Consistency My Friends, Consistency

[picapp align=”right” wrap=”true” link=”term=nyc+mosque&iid=9596543″ src=”http://view4.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9596543/the-three-musketeers/the-three-musketeers.jpg?size=500&imageId=9596543″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

You cannot read the paper or turn on the TV this past couple of weeks without hearing about the controversy brewing in lower Manhattan regarding plans to erect a Muslim community center/place of worship two blocks from the site of the fallen Twin Towers. I share the view of many of my fellow liberals that adherence to our American ideals of freedom of religion demands that the “Ground Zero Mosque”, as it has been called, be allowed to go forward.

However there is some consternation among my liberal friends concerning another exercise of First Amendment rights about to take place on August 28, in Washington, D.C. You see that date is sacred to a good number of people because on that day in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. gave his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”false” link=”term=martin+luther+king+jr&iid=2622558″ src=”http://view2.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/2622558/have-dream/have-dream.jpg?size=500&imageId=2622558″ width=”234″ height=”345″ /]

This year on August 28, gold coin huckster and Fox News carnival barker Glenn Beck will hold a gathering in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck will deliver a speech, supposedly updating King’s message for modern application. Also on hand will be former Alaska Governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin. Some liberals find this incredibly distasteful and while I haven’t heard anyone call for the event’s prohibition, there is considerable discontent regarding it.

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”false” link=”term=Glenn+beck&iid=8810529″ src=”http://view1.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/8810529/fox-news-host-glenn-beck/fox-news-host-glenn-beck.jpg?size=500&imageId=8810529″ width=”234″ height=”166″ /]

However, Princeton University Professor Melissa Harris Lacewell made a key point on MSNBC’s “Hardball” tonight. We cannot, on the one hand protect Muslim’s right to worship consistent with local law and zoning ordinances and in the next breath prevent Glenn Beck from airing his views in a public forum provided he has obtained the appropriate permits. To give the green light to Muslims but to block Beck because we find his message, and choice of venue and date offensive, makes us hypocrites, plain and simple. “Hardball” host, Chris Matthews seemed visibly irritated by Ms. Lacewell’s excellent analysis.

There is a simple bottom line folks. You either support the First Amendment or you don’t. One of the by products of living in a free democracy is hearing and seeing things that might disturb you. It’s the price you pay for getting the freedom to say things that might disturb others. It’s the American way.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

113 thoughts on “Consistency My Friends, Consistency

  1. Hey “R”,

    Speaking of consistency, I’ve noted you are the definition of inconsistent.

    On one hand, you never miss an opportunity to scorn Christianity, ridicule it, demonstrate your intolerance, cast aspersions and the like. If the roles were reversed, and nineteen men in the name of Christianity screaming “Jesus is Lord” had killed 3,000 innocent civilians, caused billions in damage, tanked the economy, led us to war even if they had twisted the message, and then their peers decided to build a megachurch under the guise of “interfaith alliances” 600 ft. from the graves, I would stake my life you would be peeing in your pants with outrage. All of you libs.

    But being this is an affront to most Christians and Conservatives, not only do you lend your support and welcome the religion’s right to do so, but with your month long cheerleading, have given the impression you celebrate it.

    This is a perfect demonstration of why I don’t think you really practice what you “preach.”

    ——————–

    P.S. – If you are offended by the date Glenn Beck has chosen to gather, may I ask why? Does only the black community get to admire and have dibs on MLK’s ideas and speeches?

    Because if so, I now claim offense that blacks would celebrate anything of Abraham Lincoln, or the 4th of July (being there were no ‘people of color’ Founding Fathers, and Christmas will only for Christians and I’ll be offended that you celebrate Christ’s birth (I’ll expect you to work that day and forgo not on the celebration, but the Federal Holiday as well).

  2. Tex, the fact that you would stake your life on your guess about my reaction shows you to be suicidal. Get some help my friend … I don’t want to lose you here.

    You’ve never once seen me say anything about tearing down a church. In fact, I’ve never blamed Christianity for the Tiller Killer. I’ve pointed out that one could blame the church if one followed the logic of the GZ mosque opposition.

    Also, seriously, I’m not all that worked up about Beck’s speech. I didn’t even know 8/28 was the anniversary of I Have a Dream until the dreaded lib news media pointed it out. That’s why I wrote this article in the first place.

    By the way … I actually wouldn’t blame you if you found my buying Christmas presents for my daughter distasteful. It really is the height of hypocrisy. But in my defense, Xmas is so commercialized that it would be cruel to the kid to not let her celebrate it.

  3. Well I won’t be watching or attending but I hope Becks “updates” if that is what goes down are tasteful and intelligent.
    Liberals consistency on the current buzz. That is very rich indeed. Rutherford you are to be commended that you point out what you do in the post. I’d add another dimension for you. I have not seen liberal or atheist commentary on USAID $$ going to mosques.I’ve seen and heard those that are or, seem to be big “separation of church and state” types taking a lead on the tolerance angle, and on that I sense some disingenuous practices.

  4. On a side note…R buy your little one all the Christmas gifts you want man,just never crush her if she utters: “I’m interested in the true meaning of Christmas and Easter.”

  5. Brown Shirts? Really?

    Because the left is known for its restraint in protesting the homes of those they disagree with: Activists Protest Outside AIG Execs’ Homes, or not…

    Following this rant, he interviewed Martin Luther King III, who he attempted to repeatedly pull into his hateful rhetoric. I give great credit to King who successfully kept himself from being sucked in.

    In one of the exchanges with King, doughboy went on to claim that Beck was promoting segregation, based on the blog Maine Refounders that had recommendations for where folks going to the Beck rally should or should not go. The blog said this:

    Safety and Mores
    DC’s population includes refugees from every country, as the families of embassy staffs of third world countries tend to stay in DC whenever a revolution in their homeland means that anyone in their family would be in danger if they went back. Most taxi drivers and many waiters/waitresses (especially in local coffee shops like the Bread and Chocolate chain) are immigrants, frequently from east Africa or Arab countries. As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African Americans and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country (e.g. Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia) with whom they may have political or military tensions. It’s rare to meet anyone who gets really offended, but you can still be aware of the issue.

    Many parts of DC are safe beyond the areas I will list here, but why chance it if you don’t know where you are?

    If you are on the subway stay on the Red line between Union Station and Shady Grove, Maryland. If you are on the Blue or Orange line do not go past Eastern Market (Capitol Hill) toward the Potomac Avenue stop and beyond; stay in NW DC and points in Virginia. Do not use the Green line or the Yellow line. These rules are even more important at night. There is of course nothing wrong with many other areas; but you don’t know where you are, so you should not explore them.

    If on foot or in a cab or bus, stay in Bethesda, Arlington (preferably north Arlington), Crystal City, Falls Church, Annandale, or Alexandria, or in DC only in northwest DC west (i.e. larger street numbers) of 14th or 16th streets, or if on Capitol Hill only in SE Capitol Hill (zip 20003) between 1st and 8th Streets, not farther out than 8th (e.g. 9th, 10th etc). (Or stay on the Mall and at the various monuments.) Again there are many other lovely places, from the Catholic University of America to Silver Spring, Maryland. But you don’t know where you are so you cannot go, especially at night, unless you take me with you.

    Now, seeing as I work in D.C., I’m somewhat familiar with its go/no-go areas and yes, the Yellow and Green lines service those areas. South East is by far the worst, followed closely by North East. Don’t believe me? Look for your self: http://www.crimemap.dc.gov.

    No one knows what Beck is going to say. He has told folks to leave their signs at home- they won’t be allowed in the rally. I find it more than a little hypocritical to hear MSNBC work so hard to paint the Ground Zero Mosque issue as a freedom of religion issue yet simultaneously work so hard against Beck’s freedom of speech. If your position on the Mosque is about freedom of religion, which yours has been R, then you have to back Beck’s Constitutionally protected right to assemble. I applaud your consistency, even though you’re wrong about it being a freedom of religion issue on the Mosque. 😉

    The people guilty of intolerance and hatemongering are, once again, on the left…

  6. Huck,

    I thought about not even responding, being you’re what I define as marginally ignorant and irrelevant. I guess going to school has made you smug, or something. How little you know about higher education. 🙂 But I’m getting really tired of your pedantic act.

    I make a generalized statement as analogy to make example of “R’s ignorant conclusions about the significance of 8/28, and you’ve got to chime in with your meaningless and often vague exceptions to every rule. And whether a Christmas tree, or not; pagan, or not – Rutherford got the point. Christmas is a celebration of Christ’s birthday dummy. It doesn’t surprise me being your a Muslim sympathizer and still believing Allah equates to Jehovah that you come to your nitwit conclusion, but still I thought you might recognize that 99.8% of the homes celebrating Christmas, at least the people understand the fact it designates Christ’s birth. I guess at the Red Pill house, it’s like Halloween. Wouldn’t surprise me – light a smoke and get drunk day.

    Tell you what. We don’t have an ignore key here. You’re not worth hammering like Graychin because you don’t rank enough to be full-fledged dickhead and I don’t feel like raising the blood pressure of a M.I. candidate. Why don’t you ignore me, and I’ll continue to skip by your inane posts like I always have? Fair enough?

  7. Tex…

    Does only the black community get to admire and have dibs on MLK’s ideas and speeches?

    Admire him all you want. Twisting his message is what some folk would object to. MLK was a pro-civil rights, anti-war Christian who would probably be just objected to by the Right today if he were alive, but since he’s dead, they seem to find it safer to try to co-opt his message, twisting it and removing all its power.

    It reminds me of that message from Jesus…

    “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’

    Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out!

