[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Was Bush's Response To Sept. 11 Attacks Un-Christian? May 25. 2006 6:59AM Was Bush's Response To Sept. 11 Attacks Un-Christian? By RICHARD N. OSTLING Associated Press Writer The news media focuses on evangelical and Roman Catholic politicking, routinely ignoring such liberal Protestant activism as United Methodist Church officials' onslaught against policies of George W. Bush, an adult convert to their denomination. Underlying issues: Must Christians oppose the Iraq war? Warfare in general? The Methodists' chief social-issues spokesman, Jim Winkler, believes Congress should "impeach President Bush." He proposed that during the annual "Ecumenical Advocacy Days for Global Peace With Justice," attended by 923 progressives, mostly from the National Council of Churches and member denominations (e.g., the United Methodists, Christian Church-Disciples of Christ, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ). The House Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat had already submitted a bill authorizing investigation of impeachable offenses. Winkler's complaint: "The attack on Iraq was sold to our people on lies, and the war itself was an illegal war of aggression" that included things such as "unconstitutional" National Security Agency surveillance. "There was nothing Christian in (Bush's) response to Sept. 11," Winkler asserted. "The war on terror is a war of terror. We have to stop it." Strict Christian pacifists such as Mennonites and Quakers resist all war-making. They apply biblical teachings from Jesus and Paul about peacemaking not just to personal relations but to international affairs. Winkler, who wants the U.S. defense budget slashed by 80 percent, could be considered a semipacifist. He said "Jesus Christ, if not a pacifist Himself," at least "chose a nonviolent course of action." He also cited Paul: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. ... So far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves" (Romans 12:17-19). That reflects the Methodists' official Social Principles: "We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ" and reject it "as an instrument of national foreign policy." That text also says many believe that in "extreme situations" when all alternatives fail and "the need is clear beyond reasonable doubt," combat using "international organizations" may be better than allowing "unchecked aggression, tyranny and genocide." The Methodists are America's third-largest religious body. The bishops of the largest, Roman Catholicism, said before the Iraq invasion that they questioned the morality of pre-emptive and unilateral action and saw no grave danger of Iraqi attacks or evidence that that nation was involved in Sept. 11. Updating matters this year, the bishops' international policy chairman rejected both "cut and run" and "stay the course" policies. He said that now, America has "moral responsibilities to help Iraqis secure and rebuild their country." U.S. troops should leave "sooner rather than later" but remain pending a "responsible transition" to provide security, stability and the rule of law. There's no hesitation with the hawkish Southern Baptist Convention, America's second-largest denomination. Last year's annual Baptist meeting said Bush "has shown courage and leadership in his valiant opposition to terrorism. ... We express deepest gratitude and respect for our president in light of the gravity of the decisions he must make and the leadership role he fills." The Baptists found scriptural warrant in 1 Timothy 2:2, which commends prayer "for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life." An earlier Baptist statement defending the war on terror said the Bible commands "civil authorities to restrain evil and to punish evildoers through the power of the sword," citing Paul in Romans 13:1-5. The National Association of Evangelicals includes pacifists, and its "Call to Civic Responsibility" last year said members disagree about use of the military "to defend our homelands, rescue others from attack or liberate other people from oppression."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#1. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
The answer is NO! The Good Book is loaded with references to "shock and awe" campaigns waged in the Lord's Name.
Im not
even going to address that Bush who professes to be a Christian would continue
to wage war in the name of a LIE that they KNEW was a lie..NOT quite Christian
now is it?? But how can someone who is 'right' be so very wrong..?? If the
question wouldve been 'is it biblical'.. I may agree.. OT testament eye for an
eye and all that.. BUT Christian?? The answer is an emphatic YES it was
unChristian.. it is not Christian in anyway.. for Jesus said in Matthew 5:38,
"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes out on the
right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your
coat, give your cloak as well."
Exactly. And to complete the thought, there was no lie. Unless you regard liberal luminaries like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Dick Gepheart et al as liars. Come to think of it, you DO have a point!
Come to think of it, you DO have a point! So you do agree that the Republican administration ARE liars.... Great!
There was NO lie--get over it!
NO lie? Not one? Not even a teenie-weenie one? Yes, you're right. This war was prosecuted with a fearsome and principled regard for truth at all times.
There are no replies to Comment # 13. End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||