Democrat senator: U.S. troops 'Nazis'
Here is a perfect example of a liberal Democrat Senator playing partisan politics. Two days ago U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the American treatment of terror detainees at the Guantanamo Naval Base is comparable to torture at the hands of Nazis, Soviet gulags, and even Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot. This is wrong on so many levels, the most obvious of which is that turning the air conditioner too high or too low, or playing loud rap music, is not even in the same ballpark as the atrocities that were characteristic of these evil regimes. Durbin's comment is as follows:
What bothers me more is that this is another striking example of how liberals in Congress will go to whatever end to smear the Bush campaign, even if to the detriment of our own country. They have positioned themselves in such a way that the only way they can gain politically is if things go wrong for our country. They need the economy to fail. They need us to lose the war on terror. They need North Korea, Iran, and China to build up their militaries. They need people to lose their jobs and their health care. They need these things to happen so that they can move into power. And they will do, and have done, whatever they possibly can to ruin President Bush.
Quite frankly, I think it's disgusting.
Read more about Durbin here.
On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.Is there really a similarity? Hitler murdered two million Christians and six million Jews. Nearly two million prisoners died in the Soviet gulags. And Pol Pot slaughtered as many as ten million in Cambodia. You would think Durbin would be quicker to defend the very men and women who are giving their lives so that he can have his platform to speak. He lives without fear because of the people who protect him, and he turns right around and stabs them in the back so that he can make Bush look bad.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
What bothers me more is that this is another striking example of how liberals in Congress will go to whatever end to smear the Bush campaign, even if to the detriment of our own country. They have positioned themselves in such a way that the only way they can gain politically is if things go wrong for our country. They need the economy to fail. They need us to lose the war on terror. They need North Korea, Iran, and China to build up their militaries. They need people to lose their jobs and their health care. They need these things to happen so that they can move into power. And they will do, and have done, whatever they possibly can to ruin President Bush.
Quite frankly, I think it's disgusting.
Read more about Durbin here.
Labels: politics
19 Comments:
I'm sure that if we could ask anyone who has been in prison in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or Cambodia, they would all rather be in an American prison any day.
Oh, I'm sure they would Ron...and that makes our atrocities okay doesn't it? Granted it was Durbin who made the comparison--and there really isn't one--but, let's not forget that America has committed war crimes--I wonder if it were Clinton leading this war in Iraq if you guys wouldn't be breathing the same ridiculous comparisons that Durbin is--if you wouldn't I know who would be--Evangelical leaders.
I wonder if we Evangelicals haven't become a little drunk on power ourselves. Now we're so afraid of losing it that we're no better than the "liberals" who once held it.
anonymousq,
I can't believe that you would try to use the tactic of refering back to the Clinton years. Clinton was in office, and while there, he had eight years to do something about the terrorism threat...thus nothing happened.
If we have committed atrocities it sure isn't happening at "Gitmo" (Rush Limbaugh term, enjoy). These people want to kill you and me. How ought they be treated? They are time bombs and where would you suggest we place these time bombs? Maybe we could counsel them...what do you think? Would you like to counsel with them?
Okay.. I was going to stay out of this, as I am very passionate, and politically incorrect when it comes to the mass murderers of Christians (the prisoners being discussed). This is not a direct response to anyone’s posts here, but more toward the senators comments, and the liberal viewpoint.
I wish people would realize that these people are not POWs! They are not captured enemies of another countries governmental military force. They have no “legal” rights whatsoever.
They are prisoners who want to kill as many Christians, and particularly American Christians as possible. They are terrorist, with a threat to humanity. That includes random acts of violence against the women and children of the United States. These are people who applaud, and have made saints out of the 911 hijackers for their dedication to "the" cause, and if released, have plans to attack more American civilians.
If you were holding someone in prison, and they told you, "My duty to my god is to kill American children. My duty is to reek havoc on the nation of the United Sates of America. You will not see us coming, and we will not value any life of your nation. The more grief we can cause you, and your people, the more my rewards will be from god. My duty is to die for my god, and to kill as many Americans as possible while fulfilling this duty.”
What would you do?
These “prisoners” are criminals against humanity. They are terrorist. They have no rights! The do not even come close to falling under the Geneva convention. The American Red Cross has no business sticking their nose into the situation. The American people are completely ignorant as to who these people are, and why they are being held. Therefore any argument to aid these terrorist, or to better their conditions is only out of pure ignorance.
Air conditioning?! They get air conditioning?
