Who would Jesus bomb?
Nuvo -- March 19, 2003
by Fran Quigley


George W. Bush is the most self-consciously Christian president in recent history. He routinely invokes God in his speeches, wears his faith in Jesus as a badge of moral and electoral honor and is known to spend time daily either reading evangelical texts or studying the Bible.

On Monday night, this man of faith all but declared a preemptive war against an impoverished nation, and in so doing ignored calls for peace issued from around the globe. Many of the president's fellow Christians are wondering just what Bible he is reading.

"Bush seems to have no feeling for the human cost that this will bring to Iraqis who will be slain by the 3,000 bombs we promise to let loose right away," the Rev. Bill Nottingham says. Nottingham is a retired minister of the Disciples of Christ and United Church of Christ, and a board member of the Indianapolis Peace and Justice Center.

"He represents a kind of religion in America that has very little concern for social justice and the common needs of people."

Nottingham's message is echoed by the majority of Christian leadership worldwide. Those openly opposed to this war include the Vatican, the ecumenical National Council of Churches and most of the major Christian denominations, sometimes known as the "historical churches." Bush is a Methodist, but 20 U.S. Methodist bishops recently sent him a letter saying that a preemptive attack on Iraq would violate God's law. Methodist Bishop Melvin Talbert told Newsweek, "It's clear to us that he [Bush] is not following the teachings of his own church or the teachings of churches that believe in a 'just war' theory."

Heavy Christian involvement strengthened the worldwide protests against the Iraq war plans. Roman Catholic priest Jerry Zawada, an Indiana native, is among several dozen Christian activists so opposed to the upcoming attack that they are staying in Baghdad throughout the coming invasion.

In the face of this Bible-thumping outcry, why is a Christian president pursuing war? Likely Bush truly believes the violence is morally justified, but he also knows that peaceful bishops don't deliver as many votes as their war-supporting flock. The most recent Harris poll says 80 percent of the U.S population identify themselves as Christian, and these Christians are more likely than people of other faiths to favor a war with Iraq. Neither Bush's conscience nor his re-election plans are significantly bothered by thumbing his nose at what most Christian leaders believe to be Jesus' teachings.

Nottingham is well aware of that poll data, and it dismays him. He feels it demonstrates the worst possible application of the Christian faith. "For me, Bush's religious affirmations are like the prosperity gospel (which holds that God gives special blessings to the wealthy). Both show that religion can be a corrupting influence rather than a transforming one, especially when it leads us to rationalize violence and self-interest. And I don't think 'corrupting' is too strong a word," he says. "I do believe in God's blessings, but I also believe that God loves disadvantaged people in globalized society as much as He loves us."

Nottingham suggests that Bush's next Bible study include the Beatitudes, particularly Matthew 5:9 ("Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"). Jane Haldeman, a Quaker and member of the group Christians for Peace in the Middle East, would like the president to read the Ten Commandments (particularly Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill") and the Golden Rule (Luke 6:31). "I don't think those parts of the Bible support in any way defending ourselves at the expense of others," she says.

In his address to the nation Monday night, Bush's final words were, "May God continue to bless America." Many of his fellow Christians think it would be a blessing for the president to take a closer look at the teachings he claims to follow.

"I feel we are called through our faith to look at peaceful ways to resolve problems," Haldeman says. "And there is plenty of Scripture to back that up."

"The only major U.S. denominational leader to come out in favor of a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq is the Southern Baptist leader Rev. Richard Land of Nashville,"

It is clear that "liberal" is anyone who doesn't share your literal interpretation "in context." The US Conf. of Cath. Bishops has been called many, many things, some just and some unjust, but "liberal" has never been one of them. The same can be said of evangelical Lutherans. Bush is Methodist.

But, if my article is bias, I challenge you to find one Christian denomination, other than SBC, who has come out in favor of the pre-emptive war. Remember, you have previously stated that their is no Scriptural basis for a "just war."

Sounds like the rantings of "liberal" denominations.

More heresy from the godless-liberals of academia.

