CNN.com - Bush compares Iraq war to WWII
This man is delusional!!!
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Protect Kids from the Pentagon
Did you know that buried deep within the No Child Left Behind Act is a provision that requires public high schools to hand over students' private contact information to military recruiters. If a school does not comply, it risks losing vital federal education funds. As if that weren't bad enough, the Pentagon has now built an illegal database of 30 million 16 to 25-year-olds as another recruitment tool.
You can join The Leave My Child Alone Coalition to protect children from unwanted military recruiting by getting their names off both Pentagon and high school recruiting lists.
Visit LeaveMyChildAlone.org for more information and all the forms needed to opt out.
You can join The Leave My Child Alone Coalition to protect children from unwanted military recruiting by getting their names off both Pentagon and high school recruiting lists.
Visit LeaveMyChildAlone.org for more information and all the forms needed to opt out.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Christian Editor Says Bible Supports Assassination in Times of War
Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!
I refer you to my August 23 entry - what guys like this believe has no resemblance to Christianity!!!
I refer you to my August 23 entry - what guys like this believe has no resemblance to Christianity!!!
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Pat Robertson: An embarrassment to the church by Jim Wallis
Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to the church and a danger to American politics.
Robertson is known for his completely irresponsible statements - that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were due to American feminists and liberals, that true Christians could vote only for George W. Bush, that the federal judiciary is a greater threat to America than those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center Towers, and the list goes on. Robertson even took credit once for diverting a hurricane. But his latest outburst may take the cake.
On Monday, Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Robertson is worried about Chavez's critiques of American power and behavior in the world, especially because Venezuela is sitting on all that oil. We simply can't have an anti-American political leader who could raise the price of gas. So let's just kill him, the famous television preacher seriously suggested. After all, having some of our "covert operatives" take out the troublesome Venezuelan leader would be cheaper than another $200 billion war, he said.
It's clear Robertson must not have first asked himself "What would Jesus do?" But the teachings of Jesus have never been very popular with Robertson. He gets his religion elsewhere, from the twisted ideologies of an American brand of right-wing fundamentalism that has always been more nationalist than Christian. Apparently, Robertson didn't even remember what the Ten Commandments say, though he has championed their display on the walls of every American courthouse. That irritating one about "Thou shalt not kill" seems to rule out the killing of foreign leaders. But this week, simply putting biblical ethics aside, Robertson virtually issued an American religious fatwah for the murder of a foreign leader - on national television no less. That may be a first.
Yesterday Robertson "apologized." First he denied saying what he had said, but it was on the videotape (it's tough when they record you breaking the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus). Then he said that "taking out" Chavez might not require killing him, and perhaps kidnapping a duly elected leader would do. But Robertson does now say that using the word "assassination" was wrong and that he had been frustrated by Chavez - the old "my frustration made me say that somebody should be killed" argument. But the worst thing about Robertson's apology was that he compared himself to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German church leader and martyr who ultimately joined in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler.
Robertson's political and theological reasoning is simply unbelievable. Chavez, a democratically elected leader in no less than three internationally certified votes, has been an irritant to the Bush administration, but has yet to commit any holocausts. Nor does his human rights record even approach that of the Latin American dictators who have been responsible for massive violations of human rights and the deaths of tens of thousands of people (think of the military regimes of Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala). Robertson never criticized them, perhaps because many of them were supported by U.S. military aid and training.
This incident reveals that Robertson does not believe in democracy; he believes in theocracy. And he would like governments, including our own, to implement his theological agenda, perhaps legislate Leviticus, and "take out" those who disagree.
Robertson's American fundamentalist ideology gives a lot of good people a bad name. World evangelical leaders have already responded with alarm and disbelief. Robertson's words will taint and smear other evangelical Christians and put some in actual jeopardy, such as Venezuelan evangelicals. Most conservative evangelical Christians are appalled by Robertson's hateful and literally murderous words, and it's time for them to say so. To their credit, the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals have already denounced Robertson's words. When will we hear from some of the groups from the "Religious Right," such as the Family Research Council, Southern Baptists, and other leaders like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson?
Robertson's words fuel both anti-Christian and anti-American sentiments around the world. It's difficult for an American government that has historically plotted against leaders in Cuba, Chile, the Congo, South Vietnam, and elsewhere to be easily believed when it disavows Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez. But George Bush must do so anyway, in the strongest terms possible.