I know what someone will say, “Matt, aren’t you supposed to love these people and extend grace to them.” My answer would be that they have made their choice, and their hearts are hardened toward God, and probably even by God for most of them.
By the way, I would have no problem with missionaries witnessing to these terrorist, that would be grace. I have a problem with people saying, “I don’t care if they come over here to the U.S. and murder our children, and innocent citizens with biological warfare, and mass explosions. They should have that right. All humans have rights, and even though we might not agree that it is okay to kill others, they should still be allowed that freedom to choose to do that. Then if they are caught in an unlawful act, we will prosecute them within the laws that they break. But don’t imprison them before they act, but if you do, treat them like any good country club prison would treat them.”
As far as Clinton goes, one thing I said for eight years was, “Why doesn’t he go after Sadam?” I wish Clinton would have started this a long time ago. I won’t speculate that if Clinton had done what is being done now, that 911 would have never happened, but many people do believe that.
Please remember that the same people who want to scream about how these terrorist are being treated are just as adimate about removing God from government. They are the same “Church and State” separatist that scream because someone puts the moral guide (ten commandments) in a public building.
When we remove God from government, we remove morality. So you can’t argue that it is immoral to treat these terrorist like this, when you have no morality. Try to argue for better treatment for these terrorist without using anything Biblical, or Godly. It can’t be done. So these liberals are demanding something that they don’t even believe in.
I will end it there before I get too passionate, and politically incorrect.
-Matt
Ron, "These people want to kill you and me, how ought they to be treated?"
Matt, "They are prisoners who want to kill as many Christians, and particularly American Christians as possible...They have no “legal” rights whatsoever....What would you do?"
TO SLAVES PETER WRITES:
17 Show respect for everyone (EXCEPT YOUR ENEMIES--THEY HAVE "NO RIGHTS"). Love your Christian brothers and sisters. Fear God. Show respect for the king...19 For God is pleased with you when, for the sake of your conscience, you patiently endure unfair treatment. 20 Of course, you get no credit for being patient if you are beaten for doing wrong. But if you suffer for doing right and are patient beneath the blows, God is pleased with you. 21 This suffering is all part of what God has called you to. Christ, who suffered for you, is your example. Follow in his steps (UNLESS YOUR LIVES ARE THREATENED). 22 He never sinned, and he never deceived anyone. 23 He did not retaliate when he was insulted (EXCEPT WHEN IT WAS "LIBERALS" WHO INSULTED HIM, OF COURSE) When he suffered, he did not threaten to get even. He left his case in the hands of God (AND THE AMERICAN MILITARY, OF COURSE), who always judges fairly."
TO THE CHURCH PETER WRITES:
"9 Don’t repay evil for evil (EXCEPT IN TIMES OF WAR, OF COURSE). Don’t retaliate when people say unkind things about you. Instead, pay them back with a blessing (UNLESS THEY DON'T LIKE YOUR NATIONALITY, YOUR RELIGION, OR YOUR COURNTRY--THEN CURSE THEM!). That is what God wants you to do, and he will bless you for it... 13 Now, who will want to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you suffer for doing what is right, God will reward you for it. So don’t be afraid and don’t worry--(OR JUST KILL THE TERRORISTS AND/OR IMPRISON THEM INDEFINITELY THAT WILL WORK TOO)."
TO YOU AND TO ME--AND ALL EVANGELICALS--JESUS SAYS
38 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘If an eye is injured, injure the eye of the person who did it. If a tooth gets knocked out, knock out the tooth of the person who did it.’ 39 But I say, don’t resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other, too.
40 If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow. 43 ¶ "You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies (UNLESS THEY ARE MUSLIM TERRORIST, OF COURSE)! Pray for those who persecute you (EXPECT FOR YOU "AMERICAN CHRISTIANS" YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU LIKE)! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good (BUT NOT THE TERRIORST IN GITMO OR WHEREVER ELSE), and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust, too. 46 If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48 But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect (PERFECT IN "SELF-GIVING" LOVE? NO! PERFERCT IN SELF-PRESERVING, SELF-PROTECTING, SELF-INSURING JUDGMENT).
You see, we neuter the Gospel and the words of Christ. He came to establish a spiritual kingdom on earth built on love and self-denial, we Evangelicals are no different than the Jews of old--we want an earthly kingdom with all the comforts and security that power will bring with it. You guys all love the "early church" so much--but could you have lived there? Could you have stood by Polycarp as he was butchered for his faith? No, we would have started a crusade in the name of God and sacked the city of Rome if we could.