Chronicle of Higher Education - web daily - September 23, 2002

100 Christian Ethicists Challenge Claim
That Pre-Emptive War on Iraq Would Be Morally Justified

By SCOTT McLEMEE

One hundred Christian scholars of ethical theory have issued a statement opposing pre-emptive military action against Iraq. Most of the signatories are affiliated with American universities and seminaries.

http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/chron.htm

Shaun Casey, Wesley Theological Seminary

Stanley Hauerwas, Duke University Divinity School

Lee Camp, David Lipscomb University

Gerald Schlabach, University of St. Thomas

John Mark Hicks, David Lipscomb University

Tobias Winright, Simpson College

Rodney Clapp, Brazos Press

Michael G. Cartwright, University of Indianapolis

D. Stephen Long, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary

M. Therese Lysaught, University of Dayton

Dennis M. Doyle, University of Dayton

Cheryl Sanders, Howard University Divinity School

Margaret R. Pfeil, University of Notre Dame

Kelly S. Johnson, University of Dayton

Laurel M. Jordan, Middlebury College

Michael J. Gorman, St. Mary's Seminary & University

Sandra Yocum Mize, University of Dayton

Thomas Massaro, S.J., Weston Jesuit School of Theology

Fr. Allyne L. Smith, Jr., Mercy College of Health Sciences

Elizabeth M. Bounds, Candler School of Theology, Emory University

D. Brent Laytham, North Park Theological Seminary

Brad J. Kallenberg, University of Dayton

Roger Betsworth, Simpson College

Nancey Murphy, Fuller Theological Seminary

William T. Cavanaugh, University of St. Thomas

Rex Hamilton, Rochester College

Beth Newman, Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond

Daniel M. Bell, Jr., Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary

Nancy Duff, Princeton Theological Seminary

Gabriel Palmer Fernandez, Youngstown State University

Ronald H. Stone, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Peter J. Paris, Princeton Theological Seminary

William Schweiker, University of Chicago Divinity School

Glen Stassen, Fuller Theological Seminary

Rev. Scott Langford, Decatur Church of the Nazarene

Gene Outka, Yale University

John Langan. S.J., Georgetown University

Jerry Gentry

Andrew Gilman, Harvard Divinity School

David S. Cunningham, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary

J. Denny Weaver, Bluffton College

Christine E. Gudorf, Florida International University

Cynthia Crysdale, Catholic University of America

Christopher Dreisbach, St. Mary's Seminary & University

William M. Tillman Jr., Hardin-Simmons University

Ted Koontz, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary

Gayle Gerber Koontz, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary

Michael J. Gorman, St. Mary's Seminary & University

Max L. Stackhouse, Princeton Theological Seminary

George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary

Brian D. Berry, College of Notre Dame of Maryland

Scott R. Paeth, Albertson College of Idaho

Ray C. Gingerich, Eastern Mennonite University

Sondra Wheeler, Wesley Theological Seminary

Carol Robb, San Francisco Theological Seminary

Peter Gathje, Christian Brothers University

Tokunbo Adelekan, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Karen Lebacqz, Pacific School of Religion

Emilie Townes, Union Theological Seminary

Eric Mount Jr., Centre College

Fr. Scott A. Benhase, St Philip's Church, Durham, N.C.

Michael M. Mendiola, Pacific School of Religion/Graduate Theological Union

Duane K. Friesen, Bethel College

Stacy L. Patty, Lubbock Christian University

Robin Steinke, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg

Mark Thiessen Nation, Eastern Mennonite Seminary

Rev. Marvin Lindsay, John Calvin Presbyterian Church, Salisbury, N.C.

Barbara Green, Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy

Martha Ellen Stortz, Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary

Paul Lewis, Mercer University

William Everett, Andover Newton Theological Seminary

Richard Gula, Franciscan School of Theology

Mikael N. Broadway, Shaw University Divinity School

Andrew S. Pak, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary

William Kooi, Oklahoma Christian University

Joel James Shuman, King's College

David Little, Harvard Divinity School

Darryl Trimiew, Colgate Rochester Crozier Divinity School

Chris Noyes, First Presbyterian Church, Beaver Falls, Pa.

Roger Shinn, Union Theological Seminary

Virginia Landgraf, Princeton Theological Seminary

Daniel Maguire, Marquette University

Allen Verhey, Hope College

Fr Paul Surlis, St. John's University, N.Y.

Michael Duffey, Marquette University

Stephen Charles Mott

Judith Mayotte, Marquette University

Thomas Hughson, Marquette University

Jame Schaefer, Marquette University

Patrick Carey, Marquette University

James Childs, Trinity Lutheran Seminary

Franklin I. Gamwell, University of Chicago Divinity School

Steve Bouma-Prediger, Hope College

Tim Beach-Verhey, Davidson University

Richard B. Miller, Indiana University

Alan Johnson, Wheaton College

Miguel De La Torre, Hope College

Richard B. Hays, Duke University Divinity School

Edward R. Sunshine, Barry University

James W. Lewis, Anderson University

Does this put pre-emptive war "in context"? Heathen like webster and razal will never understand what we witness as Truth in context.