It's time to name Robertson for what he is: an American fundamentalist whose theocratic views are not much different from the "Muslim extremists" he continually assails. It's time for conservative evangelical Christians in America, who are not like Islamic fundamentalists or Robertson, to distance themselves from his embarrassing and dangerous religion.
And it's time for Christian leaders of all stripes to call on Robertson not just to apologize, but to retire.
Robertson is known for his completely irresponsible statements - that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were due to American feminists and liberals, that true Christians could vote only for George W. Bush, that the federal judiciary is a greater threat to America than those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center Towers, and the list goes on. Robertson even took credit once for diverting a hurricane. But his latest outburst may take the cake.
On Monday, Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Robertson is worried about Chavez's critiques of American power and behavior in the world, especially because Venezuela is sitting on all that oil. We simply can't have an anti-American political leader who could raise the price of gas. So let's just kill him, the famous television preacher seriously suggested. After all, having some of our "covert operatives" take out the troublesome Venezuelan leader would be cheaper than another $200 billion war, he said.
It's clear Robertson must not have first asked himself "What would Jesus do?" But the teachings of Jesus have never been very popular with Robertson. He gets his religion elsewhere, from the twisted ideologies of an American brand of right-wing fundamentalism that has always been more nationalist than Christian. Apparently, Robertson didn't even remember what the Ten Commandments say, though he has championed their display on the walls of every American courthouse. That irritating one about "Thou shalt not kill" seems to rule out the killing of foreign leaders. But this week, simply putting biblical ethics aside, Robertson virtually issued an American religious fatwah for the murder of a foreign leader - on national television no less. That may be a first.
Yesterday Robertson "apologized." First he denied saying what he had said, but it was on the videotape (it's tough when they record you breaking the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus). Then he said that "taking out" Chavez might not require killing him, and perhaps kidnapping a duly elected leader would do. But Robertson does now say that using the word "assassination" was wrong and that he had been frustrated by Chavez - the old "my frustration made me say that somebody should be killed" argument. But the worst thing about Robertson's apology was that he compared himself to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German church leader and martyr who ultimately joined in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler.
Robertson's political and theological reasoning is simply unbelievable. Chavez, a democratically elected leader in no less than three internationally certified votes, has been an irritant to the Bush administration, but has yet to commit any holocausts. Nor does his human rights record even approach that of the Latin American dictators who have been responsible for massive violations of human rights and the deaths of tens of thousands of people (think of the military regimes of Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala). Robertson never criticized them, perhaps because many of them were supported by U.S. military aid and training.
This incident reveals that Robertson does not believe in democracy; he believes in theocracy. And he would like governments, including our own, to implement his theological agenda, perhaps legislate Leviticus, and "take out" those who disagree.
Robertson's American fundamentalist ideology gives a lot of good people a bad name. World evangelical leaders have already responded with alarm and disbelief. Robertson's words will taint and smear other evangelical Christians and put some in actual jeopardy, such as Venezuelan evangelicals. Most conservative evangelical Christians are appalled by Robertson's hateful and literally murderous words, and it's time for them to say so. To their credit, the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals have already denounced Robertson's words. When will we hear from some of the groups from the "Religious Right," such as the Family Research Council, Southern Baptists, and other leaders like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson?
Robertson's words fuel both anti-Christian and anti-American sentiments around the world. It's difficult for an American government that has historically plotted against leaders in Cuba, Chile, the Congo, South Vietnam, and elsewhere to be easily believed when it disavows Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez. But George Bush must do so anyway, in the strongest terms possible.
It's time to name Robertson for what he is: an American fundamentalist whose theocratic views are not much different from the "Muslim extremists" he continually assails. It's time for conservative evangelical Christians in America, who are not like Islamic fundamentalists or Robertson, to distance themselves from his embarrassing and dangerous religion.
And it's time for Christian leaders of all stripes to call on Robertson not just to apologize, but to retire.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
This is what popular American Christianity looks like now!
CNN.com - Robertson: U.S. should 'take out' Venezuela's Chavez - Aug 23, 2005
Give me the names of egomaniac fundamentalist Baptist preachers and I will show you a real "axis of evil."
Update (6:00 PM): CNN has a daily informal and unscientific poll on their internet home page. Today's question was "Do you think Pat Robertson's comment about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez was out of line? " At this post time, 30,668 people said "No". If any of those people claim to be Christian, than there is definitely a perversion of scripture being promulgated by fundamentalist pastors in every community of this country. These people are far from being followers of Jesus Christ!
Give me the names of egomaniac fundamentalist Baptist preachers and I will show you a real "axis of evil."
Update (6:00 PM): CNN has a daily informal and unscientific poll on their internet home page. Today's question was "Do you think Pat Robertson's comment about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez was out of line? " At this post time, 30,668 people said "No". If any of those people claim to be Christian, than there is definitely a perversion of scripture being promulgated by fundamentalist pastors in every community of this country. These people are far from being followers of Jesus Christ!
Pentagon can't verify Able Danger claim
CNN.com - Pentagon can't verify Able Danger claim - Aug 22, 2005
Nor is anyone disputing it! I believe it is safe to say there is still much more to find out about this administration's coverup (August 17 and 19 entries)!
Nor is anyone disputing it! I believe it is safe to say there is still much more to find out about this administration's coverup (August 17 and 19 entries)!
Monday, August 22, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Demolition double-standard in Gaza
The following is from Sojourners' weekly email newsletter:
AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of demolishing homes, I have noted over the last few days with the mainstream press in the United States, there's been a great effort to get the voices of Jewish settlers out, and you can hear the pain in their voices as they talk about their homes for many years, being forced out of them.... [W]e rarely hear that kind of extended interview with a Palestinian whose home has just been destroyed.
AMIRA HASS: Well, that's, of course, the fault of, as you say, the mainstream media, and which pains much more the loss of a huge house built at the expense of the Palestinians than the loss of thousands of Palestinian houses...which were very often demolished in order to safeguard the security of those very settlements.
From the transcript of an August 15 interview between Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! and Amira Hass, an Israeli Jewish journalist for Haaretz newspaper who has lived and worked in Gaza and the West Bank for many years.
Contrary to widely held assumptions, only 5-15% of Palestinian homes that are destroyed are those of suspected terrorists. That policy was so counterproductive that the Israeli army abandoned the practice earlier this year. The majority are destroyed in "military operations" or because the homes were built without permits from the Israeli government which are nearly impossible to obtain.
AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of demolishing homes, I have noted over the last few days with the mainstream press in the United States, there's been a great effort to get the voices of Jewish settlers out, and you can hear the pain in their voices as they talk about their homes for many years, being forced out of them.... [W]e rarely hear that kind of extended interview with a Palestinian whose home has just been destroyed.
AMIRA HASS: Well, that's, of course, the fault of, as you say, the mainstream media, and which pains much more the loss of a huge house built at the expense of the Palestinians than the loss of thousands of Palestinian houses...which were very often demolished in order to safeguard the security of those very settlements.
From the transcript of an August 15 interview between Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! and Amira Hass, an Israeli Jewish journalist for Haaretz newspaper who has lived and worked in Gaza and the West Bank for many years.
Contrary to widely held assumptions, only 5-15% of Palestinian homes that are destroyed are those of suspected terrorists. That policy was so counterproductive that the Israeli army abandoned the practice earlier this year. The majority are destroyed in "military operations" or because the homes were built without permits from the Israeli government which are nearly impossible to obtain.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
More reason to be suspicious of this administration!
Officer Says Pentagon Barred Sharing Pre-9/11 Qaeda Data With F.B.I. - New York Times
I still am puzzled about why we keep getting reports that imply this administration ignored all kinds of warnings before 9/11. Was this just arrogant negligence by this administration - we know they are very capable of that! Or was it much deeper and more sinister than that - did this administration want a 9/11 type event to give the neo-cons in control a reason to go to war!!!
I still am puzzled about why we keep getting reports that imply this administration ignored all kinds of warnings before 9/11. Was this just arrogant negligence by this administration - we know they are very capable of that! Or was it much deeper and more sinister than that - did this administration want a 9/11 type event to give the neo-cons in control a reason to go to war!!!
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Quote of the Week
"Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that 'God helps those who help themselves.' That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin's wisdom not biblical; it's counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor."
- Author Bill McKibben, in his Harper's magazine essay, 'The Christian Paradox'
- Author Bill McKibben, in his Harper's magazine essay, 'The Christian Paradox'
Friday, August 12, 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
Finding Our Way in Iraq
Following is a portion of an EthicsDaily.com editorial written by Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics:
... A better approach would be a new policy, one that begins with straight talk about the mistaken reasons for the war and develops a new strategy.
A new policy would necessitate a new leadership team, one in which hubris would be seen as a vice and humility would be accepted as a virtue. Bush’s current team has failed the nation. They no longer deserve the public’s trust.
A new policy would necessitate that the president discharges the religious right from his war council. After all, the religious right blessed the war, often supporting it as a holy crusade. Their moral arguments were badly flawed. The president listened to their affirmation, and the country has suffered dreadful results.