My advice (and don't feel that you need to heed it) 1. Separate you faith from your nationality; 2. Ask yourself, what does "love your enemy really mean, anyway?" Maybe pacifism isn't so far-fetched? 3. Ask yourself this one: are Republicans and Evangelical leaders really all that better than "liberals"? Oh I know that ones to easy for us, but maybe we need to think about it longer.
Anonymous-Q,
Thank you for your dialogue. I truly do enjoy it. It is nice to see someone knew take time, and energy to reflect on other peoples thoughts.
I think I must not have communicated my thoughts in a thorough manner. You see, there is a difference between individual Christians’ actions, and that of a government that is required by God to protect it’s people. You are right, and I hope that I never came across as contrary to this, but we as individuals are to love others, and reflect Christ. We are to withstand persecution. No problem there… But, for a government to allow another nation to attack it’s believers in God, in an evil and murderous effort, and to stand idle by, WOW! For the leaders of any nation that does that, I fear God for them.
God gives government the authority to unleash it’s wrath upon evildoers. The government is held accountable, by God, to “bear sword” (go to war) with evildoers.
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (Romans 13:1-7)
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
When the soldier who had a profession of war, and killing, Christ did not condemn him, He praised Him for His faith, and for understanding his position of authority.
Matthew 8:5-10:
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
God gives us instructions on how we are to occupy a land after we have declared war, and defeated them.
Deuteronomy 20:19: When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an ax against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege.
Oh… By the way… remember when Bush tried to be peaceful about this? Remember when Bush set deadlines, and Saddam failed to meet them? Okay. Here is what a government is to do to those who refuse peace upon our offering.
Deuteronomy 20:10-12:
10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it.
Besiege –
1 Samuel 30:8:
8 And David inquired at the LORD, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.
In dealing with leaders of nations, God told them to attack and kill entire nations because they had turned against God’s people. God told them to kill every man, women, and child so that they could never rise up against them again.
I know that I am not a pacifist, I don’t claim to be. I am also by no stretch of the imagination an activist, though some may claim I am (but they are pacifist). I whole heartedly believe in ”Just War.”
So, you have presented a good case as to the fact that individual Christians should love individuals who persecute them. I agree. You are correct.
We are not, however, discussing anything to do with how we are individually to respond, and reflect Christ to others. We are discussing how our government is handling evil, sinful, enemies that wish to destroy God’s people. The government and the leaders are held accountable to God for how they handle these terrorist.
I am not saying that we should have killed every man women and child, sheep, goat, camel, and taken all that they had, but the U.S. government may have been justified in doing so. David did not kill Saul, even though he would have been justified. He showed mercy.
I am not going to respond to: “Separate your faith from your nationality” as I am not sure where that comment even came from, or what you meant by it.
As far as loving my enemy, I do. Parents love their children, but sometimes they need punished. Loving my enemies has nothing to do with me applauding the leaders of the government that I live under for detaining mass murderers.
As far as your third question: “Ask yourself this one: are Republicans and Evangelical leaders really all that better than "liberals"?” I find it rather amusing that you list Republicans and Evangelical leaders in the same group. I do not consider them one in the same. Although there are some evangelicals who would be better off in politics. :)
Keep the Son in Your Eyes,
-Matt Gaiser
Anonymousq,
Atrocities? War crimes? Aside from the actions of one Lindy England, I’m not sure I understand what atrocities and war crimes the US has committed. If you are a pacifist, that’s fine. I can respect that. But whether or not you agree with war you cannot think that liberating an oppressed country and establishing democracy is wrong. The men and women who serve this country believe in something bigger than themselves. They do not fight to conquer or to collect the spoils of war. They are not arrogant and selfish imperialists. America is a selfless nation that fights for others as well as ourselves. American troops fight because they believe that spreading democracy is a good thing. They protect those who cannot protect themselves. They do this despite the fact that back home there are people who, for the sole purpose of political gain, smear them and accuse them of things they have not done. They fight and die even for those who do not appreciate their sacrifice. I for one am proud of my country and for what we stand for in this world. I respect those who leave their homes and their families and go to other parts of the world and die so that I don’t have to. Even if this war on terror were unjust, which it is not, should we still treat these men and women this way just because we might not like the current president?