Statements by Christian Church Leaders Regarding War against Iraq

The only major U.S. denominational leader to come out in favor of a unilateral pre-emptive strike against Iraq is the Southern Baptist leader Rev. Richard Land of Nashville, Tennessee. Most other Christian leaders in the U.S.A. and abroad are against any pre-emptive strike. A sample of statements follows.

http://www.cofchrist.org/iraq/Christian_leader_statements.asp

Biblical perversion for political atrocity is as old as the Bible itself.

Mlsoft, tonight you have added new meaning to the term "Amen Corner."

Mlsoft, That is fascinating spin. But you are the literalist and this one seems rather straight forward.

"Respond to active evil will with active good will."

You repeatedly claim to be a "professing" Christian, but there is NO WAY to justify the torture of another by the teachings of Jesus.

Msloft,

We're talking about a government policy of detainment without due process and the imposition of torture. I would have no problem defending my family without regard to anything else but I've never been out Bible-thumping for anyone else.

You responded:

"Ok -- expound the Scriptures, in context, to validate your opinion of what Scriptures teach about torture."

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8815282

If you believe torture is somehow justified per Scripture, please expound in context.

Yes, that Foxman. Do you want the SBC witnessing to you?

Msloft, Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe you've changed the subject, but the situation you describe is self defense. I'd defend my family and yours if the situation presented. But what does this have to do with the Bible?

How does one justify torture based on the teachings of Jesus? The original post that you responded to was titled "Who Would Jesus Torture"?

"Would you be willing to use whatever means was necessary to get the information"

Absolutely, but, in defense of US government tactics, you claim there's some Scriptural justification for torture. Clearly, you're perverting the Bible to a political end. But that's nothing new. Scripture has been used to justify some of humanities worst atrocities. Osama is actually doing the same.

Very well said.

Like I said, mlsoft, if you think that anything in the NT would tend to justify the torture of another individual, I suggest you re-read. There is nothing to support one human's torture of another. You have missed the message.

Learning involves an open mind. Rather that getting into a chapter and verse marathon, perhaps you should re-read. If you think there is anything in the teachings of Jesus that would tend to justify the torture another individual, you have wholey missed the point.

The spin is outrageous.

"When there is no clear guidance to be found in Scripture, we must turn to the principals that are taught therein."

Oh, I think there is.... You may not find a Chapter and Verse mentioning torture specifically, but the message is clear for anyone who is inclined to read with an open mind.

Who would Jesus torture?
Bush administration opposes McCain anti-torture bill

David Batstone
Sojourners
11.10.05

Christians of strong religious faith and sound moral conscience often end up in disagreement. Human affairs are a messy business, unfortunately, and even at the best of times we only see through a glass, darkly.
It is hard for that reason to call Christians to a universal standard of behavior. At this moment, however, we cannot afford to dilute the message of Jesus into meaningless ambiguity. There are certain acts that a follower of Jesus simply cannot accept. Here is one: A Christian cannot justify the torture of a human being.

The practice of torture by American soldiers is a hot topic at the Pentagon, in the Congress, and in the White House at the moment. The U.S. Senate already has passed 90-9 a bill that prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. The lead advocate of the bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was tortured by his captors during the Vietnam War. According to The New York Times, the Pentagon adopted a policy last Thursday to rein in interrogation techniques. The new policy uses much of the same language as the McCain amendment -- drawn in large part from the Geneva Convention -- to adopt standards for handling terror suspects.

Remarkably, the White House opposes the Pentagon initiative, and threatens to veto any legislation to which the McCain bill gets attached. Vice President Dick Cheney has urged Republican senators to allow CIA counterterrorism operations internationally to be exempt from the ban on mistreatment of prisoners, major newspapers reported.

On Nov. 3, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said during an interview on NPR's "Morning Edition" that memos from Cheney's office practically encouraged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Though in "carefully couched terms" that would allow for deniability, the message from Cheney's office conveyed the sentiment that interrogations of Iraqi prisoners were not providing the needed intelligence. Wilkerson said soldiers in the field would have concluded that to garner better intelligence they could resort to interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war."

Republican senators are among the strongest voices in the growing chorus of criticism. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said, "I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture." And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-sponsor of McCain's measure, agreed: "I firmly believe that it's in the best interest of the Department of Defense, the men and women of the United States military that this manual be their guide."

When the existence of secret CIA detention centers became public this week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called for investigations -- not about whether they violate laws governing human rights -- but about how the information was leaked. But members of their own party are keeping the focus where it belongs. The Washington Post quoted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) as saying, "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."

Admittedly, Christians of good faith part paths when political conflict leads us to consider what constitutes a just and righteous war -- or if any war can be just. Though we may not consent on the means, we do consent on the need to confront the spread of evil in the world. Yet we can all affirm scripture when it says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means, those means mark our own character.

