We've missed your wisdom.
D
Posted by: Don | May 7, 2008 5:09 PM
Al N; Ever hear of the draft riots in NYC?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 7, 2008 5:49 PM
To follow up Tim's comment: George Patton, a paragon for Al N I suspect, stated that winning wars was the art of NOT sacrificing their life but making the other poor SOB give his life for HIS country.
Don: Agreed completely- Human rights are rooted in the creation and can no more be "granted" than breathe. Any pretention of authority is an ayyempt to ascend to the throne and define the universe as the "Beast" would do.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 7, 2008 6:10 PM
Al N sounds like the loose cannon who was on here a couple of months ago. I don't recall his name now, but he was barred from Sojo. Then he reappeared under a different name, and was barred again.
The same bombastic, florid language; the utter inability to even respect an opinion different from his.
Posted by: carl copas | May 7, 2008 6:31 PM
It looks like lloyd was made to stand in the corner again... hee hee
Carl, I think you're referring to Donny...and the various incarnations that have appeared since then.
Posted by: Ross | May 7, 2008 8:06 PM
Ross, no, it isn't Donny. I think I know who Carl refers to, though. I'd type the name, but the last time I did the moderator didn't even let my post go through (their bot recognized the name as one that was banned, I suppose).
Donny is easy to spot, regardless of the name he posts under: he only writes variations on a single theme, that theme being that "progressive Christianity" is another form of "secular humanism." He usually refers to sexuality questions (e.g., gay marriage) as well. Further, he normally doesn't rant and pepper his postings with exclamations, all caps, rhetorical questions ending with multiple question marks (e.g., "Oh really??"), and similar indications of emotional outbursts.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 7, 2008 8:40 PM
"I think you're referring to Donny...and the various incarnations that have appeared since then."
No, Donny is much more articulate and a better writer.
I've had some bitter disagreements with Donny in the past. I still disagree with much of what he writes, but he does make some valid points and I've come to respect him.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | May 7, 2008 8:46 PM
I don't think Al N is the other "loose cannon" Carl refers to, either. Al spells "their" correctly. The one who was banned spelled it "thier."
D
Posted by: Don | May 7, 2008 9:44 PM
"I think a lot of people deserve credit, many of whom bore weapons and others did not. Much as I disagree with pacifism I can respect an honest pacifist and I won't begrudge the Mennonite martyrs some credit for the stand they took for freedom of conscience."
That which shocks the conscience in Dr. Brenneman's post is that when he speaks of the contributions of early Anabaptists to the cause of freedom, he discusses how they did this in a fully Christ-like manner- without resorting to violence- yust as Jesus freely gave himself up to the cross. That notion is rather shocking to us as human beings who are so used to fighting for everything- especially those who feel that conflict and fighting should be the option of first resort and that it somehow must be extolled.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 8, 2008 5:18 AM
Thanks, Don. No, I'm NOT the "loose cannon" who was barred from Sojo -- as I was never barred from Sojo. Sorry folks, if I've got you all worked up, but a few things just really rub me wrong -- as a Christian. One thing is the lack of appreciation for "the men who died to give that right to me". I'm sorry, but any idea that the self-sacrifice of these real heroes was for anything other than our freedom -- THAT is what I'm referring to as "politically correct paficist reeduction" (or "revisionism", as Don correctly pointed out. It's like the silly ideas being taught in our schools that Lincoln was a racist and he didn't REALLY want to free the slaves. That's outright silliness!
Another thing that's got me spewing emotionally is the fawning adoration I see on this website for Barack H. Obama -- like he's some "Christian answer" for us. THAT is as silly as the propaganda that he's non-partisan and post-racial. His campaign is ALL ABOUT race (just ask Rev. Wright) and he's about the MOST partisan senator in Congress! His credentials as a "Christian" are extremely weak. Check out the transcripts of his Senatorial debates with Alan Keyes -- he openly said that, if he were to talk with Jesus, he would ask him "whether I'm going up or down". This "wonderful Christian" doesn't even know if he's saved! Add to that this awful church he's been going to for 20 years -- a church where the pastor says "G-D America!" and "America's chickens are comin' home.. to roost!" -- and then the congregation shouts and cheers in approval. Any Christian who supports B.H. Obama is compromising, that's my opinion.
Posted by: Al N | May 9, 2008 1:21 PM
The false prophet in the end unites church and state, and forces all to adhere to the doctrines of the church, whose leading denominations "unite on common points of doctrine" "for the common good." The USA came up like a lamb in the beginning of its existence, but in the end will "speak like a dragon," forming a theocracy, because of false Christian politicians who believe America was founded as a Christian Nation. Glitteringspear
Posted by: Paul M. | May 10, 2008 11:30 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?