You said, “I wonder if it were Clinton leading this war in Iraq if you guys wouldn't be breathing the same ridiculous comparisons that Durbin is.” Do you really think that? First of all, Clinton never had the guts to go after terrorism in the world. He was too busy going after women in the oval office. And the wars he did get involved in were hardly as just as the current, and yet not one conservative in leadership likened American troops to Nazi’s.
We all believe in the Scriptures you quoted. However, I don’t think that anyone here (although I am speaking on behalf of others as well as myself) really thinks, “EXCEPT YOUR ENEMIES--THEY HAVE "NO RIGHTS,” or “EXCEPT WHEN IT WAS "LIBERALS" WHO INSULTED HIM, OF COURSE,” or “UNLESS THEY DON'T LIKE YOUR NATIONALITY, YOUR RELIGION, OR YOUR COURNTRY--THEN CURSE THEM!” and so on. The original issue was the outrageous notion that the lack of air conditioning, or the excess of it, at Gitmo is hardly comparable to the evils of Nazi Germany. I think an anger over this absurdity is justified and well-founded. And that anger does not for one second mean we think any one of those things you wrote.
I agree that the “Kingdom of Heaven” is not meant to be a political kingdom marked by physical boundaries. But does that mean that Christ’s rule in our hearts leads to social/political inactivity? You’re right, too often the “religious right” is more interested in the “right” then they are in the “religious.” The idea of a political representation for conservative Christians is good, and yet people sometimes do go too far.
Could any of us 21st century cupcakes live during the persecution of the first centuries of the church? Probably not. That is one of the reasons we do love the early church so much, because it was comprised of amazing men and women of faith who suffered and yet were victorious. That’s why we talk about the early church so much, to inspire Christians today to live like they did. “…we would have started a crusade in the name of God and sacked the city of Rome if we could.” It amazes me how quick you are to accuse Christians today by saying we would have led crusades. My view of the Body of Christ is not quite so negative.
And I don’t know what you mean by, “I wonder if we Evangelicals haven't become a little drunk on power ourselves. Now we're so afraid of losing it that we're no better than the "liberals" who once held it.” Give some examples and tell us what you mean. I’m not making the connection.
And yes, Republican leaders are quite different than Democrat leaders.
Matt,
The attacks by terrorists were on Christians and non-Christians alike. Yes, some Muslim radicals might view all Americans as Christians, but it’s not like they wouldn’t have attacked on 9/11 if they thought that the people they were killing were only 50% Christian, or 40%, or whatever.
Prisoners of war, whether terrorists or not, should have rights; not because they deserve them or would have given them to us if the shoe were on the other foot, but because of who we are. While I don’t think for a second that the US has committed an atrocity or a war crime, I don’t think that we should. You know, not one of these terrorists would extend a second of mercy to any one of us if they held us in a POW camp. But we hold ourselves to a higher standard than they - that is what separates us from them. Let’s be careful that we do not swing too far in the direction of “show no mercy.” They should be punished and held accountable, but let’s be careful not to suggest that we should treat them as they would have treated us.
But with that said, I think it’s absurd that people make such a fuss if terrorist prisoners don’t have a climate controlled suite with cable television. Seriously, shouldn’t we be leading the crusade to provide cable and room service to inmates at home first??? I’ll lead the charge to give prisoners at Gitmo cable TV once EVERY PRISON IN AMERICA has it first!!! :)
Sean,
You are correct prisoners of war deserve rights. The problem is, the detainees being held at Gitmo are not POW’s.
Under God’s law all humans have rights.
I do not condone in-humane treatment, and torture. My point is that these same people that want morality enforced by our government, are the same people who want all morality removed from government. You can’t have it both ways. If you remove God from government then there is no moral standard, there is no right or wrong.
We are talking about how these prisoners “should” be treated according to Scripture. I was pointing out that if we remove Scripture, and look solely at written man made laws, which most of the liberals want, and demand, then these prisoners “legally” (by man made laws) have no rights.
The Geneva convention does set guidelines as to how to treat POW’s. My point was that these detainees are NOT! POW’s. They are war criminals. They are NOT! members of an enemy nation's military. Therefore, in a legal (man made law) sense, they have no legal rights.
I am well aware of the matter of “habeas corpus,” but the government has a right to suspend habeas corpus, when in relation to war.
So my “legal” argument is that the organizations that are yelling, and government officials that are whining about how these criminals are being treated, are the sole reason that they are being treated this way.
Would Christ treat those prisoners the way they are being treated? No. I think we all agree with that.