In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

All the more so, Christians must oppose torture under any circumstances. Consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot imagine Jesus finding a single "exemption" that would justify such an abuse of any individual made in God's image.

Though I bristle whenever I hear someone refer to the United States as a Christian nation -- it is such a loaded phrase -- many in the Muslim world see us as such. How tragic it would be for Muslims to identify the message and mission of Jesus with torture and terror. We must not allow that to happen.



(c) 2005, Sojourners

Ex-neocon hawk Paul Wolfowitz now touts peace
World Bank chief tries to distance himself from Bush
Dana Milbank, Washington Post

Thursday, December 8, 2005


Washington -- On another day when the Iraq war was tearing Washington apart, a leading architect of that war, Paul Wolfowitz, was donning sheep's clothing over at the National Press Club.

The former deputy defense secretary, now president of the World Bank, gave a 30-minute speech Wednesday about the virtues of peace, the ills of poverty and the benefits of multilateralism -- without a mention of Iraq.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/08/MNG75G4IM51.DTL

"How do you account for the intelligence failures regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" he was asked.

"Well," he said after a long pause, "I don't have to."

Five centuries

As the senior law lord, Lord Bingham, said: "Torture and its fruits" have been regarded with abhorrence for over five centuries in English law.

But in July 2002, SIAC decided that it was entitled to consider evidence which may have been obtained under torture. That decision is now null and void.

The effect of the law lords' judgment may be felt in countries which also have a common law system, such as Canada and Australia.

And even the United States will take note of it.

Carla Ferstman, Director of Redress, one of the 14 human rights organisations which were a party to the case, said: " This must have an impact on the process known as extraordinary rendition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4510866.stm

The 'Official' Government News Network
by James O. Goldsborough
Published on Thursday, July 15, 2004 by the San Diego Union-Tribune

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0715-09.htm

Murdoch newspapers led the charge to weaken the BBC.

Most European nations – with the exception of former Soviet ones – are moving away from official news. In America, however, Murdoch, who has many friends in Washington and is extending his news empire by expanding his cable and satellite ownership, provides viewers with an official Republican channel.

It may be successful and it may be patriotic, but it is not news. You don't have to watch it very long to realize that these people are peddling propaganda, opinion dressed up as fact. They have invented a clever motto – "fair and balanced" – to distract viewers from the reality of their Orwellian doublethink, defined as keeping the contradiction in mind as one says the opposite.

Fox News eliminates the need for thinking, reducing complex issues to the simple right-wing orthodoxy Murdoch has discovered as his formula for making money. It represents a stark break with American news traditions.

It is possible to indoctrinate children very early on with insane ideology, and their brains function differently as adults. If you teach hatred, you raise unstable children.

Ahmadinejad is insane. He's a huge threat to the region.

Isn't extremism the spawn of Saudi Wahhabism?

Move Israel to Europe, Iran Leader Suggests

By REUTERS
Published: December 9, 2005

TEHRAN, Dec. 8 (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran expressed doubt on Thursday that the Holocaust took place and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/international/middleeast/09iran.html?adxnnl=1&oref=login&a...
---

I think this came from the same Mecca summit.

Islamic leaders unveil action plan to rescue a 'nation in crisis'

· Summit rails at 'deviant ideas' behind terrorism
· Saudis see deprivation as root cause of malaise

Brian Whitaker in Jeddah
Friday December 9, 2005
The Guardian


Leaders of more than 50 Islamic countries at a summit in Mecca called by Saudi Arabia's ruler, King Abdullah, adopted an ambitious plan to combat extremism and poverty throughout the Muslim world yesterday.
The summit was prompted by an admission that Muslim societies had fallen into a deep malaise. "The Islamic nation is in a crisis," the leaders said in a final statement. "We need decisive action to fight deviant ideas because they are the justification of terrorism. There is a need to confront deviant ideology wherever it appears, including in school curriculums. Islam is the religion of diversity and tolerance."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,1663429,00.html

Purim cookies with little infidels in costume? Not PC.

Jehovahs don't do Halloween. Occult holiday.

No birthday parties either.

Some people take themselves way to seriously.

It's Time Mag.

In Antwerp, the far right is facing off against muslims. Who's winning?
February 28, 2005 | Vol. 165 No. 9

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,901050228-1029799,00.html

With European birth rates at historically low levels, immigrants have become the most dependable source of population growth for many countries, including Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. In Spain, which has one of the world's lowest birth rates, the government this month began offering permanent residence to some illegal immigrants who could prove they had jobs. The program could legalize as many as 800,000 immigrants. Dewinter fears plans like these will create an "explosive cocktail" of ethnic groups. "Islamization is Europe's biggest problem right now," he says, "and if we don't do something fast, it will be too late."