    You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the judgment of Gehenna?

    Ouch.

  8. but since he’s dead, they seem to find it safer to try to co-opt his message, twisting it and removing all its power.

    You mean like “Content of Character”? A concept foreign to most on the left today who automatically conflate criticism of a certain pResident and his policies as “racism”, and keep repeating the meme to avoid adressing the question?

    Please tell me you have a better example to base your conclusion on. Please. In the meantime, I have to go to the hospital and get my blood filtered before I die of irony poisoning.

    “consistency” *snort*

    I’ll remember that the next time the usual suspects show up here in King County to object to churches building and expanding on their own land and being refused because the plans were on the wrong size paper, or that they would increase impervious surfaces by too high a percentage, or any of the other numerous silly excuses employed here.

  9. Do you TRULY think that “most on the Left” don’t care about the content of character? Think about what you’re saying.

    Of course folk care about character. We want our children to be good children, hard workers, making positive changes to society. We want this for ourselves. We want to see people and gov’t to be responsible and reasonable.

    ALL of us do, Left, Right, Middle or otherwise.

    And increasing impervious pavement IS a problem in most urban areas. We have pollution problems in most cities and those who have character and don’t wish to pollute our waterways are okay with reasonable rules protecting our common ground. So, just as an aside, that’s not a silly excuse generally (with the caveat that of course, I don’t know about your particular area), just responsible living.

  10. Admire him all you want. Twisting his message is what some folk would object to. MLK was a pro-civil rights, anti-war Christian who would probably be just objected to by the Right today if he were alive, but since he’s dead, they seem to find it safer to try to co-opt his message, twisting it and removing all its power.” – Dan

    Well, this statement has said more about Dan than I think any of his other comments.

    Pray tell, where has his message been twisted and who twisted it? Sourced examples if you will…

    Objected by the right? Who supported MLK:

    WAS DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. A REPUBLICAN?

    Why Martin Luther King Was Republican

    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

    Co-opt his message? Content of character versus the color of skin—can you say affirmative action quotas based specifically on the color of skin? Hmmmm, I’m sure MLK was all about that.

    Dan, pound sand…

  11. Do you TRULY think that “most on the Left” don’t care about the content of character? Think about what you’re saying.” – Dan

    Thinking…thinking…thinking…

    Yup, I think it is safe to say that I TRULY think that most on the left don’t care about content of character. That was fast…

    One of many ways to prove this is the constant argument of RACISM!!!! at every criticism of Obama.

  12. Here is a good source to support my point.

    Tell me, what would conservatives today have to say about King’s message that included….

    Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated…

    Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it’s nonviolence or nonexistence…

    A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such…

    When I say “co-opted,” what I’m talking about is honoring King on one day in January, and picking out the “safe” and “white-friendly” messages he had to say about love and friendship, but then proceed to ignore and oppose King’s many concerns about the US and poverty, the US and war.

    Again, I find it to be rather like Jesus’ quotes. Now that he’s gone, let’s honor his safe words, but ignore his hard challenges. That’s what I mean, and I think that unless the Right is willing to embrace and honor him in more than just a token way, you’d have a hard time reaching any other conclusion.

    How familiar are you with King’s writings? Do you know his positions on war? On capitalism? On communism? On US history?

    I am glad that conservatives have fairly universally come to embrace that part of King’s work that was about civil rights, if not all his ways of setting things aright. But that was not all there was to the man.

  13. Gorilla…

    Yup, I think it is safe to say that I TRULY think that most on the left don’t care about content of character.

    Then you are demonstrating a profound ignorance and irrational prejudice not based on reality but, I don’t know what – partisanship, perhaps? Fear? Pettiness? I don’t know you and don’t know the reasons you would embrace such an ignorant position (no offense intended with the use of the word “ignorant,” I’m just indicating a position that is not based upon real knowledge), but there it is.

  14. Dan, sincerely from the bottom of my heart, go fuck yourself.

    Tell me, calling me a racist because I disagree with Barak “Hoover” Obama, what part of content of character is that? Or is it more likely based on the color of skin– specifically Obama’s.

    Did you read my links? NO… That’s pretty damn obvious.

    I’m ignorant? That’s rich, especially in light of how many times we’ve had to educate your dumb ass on a few key facts.

  15. We have pollution problems in most cities and those who have character and don’t wish to pollute our waterways are okay with reasonable rules protecting our common ground. So, just as an aside, that’s not a silly excuse generally (with the caveat that of course, I don’t know about your particular area), just responsible living.

    *sniff * *sniff*
    Smells like a thinly-veiled collective rights argument here.

    The problem with buying into this belief that we all have a vested interest in how someone uses their property if it might damage the earth is it creates convenient pretexts, that can disappear for a price.

    Any land use attorney who has EVER gone through a physical “wetlands” assessment knows this to be true.

    King County is notorious for resisting ANY permits and approvals necessary to get new churches built or existing churches added on to. It can get done…if you a have a decade of so to dispense with every pretext and the $$$$ to pay for counsel to help you to get it done. And things like the “impervious surfaces” excuse may stop a chuch from providing adequate parking…even on a gravel surface, but some how doesn’t seem to affect permitting for shopping centers, multi unit dwellings, and big box stores. Curious, that.

    And the thing about the plans being on the wrong size paper? Happened to my church in Pierce County to the immediate south. It only caused a delay of six months, and an additional cost of $25k because the county changed the rule after the plans had been prepared, and they refused to grandfather plans prepared under the old rule.

    Do you TRULY think that “most on the Left” don’t care about the content of character? Think about what you’re saying.

    I’ve thought about it for years now, and I’m quite convinced.

    Whether it was the self-appointed intelligentsia telling us before the ascension of Barack Hussien Obama to the pResidency telling us that if we opposed him and his stated policies and goals, it was because we are racist (not because we have genuine concerns and disagreements)

    http://taxes-stupidity-and-death.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-self-appointed-cognoscenti-arent.html

    Or the sneering dismissal by Teh Won™ hisbadself of the “bitter clingers” clinging to their consitutionally protected guns and Bibles,

    Yes, I think that the left has no belief in content of character, at least in their political adversaries and rivals, judging from the sheer volume and tone of the projection that they cast upon opponents and adversaries. Keefie and Chrisie railing away about mindlessly following while trying to supress the tingles going up their legs from the pResident’s every uttereance…the continuing claims of right-wing hate issuing forth from the spittle flecked mouths of some of the angriest people it has been my misfortune to see…the cries of “fascism” and “shredding of the Consitution” coupled with the cries that the rich need to pay their fair share, and that GM and AIG were too big to fail, and the constant “loans” to Fannie and Freddie to keep them afloat.

    Yes, consistancy is a problem.

    No, I think that “Content of Character” is a completely disregarded concept for a party that focuses like a laser beam on “identity” politics and what people are “owed” based upon race, gender, and religion, and on equality of condition, regardless of ability, rather than equality of opportunity.

  16. Dan not for nothing but if you use “I don’t know” more than once in a comment perhaps you shouldn’t make the comment.
    As for co-opting Kings work.
    * Beck hasn’t said anything yet but someone here is already claiming co-optation.
    as for

    …if not all his ways of setting things aright.

    *Do we disgrace King somehow if we stand against perpetual welfare programs that have been proven to doom people to poverty?
    *Do we spit on Kings grave by believing in and engaging in a foreign policy program that saw America soar out of WWII as a great and benevolent power,not fully able to predict collectively where it may lead?
    *Is there a country on this planet that has better explored it’s history both good and bad?I am very confident I could rattle off 100 countries that would kill a professor who posted a course with the content of one that is easily taken across America.

  17. Oh yeah about the link. I would like to stress that the leftie site also makes it a point to throw out the “tea-bagger” line. Now that is a sign of character.mmmpphhh!

  18. Again, I find it to be rather like Jesus’ quotes. Now that he’s gone, let’s honor his safe words, but ignore his hard challenges. That’s what I mean, and I think that unless the Right is willing to embrace and honor him in more than just a token way, you’d have a hard time reaching any other conclusion.

    You mean like the poor will always be among us?

    A hard truth, borne out by a negligible net change in the percentage of the poor in society as measured by census data since the outset of “The War On Poverty” to the present, and increasing capital outlays, which have had no real effect on reducing poverty, but have had a significant effect on increasing dependency on government?

    I’m trying real hard to think of any place where Jesus said “Give generously to government, so that it may feed my sheep, and supply them an appartment, and medical care.”
    but I’m not finding it. In fact, I’m pretty sure that his commandments were for us as individuals to help others, as much as I am pretty sure that the idea was to voluntarily give as we feel moved to do, not to be compelled or forced to do. (2 Corninthians 9:7)

    I’m pretty sure that what you are proposing has been tried before, in the book of Acts, and it didn’t end well. Most people I know who’ve dwelled on it believe that this is because it can’t work without Jesus to lead it. I’m guessing you feel differently. I can’t, having seen too many socialist/communist/marxist governments that have failed or are failing…unless the enslavment of man and the reign of a kakocracy is your measure of success.

  19. Oh yeah about the link. I would like to stress that the leftie site also makes it a point to throw out the “tea-bagger” line. Now that is a sign of character.mmmpphhh!
    ” – Alfie

    Yeah, theirs…

  20. I’m pretty sure that what you are proposing has been tried before, in the book of Acts, and it didn’t end well.

    What is it you think I’m proposing?

    I’m proposing responsible gov’t and responsible societal decisions/policies. Beyond that, I don’t believe I’ve “proposed” anything else.

    What was done in Acts, I’m presuming you’re speaking about all the believers holding all things in common? That actually worked well, at least fora while. It was stated that “there were no poor among them.” That sounds like it was working fairly well.