The problem is, these leaders, and groups want God removed from government, but want His morality to remain. That, my friend, is impossible. So they need to stop whining about what they have done, and they need to realize that when we live in a Godless environment, we can only live within our written laws. As far as any written, man made laws (which is all these whiners insist on having) the prisoners at Gitmo have no rights.
Should they have rights, as far as I am concerned? Yes. The leaders, and organizations that are demanding rights, however, are the ones who removed their rights.
While I know that not all of those killed in the 911 attacks were Christians, I am sure that I do not need to explain, to this group, the Islamic hatred for the Jews, and Christians, and that while we are their main target, they have no value of others that may have to die as well. They consider us a Christian nation (although I am starting to wonder about that), and therefore we are all infidels, and deserve to die. Muhmmad’s last words- "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians..”
From a Christian standpoint, we have a right to demand decent, and humane treatment. The senator, has none, for there is no law that he holds himself to that gives him a legal “leg to stand on.”
If they want morality in the law, then establish the law with the Law.
-Matt
Anonymous--q,
Just a quick note, America has not committed any war crimes.
You see, in order for the Geneva convention to "legally" pertain to any war, both sides must recognize the "rules of war" and agree to abide by them.
Saddam did not recognize the "rules of engagement" that we, as American's follow. Therefore, legally, we have not committed any "war crimes." The UN might have a problem with how we handled a few situations, or maybe how some individual soldiers have acted, but they refused to help with this effort, so they now have no business (IMHO) to say anything.
Fortunately, we are holding ourselves accountable for the acts of certain individuals, and we are trying those individuals that have stepped outside of our rules of engagement. Our government is holding fast to our set of rules, even though we "legally" do not have to.
-Matt
To begin with, let me say that I've been a little on edge and... well, I apologize... I've been venting a little.
Matt,
Point well made in regard to the role of govt. in enforcing laws of the land and defending her people, and I appreciate the respectful tone. However, given your personal comments (as a Christian), for example:
"I am very passionate, and politically incorrect when it comes to the mass murderers of Christians... They (the terrorists) are prisoners who want to kill as many Christians, and particularly American Christians as possible. They are terrorist, with a threat to humanity."
In my previous post, I thought you were confusing "American" with "Christian"--I could be wrong.
But let me hit you on another line of reason. I definitely question your hermenutical use of the OT. God gave moral, civil and ceremonial laws to the nation of Israel. Before you begin applying the civil laws to American politics EXAMPLE: "God gives us instructions on how we are to occupy a land after we have declared war, and defeated them...
Deuteronomy 20:19" I believe you would be wise to consider the context of this Scripture and discern that God was not tell us (as in Americans) how to occupy a land, he was telling Israel how to occupy a land in specific time and place in history.
Moreover, before you begin holding our feet to the fire in regard to "civil laws", perhaps we should hold our feet to the fire in regard to the moral laws and virtues instituted by Christ that were quoted previously in my post. To separate moral standards from govt. and individual citizens is a mistake.
The irony is that you do not want a separation of church and state when it comes to moral issues (like homosexuality, the 10 Commandments or prayer in school)--but when it comes to politics and miltary campaigns you argue that they are separate, that a govt is not expected to "love its enemies" the way a Christian is expected to. The deeper irony is that how we treat others (including prisoners of war) is a moral issue.
I care far less about what is occuring at Gitmo as I do about what occured at Abu Gra (sp) and other of American atrocities.
Sean,
Durbin is not attacking American soldiers--though a lot of Bush supporters would like to make it out so. For one thing to do so would be political suicide. This in not the Vietnam era and soldiers are not being spat upon as they return from overseas--they're being saluted and applauded by Jane Fonda and everybody else. Liberals made their error 35 years ago--they are not making it again. Moreover, pity you for playing into the political hype--that's all you're doing when you throw all of this "we love our soldiers and liberal don't" garbage in the air. I have several friends who are chaplins in the military--I love and support them, but I don't have to support their commander-in-chief or the war in Iraq.
You write, "America is a selfless nation that fights for others as well as ourselves." and all I can think is that you've spoken like a true patriot. Maybe a bit naive, but patriotic nonetheless. Forgive me if I'm a bit cynical, but the politicans on captial hill are calling the shots out there--the decisions we make as "America" are the decisions they make from their offices and senate floor. Those decisions are hardly "selfless".
You also write, "If you are a pacifist, that’s fine. I can respect that. But whether or not you agree with war you cannot think that liberating an oppressed country and establishing democracy is wrong."