There's talk of the Islamization of Europe. Given the current geopolitical situation, there are profound consequences for us. The problem is no one can keep up with the birthrate. Christians and Jews would need to have more babies, but only the homeschoolers and ultra-orthodox are doing that.

Europe will eventually pay a price for their lax immigration policies as we will pay a price for our open borders. History has proven time and again that religion based hatred has atrocious consequences. Aspects of Islamic thoughts are Medieval. I hope we're not headed to a repeat of Medieval times.

I agree. The run-up to the Iraq war is a good example. It represented not only a failure of government, but also a failure of the media, the so-called "free press." They all fell lockstep behind the war party even though there were legitimate questions that should have been asked. The only "cakewalk" was the actual run-up to the war.

Then maybe the Saudis are for the demise of the Republic. Fox is not good for America.

Mlsoft, Some of us credit individuals with conscience and believe individuals are best able to make their own medical and reproductive decisions. Some of us believe that with government, less is more. Some of us believe otherwise.

First they came for the Jews
Then they came for the Communists...the trade unionists...

That about sums it up. Now we support torture of whomever the government deems a "terrorist" without due process. The Murdoch media, the propaganda arm of the Bush regime, is trying very hard to spin anti-war folks as traitors. If they are successful, what's to stop the regime from using treason statute to lock up Iraq war detractors? Rupert Murdoch claims they are guilty of aiding and abetting. That's treason.

em, There's something wrong with that link. It caused my computer to freeze, shut down, re-start.

As for torture, it is incredible to hear the right-wing media spin it as a good thing. Polls indicate that most Americans support torture for "terrorists." Of course, we deem them terrorists without due process, but what the hell. Al Qaeda attacks us on 911, and we become a bunch of good Germans, supporting torture and war against unrelated countries because Cheney told us it was a good thing, and someone must pay for those attacks.

Alito has been called Scalia-lite. To overturn Roe v. Wade puts government in the center of medical and reproductive decisions, assuming that government is better able to make those decisions than individuals. But Alito will be confirmed because Dems don't have the guts to take a stand, and because Bush is hurting in the polls. A chance to overturn Roe will rally the base like nothing else could.

Polls concerning Roe are very interesting. The country is split about 50/50 on abortion, but when it comes to overturning Roe, a much smaller minority of Americans are in support. This proves one can think abortion is a bad thing, but understand the need for Roe. The right doesn't want to go there. I think Hillary tried to make this point a while back. I'm not sure how successful she was. The far-right spun it as "taking both sides of an issue" like Kerry. They're very black and white, simple people.

Odom is with the Hudson Institute, a neocon think tank.

Iraq fight threatens American power, retired general says

http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=10692

He argued that U.S. foreign policy, unlike domestic matters, has no formal system of checks and balances other than the wisdom of the leaders carrying them out. He said that today, foreign policy is threatened by "small-minded" American leadership and by "dwarfish" leaders in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

The cause of this drift, he continued, is a failure to understand the character of this American "empire." Among its attributes are that it is ideological, not territorial, and that that ideology is liberalism, not democracy; that it is a moneymaking empire, not a money-losing empire; and that other countries fight to get in and not out — until now, after the Iraq invasion, he argued.

Lt. Gen. Odom warned that the Iraq quagmire in which the U.S. now finds itself threatens to push the system into "precipitous freefall," and called the invasion possibly the greatest military disaster in the country's history.

He said President George W. Bush squandered the international support and good will the United States enjoyed following Sept. 11, 2001.

Among the alleged missteps the president made were his "axis of evil" comments in his 2002 State of the Union Address, in which, the lieutenant general noted, the president added Iraq, Iran, Syria and North Korea to the nation's list of enemies following the 2001 attack by al Qaeda; falsifying the claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction; and the "preposterous" claim that toppling Saddam Hussein would spur democratic reforms in Iraq.

He claimed the Bush administration turned its back on its allies with the invasion; the Army is stretched to the breaking point in Iraq; public support for the war is waning; and that the administration is pretending there is an Iraqi constitution in place while a civil war in the country rages on.

"The basic reason we are in this mess is that our leaders misunderstand the basis of American power," Lt. Gen. Odom said, arguing that the support of allies is what that power is built upon.

We approve of torture now? My, what a bunch of good Germans we are becoming.

Cavuto just accused Kerry, Boxer and Dean of treason for speaking against Bush's war. Cheney must be behind this spin. Unbelievable!