    Beyond that, the Amish and Hutterites and others have lived a fairly Christian communistic lives and it’s worked out pretty well for them, seems to me.

    But perhaps you ought to clarify what you think I’m proposing, since I haven’t proposed anything specific.

    My guess is that you’re taking wild guesses about what gov’t policies I might want to propose and my guess is that you probably aren’t real close in your guesses. But you tell me.

  21. Beyond that, the Amish and Hutterites and others have lived a fairly Christian communistic lives and it’s worked out pretty well for them, seems to me.” – Dan

    They travel via horse drawn carriages…

  22. I’m proposing responsible gov’t and responsible societal decisions/policies.

    Who defines “responsible societal decisions/ policies”?

    The framwork for responsible government was set forth in the Constitution when duties were delegated to the three branches. All three have grown beyond their defined roles and duties.

    This has been encouraged and embraced by those seeking this usurpation as a “Responsible societal decision/policy”.

    The irony is that these “responsible” policies are frequently anything but. Creating dependency is not responsible. Empowering a political class and looking to it to fulfill your needs is not responsible. But please, Dan, tell me: how do you define “responsible”.

  23. Dan, Hisself? Tell me that was in jest? Hisself?

    Dan, the problem is with you Anabaptists, Mennonites, Amish, or whatever you are calling yourself today is that you benefit from brave souls like Gorilla who put it on the line to save your necks. If we had left it up to you guys, we’d all be bowing before King George’s throne some place. Instead of preaching, perhaps what you ought to say to Gorilla is “THANK YOU…”

    See Dan – You veil your blindness cloaked with your flavor of religion, never making any personal sacrifice or even a word of thanks to those better men who protect you. That would be bad enough, but then you criticize those that are keeping your cowardly neck from being lopped, magnifying that by excusing the ones doing the lopping under some guise of “dove.”

    Now I grant you your pacifism, mainly because I don’t want some wuss like you watching my back, because I trust a jihadist more than I do you. You’re no brother to me, so I wish you would refrain from the righteous indoctrination you bestow each and every post. I have absolutely no respect for Christians who are cowards.

    You like scriptural quotes, so I provide the one I think best fits you from my second favorite prophet. 😉

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

    You, like Rutherford, have no monopoly on the judgment of content of character, or some profound sense of right and wrong, so you can can stop with the false piety and the preachy, limp wristed, wussy act. You are a modern day Pharisee. 😐

  24. Who defines “responsible societal decisions/ policies”?

    As always, we, the people. Who else?

    The irony is that these “responsible” policies are frequently anything but… But please, Dan, tell me: how do you define “responsible”.

    Humanity is a flawed group. Anything we do will be flawed. A “responsible” military will not always be so. A “responsible” post office will be flawed. A “responsible” energy or environmental policy will be flawed. Having NO policy for all these areas WILL be flawed. What you gonna do?

    I define responsible the same as the dictionary, I reckon. But since so many people here seem to have a problem with the dictionary citations, I’ll just let you look it up yourself.

    Perhaps a real world example would be helpful?

    Take prisoners. We have a huge recidivism problem, with a great percentage of prisoners getting released, committing a crime again and returning to prison again. This costs society a great deal of money.

    Study after study in place after place demonstrates (ie, responsible) that IF we implement programs (education programs, drug rehab programs) in prisons, recidivism rates fall.

    Not only that, but in study after study, the rates drop enough to pay for the rehab/education program.

    So, for instance, if Prison X implements an education program for its prisoners, it will COST $1 million/year. Whoa! That’s a waste of gov’t (taxpayer) money, right? Giving freebies to thugs in prison, who in their right mind would do something like that??

    So goes the Libertarian/conservative line.

    BUT, if recidivism goes down (and it does) and it goes down significantly (and it does), then the reduced number of prisoners mean that the prison is SAVING $2 million. So, giving “freebies” to prisoners actually helps not only them, but the taxpayer. AND, since they don’t return to prison, many more of them end up actually getting jobs and paying taxes, becoming productive members of society.

    So, what (in a shallow view) looks like wasteful and irresponsible gov’t spending, it’s actually just the opposite.

    That’s responsibility. Responsible policy, fiscally sound and socially redeeming. Win/Win/Win.

  25. Tex, “hisself” was deliberate. It’s how I talk and write sometimes.

    is that you benefit from brave souls like Gorilla who put it on the line to save your necks. If we had left it up to you guys, we’d all be bowing before King George’s throne some place.

    This is your opinion and you are welcome to it. If you don’t mind, I’ll hold an other opinion. My safety (fleeting and undependable as it may be) comes, I believe, from my God and my community. It is the belief of many folk like myself that our foreign policy does as much to threaten us as it does to protect us.

    I’m not a believer in the myth of redemptive violence.

    So, while you are welcome to your opinion, I’ll hold on to mine, just the same, thank you very much.

    None of which is to say that I am hateful or ungrateful for our military. I understand that these are good-willed people who by and large do what they do in a sincere effort to be of help and do the right thing. God bless them for the effort and the sincerity and their idealism.

    I do not stand in judgment of them.

    I just happen to disagree (at least the vast majority of the time) that war is an effective means of protection or a good approach for foreign policy. I agree with the current Pope who, as a Cardinal, once said that he questions that the notion of Just War is even possible any more, if it ever was.

    And, ultimately, I’m not asking anyone to pick up a gun or a bomb for me. I’m asking just the opposite. I’m asking that, IF they’re doing it for my sake, to put down that gun. I’ll face the “terrorists” the “communists” or whatever other boogeymen you think are out there on my own, thank you very much.

    And you are welcome to believe that there are no workable solutions beyond war or that any time the US wages war, we’re right, but I’ll disagree, if those are your conclusions.

    No offense, I just disagree with your hunches on security and threats.

  26. ou, O LORD, are a shield for me, My glory and the One who lifts up my head. I cried to the LORD with my voice, And He heard me from His holy hill. I lay down and slept; I awoke, for the LORD sustained me. I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people. Who have set themselves against me all around.

    Psalm 3

    Though an army may encamp against me, My heart shall not fear; Though war may rise against me,In this I will be confident. For in the time of trouble God shall hide me in God’s pavilion

    Psalm 27

    Or, what if we allow for some defense, but for Christians, we encourage a more biblical approach. Do you recall what God did time and time again in the OT? When Gideon wanted to pull together an army to fight the Philistines, he gathered a small group together – much smaller than the Philistine army – and what did God say? It’s too large! Send some of them home!

    God wanted Israel to rely upon God, not a military for defense. It’s a repeated theme in the OT.

    Now, I’m not suggesting that as national policy. Unlike some on the Religious Right, we don’t tend to want to legislate our religious beliefs. But we DO think this is a good position for Christians to take: Trust in God.

    I’m glad to leave it to each person’s own conscience to sort that through for themselves, but it’s the position of the historic Peace Churches.

  27. I have absolutely no respect for Christians who are cowards.

    Me, either. Who do you know that’s a coward?

    Myself, I live in Louisville’s urban neighborhoods. I have for over 20 years. I walk most places I go, past the mentally ill, the homeless, the drug-addled. But yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil.

    Not too much, anyway.

    Here’s a true story: I was out one night and saw a young lady surrounded by about 5 young men (teenagers, I’d guess). One man was hitting on his “girlfriend.” I walked up and stepped between the young man, his friends and the young lady. I told him calmly that he needed to quit, that what he was doing was wrong. He looked to his buddies and said I need to mind my own business and get lost. Then he hit me. Once. I turned to his friends and told him they need to get him home. By then, the young lady had made a safe get away. His friends took him home.

    A soft answer turneth away wrath.

    Want to join me on some of my walks sometime, unarmed? Or would you be afraid to do so?

    My point is not that I’m an unusually brave fella, nor to suggest that you’re a coward. I don’t know you. You don’t know me.

    My point is just that. It isn’t wise to make presumptions about people you know nothing about.

    ‘Tis better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

  28. I do not stand in judgment of them.

    Well isn’t that commendable of you… ** VOMIT ** You’re really putrid and a gutless hack.

    You wouldn’t have a country or a home if those betters of yours bid the same foolish thoughts you do. I need to add something to coward – a thankless leech.

    You would have condemned Christ overturning the tables…

  29. I’m going to probably get torn to shreds by Tex for saying this. But, I sometimes feel church to be effeminate.

    I can’t stand when some self righteous pussy picks up his guitar and strums out his little song with his fruity voice.

    I miss the days when I couldn’t understand what the hell was being said because it was in Latin or Polish. I felt closer to God without the lispy sermon by some possibly gay priest and his weird fake smile.

    Thankfully, we have a new priest in my parish. He’s Philippino and seems old school to me, although he is young. I find myself going to church more and plan on going this Sunday.

    Church sometimes makes me feel like a wimp. Dan, you are one of those pussies that ruin Church.

    I’m not well versed in scripture. But I know David struck Goliath in his fucking head. There is a time to fight.

    I refuse to believe God was mad at the teen age Rabbit when he beat the shit out of a bully who preyed on the weak at our bus stop. It was one of my better moments.

    Perhaps Dan was one of the helpless omegas I defended back in ’87 on that cold March morning?

  30. As always, we, the people. Who else?

    Hmmmm. I see.

    Like “We the People” had to pass an obscene spending bill to keep unemployment from rising above 8%. Why, that was so responsible, we the people didn’t even bother to read it before voting! And if it did nothing to change unemployment, no worries! Because it was responsible, we could harp on the unmeasured and unmeasurable number of jobs it saved!

    Like “We the People” keep discovering things in the Constitution that aren’t there to justify wealth redistribution, and entitling us to things that aren’t for government to provide.

    Like the responsible policies of Medicare and Social Security, which make people less responsible for their own welfare, and make their families less responsible as well, because “Hey! I pay taxes! Let the government do it!”

    As for your prison example, you miss the point. It isn’t about spending more money on a captive audience to give them knowledge and skills that they were too lazy or to unfocused to take advantage of when they were presented in public screwels. I don’t pay taxes to make Randy the Rapist a smarter predator. I don’t pay taxes to give Mark the Meth-head skills to support his habit, and I don’t pay taxes for George the gang-banger to learn math so he can keep better track of his criminal enterprises the next time he’s on the outside.
    Prison is supposed to suck. It is supposed to make you want to be anywhere else. That’s the deterrent, and we put Randy, and Mark, and George there, so they are no longer a threat to society. They are there because they made a decision not to play nice with everyone else in society. At some point, you can’t keep blaming society for your bad choices. Responsible people know this, and that’s why not everyone is a criminal

    I agree that it isn’t the best deterrent; which is why I favor both open and concealed carry. When you don’t know if your mark is packing, and if they are good with it if they are, THAT’S a deterrent, especially when seconds count, and the police are only minutes away.

    The thing you apparently don’t realize is that “We the People” are more and more removed from making responsible societal decisions. The Fever Swamp on the Potomac continues to grow and usurp, and the choices that belong to “We the People” are no longer being made outside its bounds.

    A Department of Education increasingly dictates policy to schools, where the authority properly rests with the communities and school boards.

    An Environmental Protection Agency promulgates regulations reflecting Executive Branch Agenda Items, when the Legislative Branch does not provide them with the laws that they want, meaning policy is made without meaningful deliberation, and with zero accountability to those who would have to comply.

    Federal Judges take it upon themselves to create law that the Legislature, which again is accountable to “We the People”, will not pass, because “We the People” don’t want it.

    “We the People” now live in jurisdictions where we no longer truly own property. Our uses are determined increasingly on nebulously justified collective concerns, bureaucrats who answer only to other bureaucrats, and a steady stream of taxes, which reduce us all to no more than glorified renters.

    “We the People” have been subplanted by “We the Few Who Know Better Than You” who don’t care what “We the People” think, and apparently, you missed the memo, Dan. I wonder why that is?

  31. Want to join me on some of my walks sometime, unarmed? Or would you be afraid to do so?

    I grew up in Flint, and spent more time than I care to think about in Detroit. Care to take a ride through the North End of Flint or on the Cass Corridor through Detroit with me sometime?

    ‘Tis better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    And yet you couldn’t follow your own advice. Sad, really.

  32. Thankfully, we have a new priest in my parish. He’s Philippino and seems old school to me, although he is young. I find myself going to church more and plan on going this Sunday.

    That’s because the Old School Catholics actually stood for something. Those who take no stand and simply “bear witness” to the wrongness around us stand for very little other thansome vaguely defined acceptance cloaked as love. It doesn’t inspire respect because it makes church little more than a social club where nothing is expected of the congregant. Faith doesn’t have to mean “pushover”, and it doesn’t mean meekly acquiescing to a world that wants to use our understanding and belief in shame to push us into silence. “You’re a Christian, you’re supposed to love everyone.”
    “Yes, I am a Christian, but it doesn’t mean I have to silently bear witness to evil, and it doesn’t mean that I have to let bad things happen, and it doesn’t mean that I have to let things that are wrong go unopposed.”

  33. Rabbit, 😆

    Dan gives church a bad name.

    The only time I got beat up in my life was at a vacation Bible school at age 16. Guy literally through me through a wall. I remember turning my head left and right and seeing nothing but studs.

    Of course, old Gary has been in the slammer since about 1990. I found him in the Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections on meth distribution almost accidently one night. He looked bad – I think meth had taken a once promising Professional Wrestling career.

  34. Rabbit,

    I’ll tell you how I know Dan is wrong. Many, if not most, of those guys putting their lives on the line are both Conservative and many have a great degree of faith.

    When I went back to my 30th high school reunion, the one guy that really stood out was a guy who had gone on to West Point and made something of himself and a wonderful Christian guy.

    I doubt he’d look at Dan too favorably.

  35. After too many nights staying up till 2 in the morning, I’m turning in early tonight dudes. Convo looks interesting and I’ll pipe in tomorrow although Dan doesn’t need my help.

    What I love about Dan … and Dan please don’t take this as an insult … is that he applies a child like innocence and simplicity to his argumentation style that just drives you guys batsh*t crazy.

    I’m depressed a bit at how I lost it over at BiW’s blog … and I actually restrained myself. I could have been worse. At another conservative blog I came close to insulting a dude’s mother but I controlled myself. (Then the mofo, who must have read my mind, insulted my mother.)

    So I commend Dan … you can go ape-sh*t all you want and the dude comes back up un-ruffled defending his position.

    Bravo … and with that I bid you all adieu (was that pussy enough for you Rabbit? 😀 )

  36. At another conservative blog I came close to insulting a dude’s mother but I controlled myself. (Then the mofo, who must have read my mind, insulted my mother.)

    Actually, Dave in Texas is one of the sweetest people I know, and for you to push him to that frankly suprised me. I guess the lesson is that he doesn’t deal well with people playing dumb.

  37. BiC,

    I guess the lesson is that he doesn’t deal well with people playing dumb.

    I think the problem is BiC what Rutherford would define as child like innocence, most of us would call dumb.

    The only thing that drives me crazy is to think I’m trying to rationalize with a guy who uses hisself, thinks it virtuous he doesn’t condemn our armed forces, and can’t understand why we might need a strong military. 😐

    Somewhere, Spock weeps.

  38. Here’s an eye opener. Proof of the the Left’s coalition with the Islamic Supremacists – to hell with the national interest.

  39. Rutherford…

    So I commend Dan … you can go ape-sh*t all you want and the dude comes back up un-ruffled defending his position.

    No offense taken, R. Thanks.

    But there’s not much here really to respond to. Except for my conversation with BiW, the rest are all ad homs and I think I’ll pass on responding to them, as it appears pointless.

    My first and main point was that I agree with you, Rutherford: Let Beck be free to say what he wants. I think he does more damage to his cause than anything else. Hisself (ha!) is his own worst enemy.

    BiW, I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. We are a representative republic. We freely elect folk to represent us. When they do a poor job of doing so, any and all of us are free to organize and work to push for changes. I fully support anyone doing so, even if I disagree with their ends.

    I fully support the TP people whining about “big gov’t.” Go for it.

    But where they are failing, and will fail unless they change strategies, is their vagueness. They’re against Big Gov’t UNTIL you talk about ending a program they like. Like the rest of us.

    So, the wisest action seems to me to make your case against programs/policies that our representatives have enacted. I do it all the time. No problems. That’s how our system works.

    What would you propose to do differently?

  40. Because he’s a bit more reasonable, I will respond to this from BiW…

    “Yes, I am a Christian, but it doesn’t mean I have to silently bear witness to evil, and it doesn’t mean that I have to let bad things happen, and it doesn’t mean that I have to let things that are wrong go unopposed.”

    I agree. I just disagree that bombing children is the right way to stand opposed to evil. Very few anabaptists would advocate doing nothing. I think one problem that folk have is that they don’t understand the world of difference between “passivism” and “pacifism.”

    If refusing to strike back blindly is giving church a “bad name,” I guess I’m following in the footsteps of a Guy who refused to strike back, and that Jesus also gave the church a bad name, but that don’t make no sense.

  41. Hey Dan,

    I believe you have really misread Jesus’ meaning. While I would admit that I would admire a man like yourself who could turn the other cheek individually, you make it sound like a sovereign country must do the same. That is impossible and imprudent – it’s the reason America is sovereign and you are free to choose to be a pacifist, or anything else for that matter.

    Pure evil must be confronted. If it is not, innocent people die and a country eventually ceases to exist. We were too slow to react in 1939 with Hitler, and millions lost their lives including 50% of God’s chosen people. We were cowardly after the first WTC bombing and evil returned to finish the job. Had we struck back with a vengeance and attacked radical Islam in 1993, it is likely 9/11 would have never happened.

    America is the least imperialistic country on earth and perhaps in history. We have the might and power to conquer, yet we generous with our time and resources. We our not sinless and we are not always just because we our made up of fallible people. Nobody claims America perfect – but we’re closer to God’s footsteps and Jesus instruction than any other country on earth. We have provided more freedom and liberty to not just our citizens, but to all the world than any power in history. There is no doubt in my mind that America is blessed from God because for our courage.

    If you can tell me which country does it better, please do so. If not, then I think you would be wise to re-reflect on your criticism – and your criticism of American policy is loud and clear even when masked under the guise of peace.

    It takes no courage Dan to witness as a disciple of Christ in America. You don’t fear for your life and you’re not threatened. Don’t mistake that for courage.

  42. Dave in Texas is one of the sweetest people I know

    I don’t want to spend a lot of time litigating this here but if Dave is one of the sweetest people you know, then I’d hate to meet the folks you consider scumbags. At best, the dude came off bipolar. Some comments seemed benign, others ambiguous, and most, imitations of Dick without the intelligence. Case in point, Dick implies he’s f*cking your mother by requesting that you tell your mother not to make his eggs so runny in the morning., Dave posts an animated gif of a dude slamming the words “your Mom”. Juvenile at best.

    Honestly, I was stupid … if I’d had any idea that Cathy’s blog was just a suburb of The Hostages I wouldn’t have gone there in the first place. Once there, I decided to leave when I wanted to leave …. not when another of your buddies, Geoff, wanted me to.

    Oh … memo to Tex … liberal blogs are not the only ones where your comments get edited by the administrator. That was the straw that broke the camels back over at Cathy’s place when one of my comments was replaced by a stupid albeit harmless joke.

  43. “R”,

    Oh … memo to Tex … liberal blogs are not the only ones where your comments get edited by the administrator. That was the straw that broke the camels back over at Cathy’s place when one of my comments was replaced by a stupid albeit harmless joke.

    I have no doubt some Conservative blogs do a little editing. In fact, I have found most blogs do, making these I frequent here: BiC’s, Alfie’s, Chen’s, Hippie’s and this blog a pleasure to post to and appreciated.

    The ones that smoke me Rutherford are not so much the discretionary ones who forewarn, but those that “advertise” they want intense debate like Graychin’s worthless trash, and then when you disagree with opinions, or even if prove your points with facts that don’t agree with their notions, they start changing your posts – worse, they deny doing so.

    I’m not always the cynic or smart ass. There were a couple of my posts at Graychin’s that were far from personal attacks, and he still deleted them, or added the word “TROLL” and accused me of doing it. He’s got to be the most feckless coward I’ve met on the net. I’m ashamed he’s from my home state – it’s a source of embarrassment for me.

  44. Since Brother Rutherford does not seem to mind rambling, perhaps I’ll use this as a chance to offer some thoughts what anabaptists, or at least I, mean when I speak of peacemaking.

    Some things to consider (these are not necessarily my thoughts alone, but I’ve been taught from many sources: The Mennonites and theologians Walter Wink, John Howard Yoder, Art Gish and others – any astute thoughts are not likely mine, but borrowed from one of these teachers):

    1. The “turn the other cheek,” teaching from Jesus reads like this…

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

    Notice, Jesus says specifically, if someone strikes on on the RIGHT cheek. How does that happen? If a right handed person (ie, most of us) strikes you on the right cheek, it is because they have back-handed you. In that culture, this was an insult. You backhand a dog, a child, a woman (if you are a brute, that is), someone of a lower class. It was a way of demeaning someone, in that culture, or so I’m told. A straight-forward punch, on the other hand, was a sign of equality.

    2. Jesus was telling his followers, if you are struck, don’t strike back, but don’t cower or run, either. Face them like a man/woman, like an equal. Make them see you as an equal. Now, you may or may not agree with this take on dealing with violence, but it can hardly be called cowardice.

    3. Continuing on, the passage states, “Do not resist an evil person,” and some (including a VERY FEW pacifists, but not many) have taken this to mean PASSIVEness. Passively ignoring an evil person/evil actions and letting them continue on.

    4. Walter Wink observes…

    When the [King James] court translators … chose to translate antistenai as “Resist not evil,” they were doing something more than rendering Greek into English. They were translating nonviolent resistance into docility. Jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. That would have been absurd. His entire ministry is utterly at odds with such a preposterous idea…

    A proper translation of Jesus’ teaching would then be, “Do not retaliate against violence with violence.” Jesus was no less committed to opposing evil than the anti-Roman resistance Fighters like Barabbas. The only difference was over the means to be used.

    cont’d…

  45. 5. It has been suggested that rather than teaching docility (truly an absurd notion to anyone who’s read the NT, or the OT, for that matter), Jesus was providing what we might call today strategies for non-violent resistance. Effective tools for dealing with evil/wrong that don’t require us to engage in evil/wrong ourselves.

    6. Further notions along those lines, Jesus said…

    [Jesus] said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

    Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

    7. The Cross was the Roman method of executing political criminals, those who were insurgents and a threat to the Empire. It was a horrible, torturous, barbaric means of killing someone, used to “make an example” and strike fear into the hearts of anyone who might dare oppose the Empire.

    But amazingly, Jesus says plainly that the religious elite and the Roman empire would likely kill him and anyone who followed his teachings. But Jesus said, in so many words, “don’t sweat it. TAKE UP THAT CROSS, follow me anyway.” It was a way of deconstructing the power of that tool of oppression and terror.

    8. Now, there WERE those in Jesus’ day who were all about violent confrontation of the Roman oppressors. They were called Zealots. At least one of Jesus’ disciples was a Zealot. And, if you believe Jesus, “all power on heaven and earth” had been given to him. If Jesus was the son of an all powerful God, as I believe, he certainly could have pulled off a magnificent overthrow of the violent oppressors. It’s what many Jews were expecting to find in their Messiah.

    But Jesus made it clear that he was not THAT sort of Messiah. He came, instead, teaching peacemaking, overcoming evil – NOT with violence, but with good, instead. He taught (in a time when it was dangerous to say so) about ANOTHER KINGDOM, another Way of doing things. And it wasn’t some wishy washy pie in the sky by and by, goody goody sweetness after you die, but “thy Kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH, as it is in Heaven.”

    cont’d…

  46. 9. It is THESE teachings that we Christians are told to follow. It is THAT life example that we are told to follow.

    Peter says…

    But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

    “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

    He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

    10. So, Anabaptists, Quakers, the church for the first 200 years or so and others consider all this and strive to take it fairly literally for ourselves. Say what you will about whether or not you agree with these methods of standing up to wrong, you can’t reasonably call it cowardice. You can’t reasonably say they were/are choosing to ignore evil.

    Apologies to Rutherford or anyone else if this sounds preachy, that was not my intent. I was just trying to give a more full explanation (and I’m just scratching the surface) of what the historic Peace Churches tend to believe. A Moment from the Mennonites, if you will.

    As a further aside, because some have mentioned it, let me explain that I attend a nominally Baptist church, Jeff St Baptist Community. We were formerly a Southern Baptist church but we have left that (or actually, the Southern Baptists have left us) and embraced an unquantified, but more Anabaptist-y, Mennonite-ish flavor. I consider myself an anabaptist, as do several (but not all) of our members. So that’s why I have used different terms to refer to myself, my church and my tradition. It’s in flux, I’d guess you’d say.

    I’m not necessarily looking for a response, just offering a bit of background for what it’s worth.

    Peace.

  47. It’s what many Jews were expecting to find in their Messiah.

    And it is what Christians expect upon the return of their Messiah. Dan, I don’t argue your turning the other cheek – it’s a matter of personal forgiveness as instruction. But that turning the other cheek doesn’t mean to ignore evil either. Read Revelation 19:9 and you will see a God of War – it’s the same Jesus that ascended into heaven. That’s my Jesus.

    I don’t believe you recognize a few immutable truths. If you do recognize these, you have given me no indicator as much.

    First, God ordains governments for good and for evil – straight out of Romans 13. I believe it beyond a shadow of a doubt God has ordained America for God and that she has carried out that good with many of her shining moments while at war. D-Day may have been America’s finest moment. Second, war may be the last alternative – but it is still a justifiable alternative when all else fails. There is nothing unChristian about that statement. Third, God has throughout human history used men to facilitate his wrath. The same Jesus in the New Testament is the same God in the Old Testament – he was there from the beginning. There are justifiable wars and nothing has changed that fact. Finally, without those justifiable wars, you Anabaptists would not have the opportunity to carry out your personal mission, or have a country to practice your religion freely without threat or coercion, or live in the security of knowing you can be pacifists and still live in peace.

  48. I have relatively briefly tried to stake out my view of what Jesus taught us as Christians to do, how we are to live, walking in his steps.

    You speak of a Jesus returning to kill and destroy. I don’t know if that’s true or not. I’m not a fortune teller. The Jews were pretty sure (many of them) that the scriptures were clear and that the Messiah would be a military leader, killing the unjust. Turns out they were mistaken, if Jesus was the Messiah as you and I think.

    Similarly, those who think Jesus will come again to kill and destroy may be mistaken, too. I don’t know what the future holds, I just know what WE have been taught to do. Follow in Jesus’ steps. Live a life like his example. Turn the other cheek. Overcome evil with good.

    This is what I think Christians are to do, and thus I strive to live in such a way. Do you think following in Jesus’ steps is a wimpy, cowardly way to live? I don’t think so.

    So, that is ONE thing, part one of what you’re talking about: How are CHRISTIANS supposed to live.

    The second part: What is allowable for gov’t’s to do? I would agree that the Bible teaches that a gov’t might legitimately do things like self-defense, like prosecuting criminals. I have no problem with that.

    Jesus never told the Roman soldiers that they could not do as they were doing. On the other hand, Christians did not join the Roman army. If they were drafted, they refused and faced the consequences. Military members did not join the church in those early years and, if they did, they left the military.

    What is allowable and maybe even advisable for a gov’t or military to do is not the same as what is allowable or advisable for Christians to do.

    That’s a second point…

  49. The other point I think worth considering is what sort of military action is advisable from a logical/civic point of view? While I have no desire to legislate pacifism, as it is a reflection of my personal religious beliefs, I do think it reasonable to question certain approaches and their advisability from a civic point of view.

    The Catholic church has a term for this (a term I’m forgetting) notion of when Christians can and can’t rightly advocate their views as legislation. There are some teachings within religion that are fairly universally held, regardless of faith system (or lack thereof), arguments that have a civic rationale (in addition to a religious one). Criminalizing theft for instance, coincides with our religious beliefs about “thou shalt not steal,” but there are rational, non-religious reasons for wanting to legislate them, too. These CIVIC-based notions can reasonably be supported by church folk, the Catholic church says, without it being an imposition of religious beliefs.

    On the other hand, there are some religious beliefs we hold that are more specifically JUST religious beliefs, with no great civic or rational reason for legislating them. THESE beliefs ought NOT be imposed by legislation, the Catholic church believes, and I agree.

    Some examples might be Sabbath rules, gay marriage and more pacifistic approaches to foreign policy. Some people of faith believe that no work should be done on Saturday (or Sunday, for others), because “God said so,” but there is no logical, civic reason for trying to legislate that. Same for gay marriage. Same for Pacifism. As much as I think more pacifistic approaches to defense are good and reasonable, I recognize that it is a belief I hold at least partially because I think “God said so,” and that it can be hard to make the civic case for such.

    That being the case, I don’t advocate legislating pacifism. If a nation wants to have a military, I don’t think they are wrong for doing so.

  50. without those justifiable wars, you Anabaptists would not have the opportunity to carry out your personal mission

    Historically, we anabaptists have been threatened by the military just as often, if not more, as we have been defended by a military.

    My family’s Huguenot forbears came to this nation because of threats of a military in France. My faith tradition came to this country because of threats of military violence in Europe. These militaries were generally peopled by other Christians who followed their civic and religious leaders’ decision to kill and imprison the anabaptists.

    Thousands sealed their faith with their blood. When all efforts to half the movement proved vain, the authorities resorted to desperate measures. Armed executioners and mounted soldiers were sent in companies through the land to hunt down the Anabaptists and kill them on the spot without trial or sentence.

    [From anabaptists.org]

    In this nation, we’ve been treated better, but still, there are plenty of stories of anabaptist (and other COs) being forced into labor (especially during the Civil War, WWI and WWII, for instance) only to be taunted, beaten and killed in “accidents.”

    I hold no animosity towards soldiers today for the sins of the military in years past, but I hope you can understand that we have learned our position based on the historical record and hard facts.

    Beyond that, it is your conclusion (and indeed, the conclusion of I’d suggest the majority of folk) that military action leads to “freedom” and safety and for myself, I am not willing to say that is never the case (consider the story of the poor villagers in Nicaragua who were under attack from Contra terrorists during the 1980s, for instance). Still, I am dubious of the notion that as a rule, military action tends to bring peace or safety. Especially more aggressive, expansionist or “pre-emptive” types of actions. It is our belief that these often serve to undermine safety and freedom as often as not.

    You are safely in the majority on that position, I gladly acknowledge. Hold to the majority position if you wish. I shall hold on to my position, thank you very much.

  51. Read Revelation 19:9 and you will see a God of War – it’s the same Jesus that ascended into heaven. That’s my Jesus.

    As a further aside, this all depends on how you read Revelation, doesn’t it? When reading the Bible, Tex, I’m sure you’ll agree it’s important to consider the style it was written in and what the message was in context. A poem should not be read as a prophecy and a parable should not be read as historic text and stories telling historic tales in an Epic style should not be confused with a more modern factually sound history would be written in.

    While it’s all debatable, I’d posit that some who consider Revelation as literal prophecy of exactly what will come may do so in error. Consider this, from a church member friend of mine, well-schooled in Bible study…

    In this John of Patmos affirms that Jesus stands in continuity with the Torah and the Prophets, understood not in Zealot/Revolutionary fashion, but interpreted nonviolently as Jesus (following Isaiah) did. The two witnesses of Rev. 11:5 are the prophets Moses and Elijah.

    The Hebrew Scriptures describe Moses beginning his liberating career as a murderer of an abusive Egyptian guard, but, although Israel encounters armies and responds with violence during Moses’ career, his role in God’s exodus liberation is portrayed as prophetic–as testifying to the power of God and not human arms…

    “The Old Testament leads John to expect a Messiah who will be a lion of Judah [i.e., a Davidic military ruler, MLW-W], but the facts of the gospel present him with a lamb bearing the marks of slaughter (5:5-6). The Old Testament predicts the smashing of the nations with an iron bar, but the only weapon the Lamb wields is his own cross and the martyrdom of his followers (2:27; 12:5; 19:15)” (Caird, p. 293, cf., pp. 243-245).

    I would add to Caird’s insights that this conquering by Word and martyrdom is also attested in the Hebrew Scriptures. John of Patmos, like Jesus before him, does not reject the Hebrew Scriptures, but reads them selectively, with a different interpretive grid than that of Essenes, the Pharisees, the social bandits of popular messianic movements, or the revolutionary Zealots whose actions led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and of Israel as a political entity in 144 C.E.

    source

    Michael, and many others, believe that much of Revelation is best understood as imagery, not literally taken. Just for what it’s worth.

  52. Dan,

    If America were made up of just Mennonites, Amish, and Anabaptists (which I’m not familiar), American would cease to exist and in fact, would never have existed. The formations of this country are soaked with the blood of patriots.

    I must assume you did not read Revelation 19:9, or simply don’t believe it. Clearly, Christ returns as a God of War. Evil is in for a bad time. The battle at Meggido says that blood will reign to the height of a horse’s bridle. Never in a time on earth will a war be waged like that one. And it is over with a word.

    Like I said, I tacitly admire your ability to turn the other cheek, if true. No doubt, that is biblical guidance and personally admirable. But I believe your thinking really muddled and wrong headed when it comes to the administration of a sovereign country. Evil is a fact of life, and evil must be confronted – like ancient Israel, a military is a must. It is folly to believe otherwise, and I would hope that you would have the intestinal fortitude to pick up a weapon and join the call if asked and the cause just. If not, you’re useless to America and I believe useless to the Kingdom of God.

  53. Michael, and many others, believe that much of Revelation is best understood as imagery, not literally taken. Just for what it’s worth.

    Of course, Daniel predicts the same. Christ speaks of the end in both Matthew and Luke. Did I mistake those too.

    And I’m quite sure 70 years ago, that your friend Michael would have said the dry bones of Israel (a clear metaphor) about the formations of Israel with just allegory.

    Michael is wrong – but it makes a warm fuzzy for your brethren who wish to ignore the parts that make them uncomfortable. I bet they ignore hell too, though Jesus talked far more of hell than He did of heaven.

    You know how I know you and your friend there are counterfeit Christians Dan? Hot tub Christians? You don’t even have the decency to reference the historical time line B.C. and A.D. – a clear sign of political correctness, but an affront to the One who split it.

  54. Anabaptist is an umbrella term for groups like the Amish, the Mennonites and Hutterites.

    I’ve read Revelation plenty of times. It’s not a matter of disagreeing with you what the words say, I’m disagreeing with your take on them. Maybe. We’d have to talk a bit more on it.

    Mostly, I believe that I can’t tell the future, nor can you. I believe that we have teachings that we are to follow, if we’re followers of Jesus. If you don’t want to be a follower of Jesus, by no means are you obligated to follow those teachings, only if you do wish to be a follower of Jesus.

    I believe those teachings are fairly clear most of the time.

    Yet, I believe that I’m entirely capable of being mistaken, as is anyone else. Thus, I believe what I believe as best as I can, with the caveat that I’m a flawed human fella with a limited amount of genius.

    I believe in confronting evil. With good. As we are taught.

    I believe that it is fairly clear that the church for its first ~200 years was a mostly pacifistic enterprise, in an often hostile environment.

    I believed it survived nonetheless.

    I would not pick up a weapon and follow the call of humans if I thought that call was contrary to the teaching of Jesus. However imperfect I am at it (and that’s a good bit), I’m a follower of Christ, not of humans. I would imagine we could soundly agree on that point.

  55. but reads them selectively, with a different interpretive grid than that of Essenes, the Pharisees, the social bandits of popular messianic movements, or the revolutionary Zealots whose actions led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and of Israel as a political entity in 144 C.E.

    As if somehow the Word of God that you like to quote is man inspired. John interprets for us what he would like to think, his reflections borrowed from culture. John puts his flavor on it, Matthew his. Peter and Paul wrote what they wanted too.

    How convenient that we can all interpret it anyway we like with the spin of “let’s consider” the culture, as if truth weren’t immortal. All roads lead to the same place…all “opinions” of equal value. Phooey….

    You just can’t see the silliness of what you would like the rest of us to believe. If the Bible not the Inspired Word of God, directly from God given to us by God, then it nothing but a book of practicality. Good advice, some imparted wisdom, and a horror story.

    Using your analogies Dan, there is no hell, no justice, no brokenness for learning. That doesn’t sound like much of a relationship to me – Jesus and I can just be friends, and I neither need to concern myself with my fallibility or the world’s for that matter.

    Give me that book by Ghandi, will you?

  56. You don’t even have the decency to reference the historical time line B.C. and A.D. – a clear sign of political correctness, but an affront to the One who split it.

    You think God has an opinion about how modern English speakers refer to how we quantify our years, that God would be “affronted” by BCE?

    On which Biblical text or personal revelation would you make this bold assertion?

    Sounds like you think God is easily offended. Or, “a pussy” in the terms of some of your comrades here.

    I don’t think so.

  57. I believe that it is fairly clear that the church for its first ~200 years was a mostly pacifistic enterprise, in an often hostile environment.

    Really? So you believe all those hideous deaths in the Coliseum were simply pacifists, do you? And that’s why Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of vipers because He was a pacifist too.

    And why his followers waved palms at his arrival to Jerusalem, a clear act of rebellion against the ruling authority, where Jesus knowingly and willingly knew he were to be crucified, yet never asked them to stop? In fact, believe He mentioned something about the rocks crying out…did He not?

    Thank God the 2nd century Church Fathers weren’t pacifists as you claim. Say, like Polycarp and disciple of John (the same John who put his own spin on the end of the age) who was arrested on the charge of being a Christian — a member of a ‘politically dangerous cult’ whose rapid growth needed to be stopped. I think your biblical interpretation only shortchanged by your ignorance of Roman history. Rome killed insurrectionists – and insurrectionists aren’t passive by nature.

  58. Sounds like you think God is easily offended. Or, “a pussy” in the terms of some of your comrades here.

    Oh, I think by the validity of the scripture of Revelations 19, it will be you that discovered Jesus was no pacifist, no flowing Breck Girl hair like you love to make Him to be.

    You obviously are blind to the times.

    Believe as you must Dan….

  59. Really? So you believe all those hideous deaths in the Coliseum were simply pacifists, do you? And that’s why Jesus called the Pharisees a brood of vipers because He was a pacifist too.

    ummm, yeah. Really. What is it you think pacifism means, Tex?

    Are you familiar with early church history?

    The early Christian community understood Jesus’ commands to prohibit the bearing of arms. Christians refused to join the military, even though the Roman army of the period was as much a police force as a conquering army. Those who converted to Christianity while in military service were instructed to refrain from killing, to pray for forgiveness for past acts of violence, and to seek release from their military obligations.

    A striking example of the pervasiveness of pacifism in the early church is the fact that Tertullian and Origen—church fathers who stood at opposite poles regarding the relation of faith to philosophical reasoning—each wrote a tract supporting Christians’ refusal to join the military.

    source

    Look, I’m not saying this is the one and only view of it – I’m not dogmatic on the point. I’m just noting that many if not most mainline church historians would confirm that for the first ~200 years, Christians did not take part in the military by and large. They tended to be more pacifistic.

    As is the case throughout Christian history and human history, people within have always had disagreements. Still, it is my understanding (and it is not an uninformed understanding) that the church tended away from militarism until Constantine’s time.

    Re: “Insurrectionists aren’t passive by nature…”

    1. I’m distinctly NOT speaking of being passive, which would be a poor understanding of Christian teaching.

    2. There is a difference with being charged with insurrection and being an insurrectionist who believes in using deadly violence. You make too much of the notion that some Early Christians were arrested. That’s no proof, any more than that Jesus was arrested for being a threat to the Empire.

    3. Are you suggesting that Jesus advocated using deadly violence as a good Christian practice? Easily enough to deal with. What is your biblical support for such a position?

  60. it will be you that discovered Jesus was no pacifist…

    Jesus was no pacifist. Meaning that Jesus advocated deadly violence as a means of settling disputes? Fine, show me where Jesus did this.

    This point, at least, is easily resolved. Demonstrate where Jesus advocated the use of deadly violence to solve problems and you’ve made your point.

    no flowing Breck Girl hair like you love to make Him to be.

    Read my words. I never said anything like that. You all seem to have a hard time separating out my words from what you want to hear.

    So you can have that argument with yourself, if you’d like. Just leave me out of it. With any luck, you may actually beat yourself…

  61. And, ultimately, I’m not asking anyone to pick up a gun or a bomb for me. I’m asking just the opposite. I’m asking that, IF they’re doing it for my sake, to put down that gun. I’ll face the “terrorists” the “communists” or whatever other boogeymen you think are out there on my own, thank you very much.” – Dan

    I would happily put your ass, along with all your little friends, on a plane and ship your ass to Afghanistan. You can deal with it on your own, thank you very much.

    R, let me say this about as clearly as I can: I HATE PREACHING.

  62. Rutherford, if any of my posts are out of line, by all means, remove them with my humble apologies.

    Gorilla, I was sincerely trying NOT to preach, but to inform about some history/positions that people seemed to be speaking of from a position of ignorance, and I was hoping to clarify. Apologies if you are offended by that. It was only my intent to inform, not “preach.”

  63. I’m with Gorilla Dan.

    If I had my druthers, we’d pick up you and your pacifist brothers, put you on a plane to any Shiite city near Southern Iraq, the Afghan border with Pakistan, or the Gaza Strip, line you up right next to the other peace activists, and let you have a go at witnessing to Hamas and Hezbollah, just so you could get a real epiphany about how well you infidel rational flies when facing your Islamic accusers.

    This point, at least, is easily resolved. Demonstrate where Jesus advocated the use of deadly violence to solve problems and you’ve made your point.

    Oh, you can a point anywhere you like somewhere say Exodus, work your way through Joshua and Judges and Samuel I/II, then conclude it with the Revelation where Jesus will demonstrate a little violence “Hisself.”

    Surely you understand that is Jesus speaking, don’t you? If not, please reread John, Chapter 1.

  64. Hey Dan,

    Could you give me something a little more reliable and with less bias than say the American Philosophical Association for your religious dogma? 🙄

    What is that? Some sort of parody along side “Hisself?”

  65. The problem with this thinking…

    I would happily put your ass, along with all your little friends, on a plane and ship your ass to Afghanistan.

    …is that no one would be left home. If we say, “If you disagree with a policy, then you can leave this country,” well, we ALL disagree with policies, does that mean we ALL need to leave.

    More progressive types have pushed for environmental laws that have helped keep our nation clean. If someone objects to those laws, are you advocating saying, “Well, what I’d like to do is ship you and your comrades off to the dirtiest, most toxic slum in China and you can breathe the brown air and drink the acid water there!”

    That is (and getting to the point of this post): are you going to be consistent on who you ship off for disagreeing with US policy?

    Let me take a guess…

  66. Tex…

    you can a point anywhere you like somewhere say Exodus, work your way through Joshua and Judges and Samuel I/II, then conclude it with the Revelation where Jesus will demonstrate a little violence “Hisself.”

    I’m speaking specifically of Jesus’ teachings to the church (which were a fulfillment/improvement/enlightenment of OT teachings, grand as they were). Do you have any of Jesus’ ACTUAL teachings to the church where he advocated AGAINST pacifism?

    One verse? Anything?

    Given your response, I guess that’s a No.

    If you can’t offer that, I hope you’ll understand if I have a hard time taking your hunch seriously.

  67. Gorilla, I was sincerely trying NOT to preach, but to inform about some history/positions that people seemed to be speaking of from a position of ignorance, and I was hoping to clarify. Apologies if you are offended by that. It was only my intent to inform, not “preach.” – Dan

    Epic Fail

    This was the real nugget, “ inform about some history/positions that people seemed to be speaking of from a position of ignorance”. The passive aggressive arrogance you demonstrate is without end. Ignorance…, you mean like that depth of knowledge you’ve shown about the Ground Zero Mosque, the organization doing it and the Imam who’s going to lead it. Wow, that was a demonstration of ignorance.

    If I had my druthers, we’d pick up you and your pacifist brothers, put you on a plane to any Shiite city near Southern Iraq, the Afghan border with Pakistan, or the Gaza Strip, line you up right next to the other peace activists, and let you have a go at witnessing to Hamas and Hezbollah, just so you could get a real epiphany about how well you infidel rational flies when facing your Islamic accusers.” – Tex

    Tex, while the epiphany would be welcome, it’d be pretty short lived…

  68. …is that no one would be left home. If we say, “If you disagree with a policy, then you can leave this country,” well, we ALL disagree with policies, does that mean we ALL need to leave.” – Dan

    Is that what I said? Let us review:

    And, ultimately, I’m not asking anyone to pick up a gun or a bomb for me. I’m asking just the opposite. I’m asking that, IF they’re doing it for my sake, to put down that gun. I’ll face the “terrorists” the “communists” or whatever other boogeymen you think are out there on my own, thank you very much.” – Dan

    I would happily put your ass, along with all your little friends, on a plane and ship your ass to Afghanistan. You can deal with it on your own, thank you very much.

    I was speaking to the fact that you can stop being a pariah riding on the security coat tails that I, and others, provide. I wouldn’t send you over so that you’d be gone- as pleasant as that might be. I’d send you over because you are exceedingly ignorant, and your arrogance prevents and hope of edification.

    I like liberal pacifists, they provide great examples for what not to do, so please, contain your hyperbole and distortions for your next kumbayah camp fire.

  69. I was speaking to the fact that you can stop being a pariah riding on the security coat tails that I, and others, provide.

    Says you. YOU think our foreign policy as it relates to Afghanistan or Iraq is a good idea that provides safety. I and others disagree.

    Who gets to say, “Gorilla is right, Dan is wrong?” Who gets to make that call and ship off the wrong ones, the dissenters?

    Here, let’s clarify: Are you advocating that those who disagree with US policy be shipped off to a place where SOMEONE decides is the OPPOSITE of US policy?

    If not, what policy are you advocating, as it relates to shipping people off somewhere? Quantify what you’re saying in the form of a policy suggestion.

  70. This was the real nugget, “ inform about some history/positions that people seemed to be speaking of from a position of ignorance”.

    It was/is my opinion that some here were making some pretty wild-assed statements about pacifism and/or anabaptists which has nothing to do with real world positions. That IS my opinion. That being my opinion, I offered some info about those actual positions.

    Are you saying that you ARE educated about pacifism and anabaptism? If not, why object to the history lesson? Or, even if you are, others might not be. Why object to the history lesson for them? If you’re familiar with that history/those positions, you need not have read the offensive comments.

    And, Mr 800 lb Gorilla, are you really that easily offended that someone offering some background information comes across as “preaching” to you, in such a way that you hate to read it? I sort of pictured you as being made of stouter stuff than that.

  71. Here, let’s clarify: Are you advocating that those who disagree with US policy be shipped off to a place where SOMEONE decides is the OPPOSITE of US policy?” – Dan

    You’re so locked on to your own rhetoric, that you’re completely ignoring what I say. I have never once said that you should be shipped off for dissenting with me- ever. I said that your being there would probably change your perspective and you might learn a thing or two.

    Regardless, it isn’t intended to be taken literally- you’d be in the way, probably trying to preach the woes of violence to the troops while they were in the process of operating against terrorists.

    ‘Let’s just talk about it’ or ‘why can’t we all just get along’.

    Dan, you worthless sack of shit, you can stay or go as you please. You can pontificate from the top of the mountain all day long, or not- I DON”T GIVE A FUCK. I vote: on ballots, with my feet and with my wallet. I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that as long as I see you here, I’m more than likely to be inclined to move on.

  72. More progressive types have pushed for environmental laws that have helped keep our nation clean.

    Yeah – like MTBE which polluted the ground water, global climate fraud, the Alar scare, gas shortages and much higher prices from the ignorant demands of reformulated gasoline, and stopped DDT which has helped to kill 1,000,000 a year from malaria on the African continent alone.

    I’m not sure what is worse – your politics or your religion. Seems to me you blend the two.

  73. Okay, you’re saying being there might change my perspective. Fair enough. It might.

    And it might not.

    And your being in China or some place with lax pollution laws might change your perspective. Or it might not.

    Point conceded.

    Rutherford, if I’m being disruptive to your regulars and chasing them off and you wish me to stop, by all means, please just give the word. This vehement response to some simple disagreement strikes me as odd and a little simplistic, but I acknowledge that people feel what they feel and it’s not always logical or straightforward nor does it always make sense to me, as I don’t always make sense to others. Such is life.

    Anyway, I’d hate to feel like I’m driving your regulars away, so just give the word and I’m out of here.

  74. Whilst waiting word from Rutherford, Tex said…

    stopped DDT which has helped to kill 1,000,000 a year from malaria on the African continent alone.

    I’d suggest this is another example of holding an opinion in ignorance, but I’ll pass on wandering down another rabbit trail providing a better history, at least for now.

    Suffice to say that your information seems to be skewed and partisan, rather than rational and scientific, Tex.

  75. You mean Hisself Dan?

    I’m speaking specifically of Jesus’ teachings to the church (which were a fulfillment/improvement/enlightenment of OT teachings, grand as they were). Do you have any of Jesus’ ACTUAL teachings to the church where he advocated AGAINST pacifism?

    One verse? Anything?

    Given your response, I guess that’s a No.

    First, you might give me a chance to respond before you make the assumption of no. A little presumptuous on your behalf.

    I believe you make this mistake. True pacifism (peace at any price and what you supposedly practice) and seeking peace (but not at any price) are separated by the Grand Canyon. Peace at any price is not sound doctrine. I have no idea who you believe should provide for your safety – bad news is that you aren’t capable of doing it yourself. You take too much for granted and your apathy is equally sinful to your immorality by omission of the warning of homosexuality. I believe you have twisted scripture.

    Let’s revert back 1,600 years and see what Augustine had to say about a “just war.” He believed a just war would be approved by God if the following conditions were met:

    1). War is declared by the sovereign of state.
    2). War is to be declared only after all peaceful means of accomplishing resolution have been exhausted.

    I agree with Augustine. And as a Church Father 1,600 years closer to the written New Testament, I feel that he far more qualified than you or me to judge context, don’t you?

    Since you can’t wrap your head around that Christ is both O.T. and N.T., I will use the gospels as reference that Christ advocated peace – not pacifism.

    Luke 22
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
    37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
    38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

    Argue about the meaning of this Scripture all you want Dan, but you can not deny that Christ told His men to arm themselves.

    Hopefully, this helps clear up why you are clearly wrong. I could go into great detail where peace is virtuous and pacifism in sinful, but I’ll hold my water for a later date.

    But I am now completely convinced if you’re a Christian, you’re a woefully confused one.

  76. I’d suggest this is another example of holding an opinion in ignorance, but I’ll pass on wandering down another rabbit trail providing a better history, at least for now.

    Suffice to say that your information seems to be skewed and partisan, rather than rational and scientific, Tex.

    Really? Well how about we prove that sport? How about one African child dying from malaria every 45 seconds in Africa alone? The World Health Organization scientific enough for you genius?

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/

    An Anabaptist talking science is akin to a caveman talking about kitchen utensils. But by all means. If you think the higher sciences in you bag, I’m game. Here, there will be no opinions – just fact.

    Give it your best shot…

  77. True pacifism (peace at any price and what you supposedly practice)

    Not true pacifism. Not what I practice.

    So, you still remain in ignorance on your understanding of pacifism, which is why I was offering the info to begin with.

  78. Argue about the meaning of this Scripture all you want Dan, but you can not deny that Christ told His men to arm themselves.

    Hopefully, this helps clear up why you are clearly wrong.

    The REST of that scripture? Jesus disciples say, “Look, we have TWO swords,” and Jesus says, “That’ll do.”

    Clearly the swords were not part of a call for armed insurrection. Two swords? And, remember what happened when Peter later used one of those swords? “Put away that sword, Peter. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.”

    Any other thoughts on passages where Jesus comes out opposed to pacifism?

  79. Give it your best shot…

    Easy enough: There are/were more than just DDT available to deal with mosquitoes. IF the assertion is, “Taking away DDT killed millions,” then the response is: “Um, no, not dealing with the mosquitoes effectively resulted in the deaths.”

    And anabaptists have science classes, too, sport.

  80. Any other thoughts on passages where Jesus comes out opposed to pacifism?

    Why? You misconstrued or didn’t understand the first one. Can’t you remember your own question to me? As a reminder, it was this:

    Do you have any of Jesus’ ACTUAL teachings to the church where he advocated AGAINST pacifism?

    Who spoke of insurrection in this sense? I’m now talking just wars, defense of brothers, protecting sovereignty, lest you believe America imperialistic. You said Christ was a pacifist – I believe he was a peacemaker. Big difference…

  81. And anabaptists have science classes, too, sport.

    In what? Map making and measuring the right diameter carriage wheel?

    There are/were more than just DDT available to deal with mosquitoes.

    Yeah, read these and educate yourself. You’ve gone from silliness to stupidity in one post. From the willingly blind to the woefully uninformed.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html

    and

    http://townhall.com/columnists/AshleyHerzog/2009/04/23/eco-oppression

    Your approach leads to almost a million unnecessary deaths a year. But I guess that’s okay as long as it’s somewhere else.

  82. Sooo, No, you have no verses to support your claim that Jesus was opposed to pacifism? I thought not. I’d be wary of presuming to speak for God, brother, what God has not said.

  83. R, let me say this about as clearly as I can: I HATE PREACHING.

    Is it safe to assume you leave as an exception preaching from an ordained preacher? 😉 Just askin’.

  84. Well gentlemen (and any ladies who may be lurking) as Friday draws to a close, I await the brouhaha of tomorrow’s Beck Fest. We can already predict we will get the dueling accounts of crowd size. Fox will say 600,000, MSNBC will say 10,000. LOL

    We’ll see what the rhetoric will be. I hope one of the networks carries the thing live cos I am curious to see what goes down. I’m still slightly in the dark as to Beck’s goal … what he hopes to get out of it. Did I hear correctly that Ted Nugent canceled at the last minute?

    Damn … no Cat Scratch Fever! 😦

  85. Rutherford, so I assume you liked the blurb? I thought that was funny. Seems to me it is better analysis than most of the political analysis I hear anymore.

  86. Dan, 😆

    I think either you’ve gone brain dead, ignored the post like you did the WHO statistics proving you dead wrong, or simply so eaten up with libbieism that you’re now living in a state of denial.

    I just showed you WITHOUT DOUBT that Christ was no pansy pacifist like you were. He certainly will not be when He returns. If that didn’ t proved it to you, you’re simply not teachable.

  87. Man, I have to admit, I’ve never heard anyone claim to be an Anabaptist or a Huguenot before.

    Huguenots were Calvinist members of the French aristocracy.

    The Anabaptists started off as religious zealots who took over the Dutch (I think) city of Munster, set up a Taliban like theocracy while awaiting the end of the world that was supposed to come within the year. They ended up getting slaughtered by an army of Catholics and Lutherans. I think that’s why they renounced their violent ways and splintered into Mennonites and Amish. I think.

    Aren’t Huguenots and Anabaptists theologically different from one another? Do people still really refer to themselves as Anabaptist? It’s entirely possible. But I’m not sure you can be both.

    Dan, do you have a peg leg? High stockings or Sans-culottes? Maybe you are a relic of the past brought to us by the mighty Bill and Ted?

    The inquisition was not a proud moment for us Catholics, but I have to admit, it would be a little fun to see if you could keep up your haughty prose in the “Strappado”.

    I know…ad hominem…blah…blah…blah.

    In truth, my softball team just lost the title and seeing you in the Strappado would be a nice stress reliever for me.

    In even more truth, I don’t even know what the fuck a Strappado actually is. Too lazy to google.

    In yet even more truth, don’t take BiC up on his invitation to cruise Cass Corridor. I don’t even risk stopping at the red lights.

  88. BOTH of which groups were killed by the Catholics.

    And protestants.

    I am beginning to understand why. 🙂

    Just teasing there Dan.

  89. Nothing like a little torture and persecution to lighten up the mood in the room, eh?

    Absolutely. Have you worked on your witness for Khalid Sheik Mohammad? There’s a project for you pacifism.

  90. “In even more truth, I don’t even know what the fuck a Strappado actually is.”

    A rope connected to a hand crank. The victim is often placed in it with the arms going backward and then hung in that position. Similar to the treatment John McCain recieved during his stay at the Hanoi Hilton.

    Anyone who Googles it might want to turn on safe-search for the images if they don’t want some pretty intense porn on their screen.

  91. Rutherford, so I assume you liked the blurb? I thought that was funny. Seems to me it is better analysis than most of the political analysis I hear anymore.

    Yeah I got a big kick out of it.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s