Actually Sean, I can. First, if I am a pacifist then war is wrong--period. Second, you argue with the assumption that this war is good, right and worthwhile. I do not. One of the things that frustrates me with Evangelicals is that we think we've finally got "one of our own" in the Oval Office--as if Bush were best friends with Jesus. THE MAN CAN BE WRONG! And we do not have to agree with everything he says and does. We went to war in Iraq under false pretenses and misconstrued facts. Do you really believe that Bush had POOR INTELIGENCE reports??? He knew what he was doing but because of our blind allegiance to a supposed "Christian President" we ignore the facts. If Bush had invaded Iran or North Korea I might have supported him--they actually have WMD's--isn't ironic that he has not cowboyed his way in there? No personal agenda, I guess.
But who am I talking to anyway? You guys are either attending, teaching or garduating from a college that actually invited Dick "F-bomb" Cheney to shake hands with you on campus--how objective can you be?
One last word, to Ron. I don't know you, or much about you. But I can say this--Rush Limbaugh is not an objective commentary on life or politics.
I like you guys, and I love Jesus. We'll just have to agree to disagree and still be friends. Maybe we can all sit down for coffee and apple pie someday. I can't wait to tell my pastor about your website then at least I'll have one fellow compatriot! Just kidding, sort of.
I've got to just say one more thing: Sean, the issue at Gitmo has less to do with the treatment of detainees (although I've heard enough about the interrogation practices to raise a few red flags) than it does about both the ethical question and issue of legality in detaining men or women without the right of due process. I listened over the radio as Senators questioned a pentagon offical about this issue. They asked how long these "terrorists" may be detained--his answer? Indefinitely... until the war against terror is over. When asked how long that could be he saw no forceable end. Now you tell me, is it right to indefinelty detain an individual without due process? With no attorney, no judge, no jury, no conviction? You guys are living by the assumption that these people ARE INDEED GUILTY, but if they are bring them to trial and convict them. As Matt noted, they aren't even Prisoners of War--this is not hardly different from the WWII era when Japanesse citizens were corralled into camps and illegally detained.
Have the objectivity to call what is unjust--"UNJUST!"
Anonymousq,
I enjoy good dialogue. But please try to not make so many accusations.
First off, I never said, “we love our soldiers and liberal don't." But it does appear that they will go to no end to make Bush look bad, even if it means insulting American soldiers. The unapologetic Dick Durbin is our prime example.
When I say, "America is a selfless nation that fights for others as well as ourselves," I am making a generalization. I don’t consider politicians to be our sole representation of what America is – thank God. I think that the American soldier typifies what this country really means for this world. To steal a line from Zell Miller, “Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.”
Please do not classify me as one who says, “we've finally got ‘one of our own’ in the Oval Office.” I think Bush is a Christian, and he’s light years better than Clinton. But I am not blindly loyal to him. He’s not a perfect president, but I do think that he makes decisions based on convictions. You don’t have to agree with him. I personally think that he is doing what needs to be done. Keep in mind, we were attacked, and I’m thankful that Bush is trying to do something about it. I know he can do wrong, and I actually disagree with a number of his actions. I don’t think anybody here is a blindly loyal, naïve, and unobjective moron.
I won’t for one second speculate why Bush has not invaded Iran or North Korea. I suppose he sees that diplomacy may still work. But even this is conjecture.
I find it rather ironic that you pity me for playing into the political hype...
A recent article on FoxNews.com counters the bleak picture of Gitmo painted by the liberal media.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by pointing out that we welcomed Dick Cheney at the Bible College as he was passing by. What were we supposed to do, stand out there with picket signs and turn our backs on him because he has used language before that none of us would use? Is your comment supposed to be calling into question the character of our college? I would ask that you try not to make sweeping generalizations of the Bible College, or of us on this blog, just because we support our Vice President despite the fact that he’s not Billy Graham.
As for your very last comment, this discussion was never intended to make the point that detainees at Gitmo should not be allowed Due Process. I’ve never said that, in fact I made the point to Matt that terrorists, or terror suspects, should be treated with respect and given rights.
This will be my last post on this topic. The rest of you feel free to continue on. Anonyousq, thank-you for your comments. Feel free to invite anybody else you want to join the Dialogue.
P.S. Everybody please try not to make any of these discussions personal. Thank-you.
Anonymous-q,
Thank you for your dialogue. I am rather enjoying your input.