Most of the leadership of the faith community said the war did not pass the time-honored just war theory and cautioned against a rush to war. Had Bush listened to these leaders, he might well have avoided this disaster.
A new policy is unlikely unless Washington politicians hear clearly and repeatedly that local leaders expect real changes in the administration and a new policy in Iraq.
Christians of all stripes need to speak quickly and insistently from a moral vantage point to congressmen and senators about the need for change.
Clergy, in particular, need to offer moral direction to our elected officials. Like the prophet Amos, clergy need to call for a mighty river of change and let politicians work out the irrigation system.
A good time for these conversations is in August, while our elected leaders are on recess.
The old way is paved with destruction; the new way might provide a path to peace.
... A better approach would be a new policy, one that begins with straight talk about the mistaken reasons for the war and develops a new strategy.
A new policy would necessitate a new leadership team, one in which hubris would be seen as a vice and humility would be accepted as a virtue. Bush’s current team has failed the nation. They no longer deserve the public’s trust.
A new policy would necessitate that the president discharges the religious right from his war council. After all, the religious right blessed the war, often supporting it as a holy crusade. Their moral arguments were badly flawed. The president listened to their affirmation, and the country has suffered dreadful results.
Most of the leadership of the faith community said the war did not pass the time-honored just war theory and cautioned against a rush to war. Had Bush listened to these leaders, he might well have avoided this disaster.
A new policy is unlikely unless Washington politicians hear clearly and repeatedly that local leaders expect real changes in the administration and a new policy in Iraq.
Christians of all stripes need to speak quickly and insistently from a moral vantage point to congressmen and senators about the need for change.
Clergy, in particular, need to offer moral direction to our elected officials. Like the prophet Amos, clergy need to call for a mighty river of change and let politicians work out the irrigation system.
A good time for these conversations is in August, while our elected leaders are on recess.
The old way is paved with destruction; the new way might provide a path to peace.
GuideStone (former SBC Annuity Board) Invested $60 Million in Companies with Sudan Connections
Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!
One of my issues with Southern Baptist leadership is that they simply do not practice what they preach; this article may be the best example yet!
One of my issues with Southern Baptist leadership is that they simply do not practice what they preach; this article may be the best example yet!
Sunday, August 07, 2005
WHO'S TAKING BLAME FOR CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE?
Published on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 by the Toronto Star
By Calvin White:
Now that imams in Britain and Canada are standing up and publicly condemning terrorist acts as anti-Muslim and against the teachings in the Qur'an, I wonder if pressure might be put on Christian leaders to take a similar stand. Contrary to what some might like to insist, Christianity is not the religion of "an eye for an eye" but it is the religion of Jesus, who refined those earlier directions and distilled the ten commandments into two. One as to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Pretty definitive isn't it? As is the edict of turning the other cheek.
Jesus expected to be betrayed. He expected to be arrested by the authorities. There was no exhortations to prepare for battle. There was no bloody attempt to stop the proceedings. Even as Jesus was brutalized while carrying his own crucifixion cross and being nailed into the timbers, there was no violent counterforce from his disciples. Not even an outcry. No matter where one reads in the accounts of Jesus, the only conclusion one can come to is that Jesus was about love.
So where are the Christian leaders when it comes to violent actions by our Western leaders? Where are the televangelists, who every Sunday take over the airwaves to trumpet the message of Jesus, when it comes to taking on bunker busting bombs and mass carnage? Where are they when it comes to the death penalty prevalent in the majority of American states?
When President George Bush insists that billions of dollars need to continue flowing to the war effort in Iraq which leads to more American body bags and Iraqi graves, why is there no outcry? Why don't the Christian leaders stand up and challenge those decisions, and passionately assert that Jesus would have sought another way of solving the problems? In this time when Christianity is on the rise all over America, when there is a growing surge in extolling Christian values, why is it that when the born-again Bush says its better to fight "them" over there than on American soil, no concerted group of leaders stands up and yells that he's got it wrong?
Like Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also born again. Yet, their combined leadership has been responsible for excruciating death and injury to innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. They both claim a righteousness in their policies of destruction. They were even counseled by their secular allies not to resort to the carnage. Where was the equal pressure from the Christian leadership?
Interesting isn't it, that Muslim fanatics use the idea of holy jihad and rewards in paradise to recruit their dupes into terrible acts of destruction, and in Christian circles there is the solemn assembling for prayer and seeking of blessings for the troops and leaders in their mission of war. Interesting, isn't it, that polling clearly indicates the Christian right in America is emphatically against bad language on TV and in the movies, horrified by Janet Jackson's bare nipple - but drawn with considerable relish to violence in the same media.
The additional galling irony of Jesus being emblazoned on the foreheads of those in command of the sharpest swords is that Jesus was also all about intelligence. He was all about deeper understanding, about using insight and keenness of mind to solve problems. Think of how the Pharisees tried to trick him by holding up different sections of the law to trip him up. His disciples picking corn, for instance, and thus working, on the Sabbath. Jesus answered that the Sabbath was for man and not the other way around. There was the adulteress brought before him to be stoned; he responded that any without sin might cast the first stone.
What kind of insight have Bush and Blair employed? What intelligence, what deeper understanding is demonstrated by the tactic of blast and shoot with as much technologically advanced weaponry as is available? What compassion, what recognition of common humanity is shown when the biggest concern is how to pad the soldiers with as much body Kevlar and the humvees with as much armor as possible so they can kill all the easier without casualties - and thus retain the support of the home front.
How do our current religious leaders think Jesus would react to the concept of collateral damage?
By Calvin White:
Now that imams in Britain and Canada are standing up and publicly condemning terrorist acts as anti-Muslim and against the teachings in the Qur'an, I wonder if pressure might be put on Christian leaders to take a similar stand. Contrary to what some might like to insist, Christianity is not the religion of "an eye for an eye" but it is the religion of Jesus, who refined those earlier directions and distilled the ten commandments into two. One as to "love thy neighbor as thyself." Pretty definitive isn't it? As is the edict of turning the other cheek.
Jesus expected to be betrayed. He expected to be arrested by the authorities. There was no exhortations to prepare for battle. There was no bloody attempt to stop the proceedings. Even as Jesus was brutalized while carrying his own crucifixion cross and being nailed into the timbers, there was no violent counterforce from his disciples. Not even an outcry. No matter where one reads in the accounts of Jesus, the only conclusion one can come to is that Jesus was about love.
So where are the Christian leaders when it comes to violent actions by our Western leaders? Where are the televangelists, who every Sunday take over the airwaves to trumpet the message of Jesus, when it comes to taking on bunker busting bombs and mass carnage? Where are they when it comes to the death penalty prevalent in the majority of American states?
When President George Bush insists that billions of dollars need to continue flowing to the war effort in Iraq which leads to more American body bags and Iraqi graves, why is there no outcry? Why don't the Christian leaders stand up and challenge those decisions, and passionately assert that Jesus would have sought another way of solving the problems? In this time when Christianity is on the rise all over America, when there is a growing surge in extolling Christian values, why is it that when the born-again Bush says its better to fight "them" over there than on American soil, no concerted group of leaders stands up and yells that he's got it wrong?
Like Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also born again. Yet, their combined leadership has been responsible for excruciating death and injury to innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. They both claim a righteousness in their policies of destruction. They were even counseled by their secular allies not to resort to the carnage. Where was the equal pressure from the Christian leadership?
Interesting isn't it, that Muslim fanatics use the idea of holy jihad and rewards in paradise to recruit their dupes into terrible acts of destruction, and in Christian circles there is the solemn assembling for prayer and seeking of blessings for the troops and leaders in their mission of war. Interesting, isn't it, that polling clearly indicates the Christian right in America is emphatically against bad language on TV and in the movies, horrified by Janet Jackson's bare nipple - but drawn with considerable relish to violence in the same media.
The additional galling irony of Jesus being emblazoned on the foreheads of those in command of the sharpest swords is that Jesus was also all about intelligence. He was all about deeper understanding, about using insight and keenness of mind to solve problems. Think of how the Pharisees tried to trick him by holding up different sections of the law to trip him up. His disciples picking corn, for instance, and thus working, on the Sabbath. Jesus answered that the Sabbath was for man and not the other way around. There was the adulteress brought before him to be stoned; he responded that any without sin might cast the first stone.
What kind of insight have Bush and Blair employed? What intelligence, what deeper understanding is demonstrated by the tactic of blast and shoot with as much technologically advanced weaponry as is available? What compassion, what recognition of common humanity is shown when the biggest concern is how to pad the soldiers with as much body Kevlar and the humvees with as much armor as possible so they can kill all the easier without casualties - and thus retain the support of the home front.
How do our current religious leaders think Jesus would react to the concept of collateral damage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