I agree that we can not apply the OT to American politics. What I was trying to display is that there is just cause for a government to go to war. I was arguing more for the fact that there is such a thing as a “just war.” Believe me, I do not consider Bush to be comparable to King David, or even Saul, although some may be able to find similarities. :) My reference to the OT is that God, the same God we serve today, justified war upon evil, and wicked people who oppressed and attacked His people.
I do think it is fair to say that what that proves is that there are wars that are just before God.
As far as confusing “American” with “Christian,” I see what you were referring to. No… as much as I wish that the two were one in the same, that is not my position. What I will say, and I think is what I was saying in the post that you are referring to, is that the terrorist associate America as proclaiming to be a Christian nation, and thus associate Americans with Christianity. Therefore, their hate for Christians is transferred to all American. So, as far as the terrorist are concerned, all Americans should be killed.
In regards to separation of Church and state, I wish there were no separation in any aspect whatsoever. I do wish our government had the convictions, and was ruled by the Law. I wish that we referenced Scripture for every political thing we did. The problem, is that we are not under a government that does this.
My argument is that the government’s role is to protect its people, I think that is justified Biblically. I do not think that it is okay for individuals to kill their neighbors in random acts, because they steal oil from someone else on the block. I do not think that individuals should get on planes and run over to Iraq and start killing people in the streets. The leaders of a nation, however, are justified and given the blessing to do so.
I am not even saying that Iraq is, or is not a just war. I am simply combating the pacifist’s viewpoint that war is wrong, and thus any government that goes to war is wrong.
Now, let me really throw something into the works. If Christians would stand up in this country, and take hold (place faith) in the fact that the weapons of “our” warfare are mighty! We might not even be in this mess. There needs to be a revival of spiritual warfare in this country, and it isn’t happening in a widespread effort.
Christians need to stop saying that war is wrong, and need to start saying that war is spiritual, and believing it. If we would come together as Christian brother’s and sister’s and go to our knees in warfare against our enemies, the would not prosper.
Christians need to stop placing faith in the government. Which if they are blaming government, then they had faith in the government and were let down. I care more about what Christians are doing about homosexuality than I do about what the government does.
Okay… I’m done with that tangent.
We are both in agreement with Abu Gra. But I also think that the government is handling that issue internally. The fact is, what happened there is not within compliant conduct of an American Soldier. That incident, however, does not invalidate the entire war.
Coffee sounds good. When do you want to have it? Better yet, geographically where are you, and who are you?
I really do enjoy your comments, and hope you are here to stay for a while.
Please know, I am only a visitor here to this blog, I do not represent the site itself. While the other posters (Sean, Ron, and Steve) in here are educated with degrees, and aspirations, I have taken a total of two classes at a college level in Bible.
I am simply a restaurant manger who knows very little, and still has a lot to learn. I have been wrong before, if you want the two specific dates my wife can tell you, and I hold true to the fact that I could be wrong again, at any given moment. I appreciate the respect, yet directness of your comments.
-Matt Gaiser
Sean to your first point: This was posted on Senator Durbin's website Friday:
DURBIN STATEMENT ON PREVIOUS COMMENTS REGARDING GUANTANAMO BAY
Friday, June 17, 2005
“More than 1700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and our country’s standing in the world community has been badly damaged by the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. My statement in the Senate was critical of the policies of this Administration which add to the risk our soldiers face.”
“I will continue to speak out when I disagree with this Administration.”
“I have learned from my statement that historical parallels can be misused and misunderstood. I sincerely regret if what I said caused anyone to misunderstand my true feelings: our soldiers around the world and their families at home deserve our respect, admiration and total support.”
Regarding your Bible College--I'm sorry, never meant to offend you or anyone else--although I grant that my comments could have been taken in an inflamatory fashion. I regret that my "tone" cannot be better expressed within a blog. I'm not trying to anger you.
But I believe my point should be clear--what else was that "visit" but a political show? What should we have expected your Bible College to do? Maybe let Cheney pass on through, without shaking hands or picketing. Do you honestly believe that having him over was not a politcal endorsement of any kind? Glad I wasn't a student there. It's not quite as controversial as the Baptist minister who expelled the democrats from his church; but how would I have felt as a student at your school if I didn't support Bush and Cheney? (By the way, I did vote for them). But I went to your Bible College website and I can understand your frustration with my comments--a college like yours probably wouldn't want someone like me around. Nevertheless, I do have friends who attend there.
Finally, I apologize once again. When I say "Evangelicals" I too am making a generalization, Sean. If you don't fit the bill, that's okay, maybe we're more alike than we think. Most of my family and friends do fit this generalization, however, and they do indeed think Bush is "one of them."
Matt, thanks for making me feel welcome and thanks for the open dialogue. I had read on a previous post that you and Sean were close friends--assuming you're all either teaching or attending Circleville Bible College, it would be quite a trip to meet for coffee--but thanks for taking me up on the offer.
Anonymousq,
I suppose as a Christian we should accept the senator's apology. Right?
Too bad about the coffee.
I am not sure what post you read, but, I have never met Sean. I only know him through this web site.
Although, I very well may have called him a friend at some point.
He is however my brother in Christ, and I have probably interjected some personal "tone" somwhere in my dialogue with him.
Just a quick note, I was not trying to disatnce myself from Sean, or his statements. I was just letting you know that I am pretty much uneducated, formally anyway, as far as tehology is concerned. I didn't want you to think that I was one of the moderators here on this site, and that my opinion was a collective one held by all.
Anyway, I went completely off topic with this post, so I will leave it at that.
In Christ,
-Matt
Sorry, I was confused. Sean's a very articulate writer and obviously passionate about his faith. I wouldn't disassocate yourself from him either. I'm sure we'll be meeting in MS this fall. I like him already and I haven't even met him yet.
anonymousq,
Wow, I'm getting behind in this dialogue. I simply want to make a comment in reply to your reply to me...way back when.
Talk about mixing politics and religion! How is that you can say, "These people want to kill you and me, how ought they to be treated?" Then you went into a beautiful exegesis of the scriptures. Do you believe that loving your enemies means to throw out all law and punishment? How twisted is that? Does God not punish those that He loves? Keep the Scriptures in balance!
This has been fun, sorry you've missed out Ron--this too will probably be my last posting, so I'll give you the final word.
I suppose the reason I began these rambling was because I felt that throwing stones at Durbin for his comments as though they were directed at Americn soldiers struck me as political warmongering between the right and the left. I think Sean and I have addressed that fairly throughly.
Matt brought up the role of govt. in enforcing laws and protecting her people and I agree with him. I agree with you too Ron, that something should be done with these detaines--to be percise, I believe we should place them on trial before a judge and jury or let them go. I have little qualms with how they are treated so long as it is humanely, without the use of torture--charges which we should not ignore, write off or joke about (something I heard Rush do). If detainees are being mistreated, as followers of Christ we should get in the fight for them as much as any liberal out there. If they're not--at least we cared enough to listen. Sometimes our politcal bias can get in the way of our discernment (I'm speaking of all of us, including myself).
My only final comment would hail back to a previous point I made that no one addressed:
"The irony is that we do not want a separation of church and state when it comes to moral issues (like homosexuality, the 10 Commandments or prayer in school)--but when it comes to politics and miltary campaigns we argue that they are separate, that a govt is not expected to "love its enemies" the way a Christian is expected to. The deeper irony is that how we treat others (including prisoners of war) is a moral issue."
What I mean by that is this: we want a govt. that bans abortion and prohibits gay marriage--but if that same govt mistreats prisoners we go mute, (I realize none of you want the govt. to do that) but look back at your postings. Self-preservation is at the heart of all your arguments. Well, I've stood at abortion clinics and tried to persuade young mothers not to abort their unborn children, and they're justification was that this child would destory their world. Now you will no doubt answer, that terrorists and babies are two different things--but the motive on the part of mother or the nation is the same: Someone save me from this disaster--i.e. self-preservation. (Maybe I'm taking "self-giving love" to an extreme, maybe I'm just place Christ in our shoes)
What I do know is that if God opposes gay marriage, he also opposes "an eye for an eye" even in times of war. We could all learn something from Ghandi--someone who actually practiced the sermon on the mount and lived the beatitudes in times of national crisis.
My entire point in referencing the Bible College was only to point out the close ties between Evangelicals and the Republican party--many of us believe it is "our party".
And yes, God punishes those he loves--how but how he punishes them will surely be in a just and righteous fashion.
Thanks for you time and discussion. I hope we all leave as friends. Sean, don't go looking for me at Wesley--I'll never reveal my identity--but I may become your best friend! HA!
"GITMO" should be cleaned up! It's a
disgrace to our Christian ideals, I
suggest using using a .223 to convert
our muslam brothers. three
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog