JAK wrote:Response to Moniker’s post Sat Mar 01 2008 9:07 pm
Moniker stated:
It seems to me that all Christians rely on God claims, so, you think moderates are less fanatical in their devotion to God? Or are you using God claims here as a way to tie that into teachings of the Bible? I think what confuses me is I don't see a mere belief in God as necessarily dangerous. I think the teachings in the Bible, if taken to an extreme could be dangerous.
JAK stated:
Yes to your first 11 words. Since the various “claims” do not agree (a plethora of Christian options), they are unreliable. (This always seems to require detailed analysis which I’ll forego presently.) To your question, “moderates” tend to be less fanatical, yes. How is “devotion” in your question measured? To what extent is there genuine consensus here?
I'm not saying they're reliable, JAK. I never have. I'm merely attempting to talk about the various claims outside of my belief in them...
Moniker:
I don't know that I have a way to measure devotion. I don't know what you mean with "claims" -- are you talking about a claim to the belief in God or to doctrine? I'm sorry -- I fear we're going to talk past each other!
JAK response:
Exactly! Any perception of or commitment characterized by “devotion” is relative. It’s relative to time, to interest, to extended obligations, etc. The response was to your first 11 words. I’m speaking directly to you statement above. “Christians rely on God claims.” (your statement above). You used the word as did I. There are many claims made by Christians. They do not agree (otherwise we would not have more than 1,000 groups claiming different things). Hence “a plethora of Christian options.” How are religious claims divorced from doctrine?
Well, the poll I linked earlier showed that many Americans just go to Church and the doctrines and beliefs are not important to them. I think since there are denominations that believe the Bible is more metaphorical that they should not be lumped with fundamentalists. I understand there are different denominations and options. I think many Americans just sort of go with what suits their fancy so that their claim to a belief in God could be outside the doctrine since many ignore the doctrines or church hop like crazy -- the ability to go to different denominations with different doctrine in and of itself shows how some are not so enthralled with the doctrine at all.
JAK wrote:
Does any religious group assert “mere belief in God”? Those groups go on to add multiple claims regarding the nature, character, conduct, relevance, presence (or lack thereof), power, level of knowledge, involvement, and more. Certainly Christian groups lay out much specificity in multiple (and contradictory) God claims.
Moniker:
Sure, there is a lot of contradictory beliefs, emphasis and doctrines between denominations. I'm not suggesting that God is a reality or the claims are "real" -- I think again, I'm just saying that I don't see that certain doctrines or beliefs are necessarily harmful. Even more than that, I see that there is such WIDE variance between denominations that this is actually a good thing.
JAK response:
I provided a litany of websites earlier which clearly demonstrated the “Dangers of Religion.” You responded to none of them. Did you read them? “Contradictory beliefs” demonstrate absence of reliability. I’ll not repeat all those posts with links which clearly demonstrate “Dangers of Religion.” My references were not only to the past conduct of those who carried the Sword and the Cross, they were to present day (the past 20 years) and the references to faith healers who claimed to cure people of cancer, diabetes, and a host of crippling diseases. If you didn’t read them the first time (and you did not respond to them), I’ll not take time to repeat.
On this thread you provided a litany of websites and I already understood that there are some people that do odd things (they're odd to me) when they put their faith in oogie boogie healings rather than science. I AGAIN am not saying that there is "reliability" with claims to God. I'd ask you to please stop replying to me about that. I have never disagreed with you about that. I'm not a theist, I'm not a Christian and I haven't been a theist since a kid -- and that was outside organized religion.
JAK wrote:You did not address the posts when they were made.
I had nothing to say on the matter. I already understood that people do healings, dance with snakes, and other things that I deem bizarre....
JAK wrote:
There is significant disagreement among Christians as to “teachings in the Bible.” This is not a disagreement with you, but an addition (I think). Right-wing fundamentalists do not see themselves as “extreme.” They do not see themselves as “dangerous.” (A nine-year old playing with a gun does not see himself as dangerous.) Just when does religion become “extreme”? Moniker, that is a large question upon which there lacks agreement. “Extremists” are generally perceived as other people.
Moniker:
Right, I know that there are disagreements. I think if I was trying to say "God is real -- I know God! Jesus saved me!" and then talked about this and that and the other you could ask me about the different denominations and point out that others know a "truth" different than I. Yet, that's not where I am, and so I have no qualms with different denominations interpretations. Some of them strike me as against my own personal secular beliefs, but I'm not against them having them as there are other religious views that do line up with my secular beliefs when it comes to some "teachings in the Bible".
JAK response:
No evidence has established God, and no evidence prior to the invention of God established gods (in the plural). “Feelings” as a result of exposure to religious emotional appeal are not evidence for any claimed God here. Belief does not constitute reality. Absent evidence, claims should be challenged or rejected. (That’s a repeat from previous posts and is a standard of modern science.)
Okay, I know that there is no evidence to establish God. My only point is that there are concerns that Christians have that line up with my secular beliefs.... So, that their belief in God (and some doctrine) that leads some theists to believe that the war in Iraq is unjustified should be dismissed by me because their beliefs came from their religious views?
JAK wrote:The fact that others have different perspectives (beliefs) should cause consideration that perceptions (beliefs) are unreliable. We have 1,000+ Christian groups as a result of disagreement on “teachings in the Bible.”
The fact is that each group or individuals who attempt to go it alone and make up their own beliefs are making it up. Such inventions (along with or in harmony with how individuals have been indoctrinated) are no more reliable that that of others.
Of course they're making it up. :) I make up my own political beliefs as I go along too... Just that some line up with my secular beliefs makes me squeamish to dismiss them.
Moniker:
I think right wing fundamentalists seem extreme to you, perhaps, because you disagree with their policy stances. Correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't know that (since they're only 1/3 of Protestants) that this should damn all Protestants. Varying beliefs are acceptable to me, and their ability to vote upon them is acceptable to me likewise. If I want to get rid of certain religious views then wouldn't I have to be consistent to scrap those that line up with my secular views?
JAK response:
Just take my words for what they say. Attempting to read into a statement something that was not stated makes for incorrect understanding.
Okay, so why do the right wing fundamentalists positions on political matters appear extreme to you, JAK?
JAK previously:
Those who want their brand of Christian domination in the courts including the Supreme Court and those who want “prayer”
their prayer reinstated in public, secular educational institutions do not see themselves as “extreme.” Is bombing a
Family Planning Clinic (offering contraceptive information) “extreme”? The law says it is. Those who plan and have carried out such bombings saw themselves as
inspired by the word of God (in the Bible) to save the lives of “the unborn.” While few undertake such action, many secretly (or not) applaud the motives and the abolition of the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.
Moniker:
Sure, they don't view themselves as extreme. My grammie (an old Southern woman) and I fussed relentlessly that American was going to hell in a hand basket 'cause prayer was taken out of schools. She didn't think she was extreme -- matter of fact she thought she had the answer to solve all our problems! :)
JAK response:
That was another red herring and false charge by some. “Prayer” was
never taken out of schools. What was taken out was the
requirement that
all students be
forced to stand or sit in silence while
someone prayed before an entire class or an entire student body. Jewish kids, Muslims kids, Buddhist kids, atheist kids, etc. had previously been
forced to hear and appear respectful as a very public prayer often by a very fundamentalist, right-wing conservative Christian
prayed publically with the students as the target audience. Any student, teacher, custodian,
anyone could read his Bible or Koran or any other religious book and could pray. The Supreme Court did NOT to prohibit prayer.
See U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.
Huh? I was just relating an anecdote.... I was relating my grandmas concerns and how she framed it... that's how MANY people state the perception of prayer in schools. They're incorrect, of course if they believe prayer was removed from schools. Of course she thought the Bible should be read and it should essentially be Sunday School. I was merely relating that I knew an individual like that and she didn't consider herself extreme. :)
Moniker:
OF COURSE bombing and killing is extreme! Yet, that there are those that are horrified by their actions and point to the Bible to say that this goes against Christianity occurs, as well. That there are moderate voices that do step out and that outnumber the fanatical actions of a few make me consider that there is GOOD in religion.
JAK response:
The same people who do the bombings and killings point to the same Bible as defense of their conduct as protecting the rights of unborn babies. I did not argue that there was no good in religion. My post was titled “Dangers of Religion.” I gave those many websites which demonstrated “Dangers of Religion.” No one refuted any of that or even addressed it.
Where were the “moderate voices” when Christian G.W. Bush talked to God and decided to invade a Muslim country on falsified “intelligence” claiming weapons of mass destruction? And those right-wing fundamentalists (along with oil interests) backed Bush with their prayers in churches. “Dangers of Religion”
JAK, there are people that I've stood beside protesting the war that are Christians. Good grief, I'm giving away a lot of my political beliefs in this thread...
Here are some moderate voices that were Christian against the invasion:
http://www.kycouncilofchurches.org/Iraq.htmlThus, we, the delegates to the 55th Annual Assembly of the Kentucky Council of Churches hereby resolve:
· To call the United States government to restraint in the use of military action against Iraq and stop the rush to war;
· To urge the pursuit of all diplomatic means possible, in active cooperation with the United Nations, to work toward reconciliation to resolve the crisis with Iraq;
· To ask that our member communions and their congregations to pray for peace and justice for all people, actively engage in study and dialogue about the issues with Iraq that are pushing the world to the brink of a war that seems to us to have as likely a chance for devastating consequences as positive results;
· To encourage all Christians to be in touch with their elected leaders and the media to express their opinions of conscience and concern as God gives them light and wisdom.
Adopted unanimously this 18th day of October, 2002, in Lexington, Kentucky by the delegates and officers of the Kentucky Council of Churches, meeting in their 55th Assembly.
World Council of Churches:
WCC statement on Iraq: "Wars cannot be won, only peace can"
http://www2.wcc-coe.org/PressReleases_e ... 03-14.html
Reacting with "profound sorrow" to news that a military attack on Iraq has begun, World Council of Churches (WCC) general secretary Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser has today released a statement calling the attack "immoral, illegal and ill-advised".
In condemning the attack led by the United States, Raiser points out that it began "without the consent of the UN Security Council" and that it ignores "the voice of civil society, churches and other faith communities in those countries and world-wide".
He emphasizes that the attack is "politically dangerous" and "culturally unwise". "By relying on the right of the powerful, including the use of threat and economic pressure to influence other states to support their action, these countries undermine international rule of law that has taken half a century to construct," he states.
Expressing his conviction that "non-violent means to solve the conflict have been far from exhausted," Raiser argues that "the only sustainable response to terrorism is to achieve rule of law, within the rule of law".
"At this time for repentance," he continues, "we pray for all the people who will suffer in this war, as well as soldiers and their families." Recalling the overwhelming response of the global church community against the war, he notes that "The energy that has been released bears witness to a spirituality that calls for peaceful coexistence of all nations and peoples in accordance with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. That energy must not be lost." He says churches need to continue efforts to stop the war, assist those in need and "cooperate with people of other faiths, especially Muslims, to restore confidence and trust amongst the nations of the world".
Raiser calls on the governments of the US and the UK and their supporters to cease all military activity, and on all parties "to abide by human rights obligations under international humanitarian law".
International Church Leaders Plead for Peaceful Solution to Iraq Crisis
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/03news16.htmlFour U.S.-based religious leaders also spoke at the one-hour briefing Feb. 26. They advocated for a peaceful solution to the standoff with Iraq.
"As people of faith, we are one in our concern about the rush to war. We are one in our opposition to thinking war is an option," said the Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, who moderated the event. Edgar, a United Methodist, is General Secretary of the National Council of Churches.
A former congressman from Pennsylvania, Edgar stressed that none of the speakers favored the policies of Iraq ' s government. "But we believe the president of the United States and the U.N. have won, " he declared. " The inspectors are there; let them inspect. If we need more inspectors, bring more inspectors in. If we find weapons of mass destruction, destroy them.
"We don ' t need to go to war to (settle) the issues that are presented to us in relation to Iraq," he said. Edgar described his experience in Baghdad, which he visited during the New Year ' s holiday with a group of 13 people. He displayed a picture of a four-year-old Presbyterian Iraqi that he had met, and warned of the damage to children there and everywhere in the event of war.
"The prevailing assumption in the United States government is that war with Iraq is inevitable," said Jim Winkler, staff head of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, the denomination ' s international agency for advocacy and social justice. "As a Christian, I find such sentiment to be unacceptable." He urged Christians to face up to the choice between their willingness to participate in war and their faith in God and Jesus as the prince of peace.
http://www.ncccusa.org/iraq/clementsletter.htmlLetter on Iraq to President Bush February 19, 2003
From the General Secretary of the
Conference of European Churches
The President of the United States of America
Mr. George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C.
United States of America
Geneva, 19 February 2003
Dear Mr President,
I have the honour to address you on behalf of the Conference of European Churches (CEC), which is a fellowship of 125 Christian Churches of the Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Old Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal and Reformed traditions throughout the continent of Europe and the British Isles.
At this critical period in world history, poised between peace and war in the Middle East, along with Churches and Christian organisations around the world we in CEC are united in earnest prayer that a solution may be found in Iraq which, within the framework of the United Nations and without the catastrophe of war, achieves disarmament, humanitarian relief and the promotion of human rights.
In this regard, we in CEC have been paying close attention to our partner Churches in the United States, especially the Protestant and Orthodox Churches in membership with the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCCCUSA) and the Bishops’ Conference of the Roman Catholic Church. These Churches share our hope and aim for a just solution in Iraq without recourse to war. In particular, we have been helping to facilitate visits, under NCCCUSA auspices, of small delegations of US Church leaders to a series of capital cities in Europe. These delegations have been meeting with Church leaders in the respective hosting countries, joining in public prayers for peace, holding press conferences - and meeting with representatives of government. Berlin, Paris and London have been visited, with forthcoming visits scheduled for Rome and Moscow. Each delegation has included at least one person who was a member of the US Church Leaders’ Delegation to Iraq during the New Year period this year.
http://www.churchworldservice.org/news/ ... ement.htmlChurch World Service Board of Directors on War in Iraq
March 19, 2003
In concert with ecumenical bodies across the U.S. and worldwide, Church World Service has opposed and continues to oppose this preemptive war against Iraq. As an ecumenical humanitarian organization that has been engaged in relief, development, refugee assistance, and advocacy for more than 50 years, Church World Service knows well the human cost of modern warfare, especially to the most vulnerable. From our faith in Christ and God’s love for all people, we believe that this war is wrong and unjust.
We affirm the mandate of the United Nations. Our understanding of and respect for international law leads us to consider this action an illegitimate means of solving the current crisis and a serious violation of the United Nations Charter. This war will have horrendous humanitarian consequences in terms of death and human suffering, and could potentially destabilize the entire Middle East, as well as have profound repercussions throughout the world. We lament any misconception that this crisis reflects a conflict between Muslims and Christians.
Church World Service has for many years had an established ongoing partnership in providing humanitarian service to the people of Iraq, and is acutely aware of the tremendous deprivation and oppression that the Iraqi people have suffered over many years. We will continue our commitment and presence; therefore, our humanitarian services should not be seen as acquiescence to the war. We will respond on the basis of human need, working through our established partners in the region, including the Middle East Council of Churches.
We are profoundly saddened by the recourse to war. This is not a moment for triumphalism, but for humility and repentance. Our prayers are with the Iraqi people, members of the armed forces, the leaders of our own nation, and the international community. The people of Iraq must be given hope that there are alternatives to both dictatorship and war.
http://www.ncccusa.org/iraq/iraqstatements2.html#sojoWAR ON IRAQ
A Statement by Sojourners
March 20, 2003 -- The U.S. war on Iraq is a failure of political and moral imagination. Sojourners continues to believe that war is not the answer to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Our political leaders did not exhaust all diplomatic options. The efforts by U.S. church leaders to provide an alternative to war fell on deaf ears. The tens of millions of people in a new global peace movement were ignored. The world community as represented in the U.N. Security Council was disregarded.
As Christians, our first response to the beginning of war is to pray. We pray for the safety of all people in harm's way--civilians, servicemen and women from all countries, and especially the children of Iraq now living in bomb shelters. We pray that the leaders of the U.S., U.K., and Iraq will even now find a way to peace. We pray for the peacemakers of the world. We encourage Christians and other people of faith to respond pastorally - to open sanctuaries or other locations as places for prayer services, to lead or participate in local candlelight vigils.
We encourage all people to protest the start of war by publically dissenting and disassociating themselves from the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive attack.
We support those who are called to participate in actions of conscientious objection, nonviolent civil disobedience, tax resistance, or other nonviolent acts of refusing consent to this war.
http://www2.wcc-coe.org/PressReleases_e ... 03-11.htmlSpeaking yesterday at an ecumenical service of prayer for peace held at World Council of Churches (WCC) headquarters in Geneva, WCC general secretary Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser denounced as "misuse of religious language" US president George W. Bush's attempts to invoke divine legitimation for his war against Iraq.
Noting an increasing tendency on the part of the US president "to invoke religious, even divine legitimation for his intention to disarm Iraq by force", Raiser suggested that a Christian response today to "the political, ethical and spiritual challenge of war [...] declared with the alleged purpose of restoring peace and justice" must be "an act of defiance: denouncing this misuse of religious language in order to justify an act of war that violates the legal order developed to protect world peace".
In his reflection, Raiser quoted the German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, in 1934 as war loomed, made the passionate plea: "Today God's commandment for us is the order of international peace. To say this is to express a quite definite recognition of the will of God for our time. [...] As certainly as we leave the making of the last peace to God, so certainly should we also make peace to overcome war."
The prayer service for peace was attended by the papal nuncio in Geneva, Msgr. Diarmuid Martin; the president of the Conference of European Churches and metropolitan of Switzerland (Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate), HE Jérémie; the general secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, Dr Setri Nyomi; the acting general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation, Rev. Dr Karen Bloomquist, and other ecumenical organizations based in Geneva; members of diplomatic missions at the United Nations (UN) and officials from international organizations; and many people from the Geneva community.
Raiser emphasized that although "many now feel helpless, full of anger and fear", the fact that all churches are acting together in "common, prophetic discernment" is a remarkable and encouraging development. Highlighting the US churches' great courage "in speaking the truth to power", he suggested that "We should celebrate that, for the first time, the churches together have placed the commandment of God above their respective political loyalties."
Please look to this link to see many more. If you need more I'll post them.
http://www.ncccusa.org/iraq/iraqstatements.htmlJAK wrote:Was the invasion and attack of Iraq the conduct of a more “moderate voices…”? What do you mean “killing is extreme”? How many Iraqis have been killed and countless others whose lives have been destroyed by being maimed for life? How many Americans (and allied lives) been lost and those who lived left with no arms, no legs, and mental ruin? Keep in mind it was Christian G.W. Bush who talked to God and said God talked to him who went to war and to killing tens of thousands for a lie weapons of mass destruction which could appear in the form of “a mushroom cloud” over the U.S.
Are you pleased to know that MANY Christians share your same concerns?
JAK wrote:To your observation, sometimes “there are moderate voices that do step out…” And sometimes, the extreme and the misinformed voices rule the day. “Dangers of Religion”
That the overwhelming reaction to the Iraq War was seen as unjustified by many Christians makes me think that the moderate voice was ignored BECAUSE of political considerations.
JAK previously:
In general, religious groups indoctrinate their young to believe not to think. And thinking, asking intellectually honest questions is discouraged if those questions are “the wrong questions.” I should like to explore some of these, but this post is too long as is.
Moniker:
I think, and I hate to be blunt here, but this may be an overstatement. I think most indoctrination likely occurs in homes and that a place you spend 1 hour a week (for MOST denominations) where kids scribble all over a worksheet and then eat graham crackers doesn't make as much a dent as seeing they spend more time in secular schools and in their homes. That the poll I linked to showed that there is skepticism of dogma and rules shows that there IS thinking, as well. That Jersey Girl was able to THINK and question her religious views showed how this supposed indoctrination didn't work too well on her. The ex-mos on this board that THOUGHT and rejected dogma shows how religion (and the LDS quite possibly is MORE heavily involved in members lives and heavy indoctration than other mainstream denominations) wasn't as good in this endeavor with the indoctrination.
JAK response:
It’s irrelevant where the “indoctrination” occurs. Indoctrination is truth by assertion. It occurs in religious indoctrination both in religious organizations and in homes who are manipulated by religious organizations. You introduce the irrelevant with “crackers,” and the “worksheet” is generally focused on some aspect of indoctrination in religious groups.
No, I don't think my mentioning what kids ACTUALLY do at Chuch as irrelevant at all. Most kids are sent off to a Bible school of some sort and scribble on a few pages, play with friends and snack --- I've been to almost ALL of the mainstream denominations and that is what I've seen. Arts and crafts are stressed too -- I forgot that one.... That most kids spend one hour a week at Church doesn't appear to me that they would be heavily indoctrinated. That the poll results show that most Americans don't even care too much about the doctrines or even understand their own religion also shows that people go to Church for other reasons. They Church hop 'cause they are NOT linked to one set of doctrines or beliefs.
Why is there “skepticism of dogma”? There is because “dogma” is unreliable and “dogma” is threatened by honest intellectual inquiry. Martin Luther (1517) from within the Roman Catholic Church thought too much for the dogma makers.
Jersey Girl, offered herself as one who was able to transcend the dogma of the Southern Baptist Convention as a result of thinking outside the God box of her religious indoctrination. But, such thinking is not encouraged by the religious organizations who perpetuate Truth by assertion and prefer that their members believe rather than that they think.
Sure, I won't disagree with you totally with that statement. Just rather they WANT people to be unquestioning and if this is a reality is two different things.
Thinking, research, information, and real education are always a threat to religious dogma. If Bush had taken information available and rejected faith-based conclusion many thousands of lives might have been spared. “Dangers of Religion”
OR -- if he had just listened to his denomination and that damn indoctrination had kicked in. ;P
Moniker stated:
Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101. [/color]
JAK stated:
How long has the whole Bible been used (along with the Apocrypha or the J. Smith’s Book of Mormon)? The New Testament ends about 125 A.D. The New Testament was a part of Christianity throughout the wars fought in the name of Christianity. The oldest roots of pacifism (a belief that rejects the use of violence) are found in Buddhism around 500 B.C. Christianity has been a relatively late comer to pacifism primarily since the 1600s when the Quakers and other religious groups evolved following the Protestant Reformation (World Book Enclyclopedia 1985 Library Edition).
There are non-religious roots for pacifism including the moral judgment that people act against their own interests in the costs of war. But that cannot be said of Christianity, historically.
Sure, with the enlightenment Christianity found itself moving into a direction of advocating for human rights and peaceful solutions. Of course this is not always done and there are splits.
Moniker:
Well, we even see with current conflicts that there are splits upon denominations when it comes to war and other policies. I'm really not comfortable reaching back in time and rehashing what HAS occurred. There are many reasons that there were conflicts in the past and if you would like to continue on that avenue, that's fine -- I just won't have much to say on the matter.
JAK response:
You should reach back in time if you intend to understand the historical evolution of Christianity. The last thing present-day people should do is burry the past and fail to recognize its influence on the present. If you had read all those websites of documentation about the atrocities of Christianity and other religions as well, you would be more knowledgeable regarding the importance of religious history. The history of all these “splits” in Christianity is relevant to present-day. A major problem in Christianity today is failure to have honest and clear understanding of just how it evolved and invented its dogmas. So while you don’t regard that as “comfortable,” it’s critical and important to understanding of religious splintering.
We disagree on the importance of understanding historical events which shape our own time. For many in religion today, it’s an escape precisely because people are uncomfortable when forced to face up to the “Dangers of Religion.”
I'm a student of current politics and trends. I do understand that understanding the past is important to not relive horrors that were perpetrated by those in the past. I just see that the poll results show that most Americans are tolerant of other religious views, there is LESS religious conflict in America because of the many different divisions of denominations, and that TODAY I don't see one group attempting to press their morality on others that are not contradicted by others that vote against them.
JAK previously:
During the 1950s and 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. used a technique similar to Gandhi to fight for equality for American blacks.
Only some Christian groups teach non-violence and “turn the other cheek” and “pray for your enemies.” They are in the minority in applied Christianity today. “God Bless America” (George W. Bush Christianity) resonates with many Christians today in the USA. Never mind that God should care in the least about other countries. And when our government sends its men and women into war, our Christians pray for the safety of our people not the people we intend to kill with our superior weapons.
Moniker:
Are you aware that George Bush's and Cheney's denomination was against the War in Iraq? I guess they weren't indoctrinated too well. ;)
JAK:
They both used God and patriotism in defense of the preemptive invasion/attack of Iraq. And they both used: “God Bless America” as political/religious gesture. No one has argued that all indoctrination works equally on all people.
I don't think it works too well on most people...
JAK wrote:At the time of planning of the war, the United Methodist Church did not make any highly public protest against the war their men were about to start. The Methodist Church kept a very low profile as I will detail later.
That's interesting 'cause I was attending a Methodist Church at that time and my parents are life long Methodists and recall the EXACT OPPOSITE of that which I can show to be the case after I review your details...
JAK previously:
Christians offer prayers which seek to manipulate God to favor “our people.” It’s not peaceful or tolerant in war. And Christians use God in war. I’m not being satirical nor do I suggest any credibility for any God inventions. People operate out of their environment, and that environment includes religious indoctrination. Some become cafeteria doctrine-samplers.
Moniker:
Sure, there's no dispute, from me, that God is asked for help for self and others, at certain times. Yet, that there are Christians that are against war certainly shows that there is some concerned for humanity outside the narrow niche of borders. Again, I'm not disagreeing with everything you state -- I just am not certain that your views totally reflect the diversity seen in religious denominations.
JAK response:
I agree. In many of my posts I have clarified that “diversity” and contradiction is significant in Christianity today. It is precisely that diversity and internal contradiction as well as contradiction with other Christian groups which makes religious claims and dogma unreliable.
Right.. I understand it's unreliable.....
JAK wrote:The “Danger of Religion” occurs as these diverse groups come to believe that their doctrine is the true doctrine. Based upon that belief, they have historically undertaken all manner of atrocity against others. They still do it today. The bomber of a family planning clinic believes that his religious doctrines are true and that he has obligation to act as he does. Historically, religious wars have been fought over territory, resources, religious doctrine, and it has been The Battle for God (a book).
Well, please find the doctrine that Bush and Cheney followed to invade Iraq, please?
JAK wrote:Understanding the historical significance of religious wars is key to understanding the mentality today of people like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and many others who dominate the cable channels which run all religion all the time. People like this have influence. (We could discuss how much, but they have influence.) Pope Pius XII, head of the Roman Catholic Church, stood by silently as Hitler killed six million Jews. “Dangers of Religion”
So while you may not be “comfortable” addressing historical facts of religious history, I submit that also presents danger. Had people paused to question the faith-based conclusions of Bush, the tragedy of Iraq might have been averted. And there is no mistaking that Bush used religion and the religious right to advance his war plans. “Dangers of Religion”
I'm not uncomfortable addressing historical facts. I don't see that they must taint my opinion of religion today though. Everytime I walk out of my home do I need to scream at my neighbors that they're racist bigots 'cause their ancestors owned slaves? No.
Moniker states:
Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101. [/color]
JAK states:
My point in review of this is that there are indeed great “dangers” and likelihood of physical harm from current public officials who regard themselves as God believing Christians. Your view is a nice, pretty, and simplistic view. But Christians are modern myth-makers and invent Christian doctrine to benefit themselves, their institutions, and their country.
Moniker:
Well, I don't think my view is simplistic -- rather I think my view reflects the knowledge that different denominations emphasize different things, and that people are not in lock-step. I'd just like to state that I'd rather you not make comments to me about my views being simplistic and what not... to be perfectly honest it comes across to me condescendingly. Perhaps it's warranted, and perhaps not. Yet, it makes me uncomfortable. Thanks.
JAK responce:
When you are not “comfortable” seeing religion historically, that’s “simplistic.” Would you rather I characterize your views as naïve? I suspect if you considered the history of religion you would have a different view. But, my observation was not intended to be as pejorative as it may have sounded. Many today have a simplistic view. Bush had a simplistic view that the US could invade, declare mission accomplished, take over Iraq, turn it into a mini-American democracy and probably make way for Christians to Christianize Muslims. The Bush view was simplistic and it was wrong.
Uh, my responses to you were not in relation to historical aspects. We were talking about denominations and the different doctrines.... If you want to call me naïve or simplistic that's fine -- I just take it as another condescending swipe and carry on. :D
Moniker:
Right, yet Bush's denomination fought against him. Cheney and Bush both are Methodists and they went against doctrine when they decided to attack Iraq. Sure, claims about God are unreliable. Not in dispute, at least, not from me!
JAK response:
An incorrect reading of developments. Methodists are not pacifists. Methodists believe in the doctrine of “the just war” as do Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and many other denominations.
I didn't say they were pacifists. Please quote that for me. THEY WERE AGAINST THE INVASION HOWEVER! How is my reading incorrect. I state that they went AGAINST DOCTRINE TO INVADE IRAQ -- THEY DID.
The United Methodist Church (UMC) also was silent on the Iraq war at its beginning. The UMC has in its doctrine “the just war,” and Bush persuaded not only Methodists but many others that this war which he intended was a just war against “the axis of evil.” He argued the war would last six weeks to six months. He argued it would cost no more than $50 billion. Currently the US is spending between 10 and 12 billion a month and the total cost of the war is now placed at well over a trillion dollars. These are just numbers to most people. But the loss in stature morally and the loss in stature economically as a result of Bush war policies is yet to be measured.
They were not silent. BEFORE he invaded the Methodists were in the press and attempting to get an audience to dissuade him from invasion.
I already posted this. I'll do it again:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1020-02.htmPublished on Sunday, October 20, 2002 by the Observer/UK
Iraq War 'Unjustifiable', says Bush's Church Head
by Ed Vulliamy in New York
President George Bush's own Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on his preparations for war against Iraq, saying they are 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ'.
Jim Winkler, head of social policy for United Methodists, added that all attempts at a 'dialogue' between the President and his own church over the war had fallen on deaf ears at the White House.
His remarks came as the US continued its efforts to achieve agreement on a UN resolution that would open the way for a tough program of weapons inspections in Iraq. France is believed to be concerned that the current draft resolution might still act as a trigger for military intervention without a full Security Council debate if Iraq fails to comply.
Winkler is general secretary of the Board of Church and Society for the United Methodist church, which counts the President and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, among its members. The church represents eight to nine million regular churchgoers and is the third biggest in America.
The Methodist Church, he says, is not pacifist, but 'rejects war as a usual means of national policy'. Methodist scriptural doctrine, he added, specifies 'war as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so far as I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along the borders of the United States, nor along his own border to invade a neighboring country, nor have any of these countries pleaded for our assistance, not does he have weapons of mass destruction targeted at the United States'.
JAK wrote:United Methodists prayed for the safety of our troops, not the safety of Iraqis. United Methodists prayed for Bush as he began the attack on Iraq.
Not for the safety of Iraqis? Really? CFR on that!
http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/full_ar ... cleid=1500 Statement on the Start of War with Iraq
by R. Randy Day
War, said John Wesley, is a “monster” that cannot be reconciled to “any degree of reason or common sense” -- a monster bringing miseries to the warriors and to all those in the warriors’ path.
My staff colleagues and I at the General Board of Global Ministries recall these words of Methodism’s founder as we sadly watch the start of the American-led invasion of Iraq.
Wesley also said that war is too often caused by national leaders, who in disregard of their people, fail to find more creative ways of settling disagreements.
Limited vision by the leaders of both Iraq and the United States strongly contribute to this most recent conflagration in the Middle East. I have condemned and will continue to condemn the internal human rights violations and weapons policies of Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein. At the same time, I am appalled that the United States and its allies are launching such a mighty attack on a country where, on the humanitarian side, perhaps one half of the population is made up of children, and where, on the strategic side, the use of chemical and biological weapons against the invaders and local people is an alarming possibility.
I am deeply concerned about the welfare of Western military personnel, many of whom are sons and daughters of our Church, deployed to Iraq. The prayers of the Board staff and directors are with them and their families, and we implore God to bring them home safely.
I am deeply concerned about the Christians of Iraq, our brothers and sisters in faith, and the new risks they and their churches now face.
I am concerned about the welfare of all the Iraqi people. The General Board stands ready with ecumenical partners to assist refugees and other on-site victims of the war. Through the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) we are prepared to respond to immediate needs and with long-term aid to rebuild lives and support systems. Toward those ends, UMCOR has set up the Iraq Emergency Advance (#623225-4) and we are asking United Methodists and others to contribute generously to it.
Let me applaud the work of the Action by Churches Together (ACT) International, which in collaboration with the Middle East Council of Churches, is setting up centers of refuge inside Iraq. Both churches and mosques are engaged in this humanitarian initiative.
The United Methodist Church has a long heritage of opposition to war going back to John Wesley in the 18th century. At the same time, the Church has a strong commitment to minister spiritually to military troops and both spiritually and materially to the victims of war. Both opposition to war and ministry to participants and victims of war are mandates from Jesus Christ.
“We believe war is incompatible with the teachings and examples of Christ,” declares the Social Principles of The United Methodist Church. “Therefore we reject war as a usual instrument of national foreign policy and insist that the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among them.” The Church believes that “human values must outweigh military claims as governments determine their priorities.”
I am deeply fearful that the conflict in Iraq will escalate into armed conflicts in other parts of the world, especially in the Middle East. The General Board of Global Ministries works in scores of countries with fragile social systems that could be destroyed by international economic and political strife.
I remain unconvinced that substantive evidence links the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. sites to the policies and arsenals of Iraq. I am convinced that war is not the way to respond to terrorists but, indeed, is itself a form of terror. The Church seeks to build better relationships between conflicting parties rather than to promote either armed retaliation or military intervention.
“The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of peace,” Bishop Sharon A. Brown Christopher, president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, reminded President George W. Bush some weeks ago. I want to join Bishop Christopher in that declaration and in saying that the Gospel “calls us to transcend political ideology and national interests to act on behalf of the welfare of the whole human family.”
We urge all United Methodists, including President Bush, a member of our Methodist family, to join in prayers for peace, praying with heart, and mind, and strength that humanity will be saved from the monster of war. Let us pray for the men and women engaged in combat. Let us pray, as Jesus commanded, for any people who, from national perspectives, are seen as enemies. And let us pray that we shall find ways to show in a time of war that we love our neighbors, especially those in Iraq, as ourselves.
http://www.wfn.org/2003/03/msg00287.htmlDear United Methodist Brothers and Sisters,
In this season of Lent, with the world caught in the grip of war, we United
Methodists remember Jesus' words, "My house shall be called a house of
prayer for all the nations." I call on all our churches in every place to be
such a welcoming house for all people.
In the midst of our feelings of insecurity and lack of control, Jesus' words
invite us to gather in prayer.
Let us pray for all the leaders of the nations who are involved and affected
in this present crisis.
Let us pray for all the military personnel and for their families and friends
who wait, worry, and wonder.
Let us pray for a just resolution of this conflict.
Let us pray for the innocents in harm's way, especially the children.
In the midst of the increasing international polarization over the
appropriateness of this war, Jesus' words teach us that our church
sanctuaries are houses of Christian hospitality.
Let our sanctuaries welcome the anxious and fearful, providing for them a
place of safety and power that we know through the saving power of Jesus.
Let our sanctuaries be gathering places for respectful and honorable
Christian conversation across political perspectives.
Let our sanctuaries be centers for inter-religious dialogue, especially
between Christians, Muslims, and Jews, that we may grow in understanding of
one another.
Let our sanctuaries generate support for humanitarian relief for the citizens
of Iraq now and in the future.
Let our sanctuaries be venues of peacemaking in our families, our local
neighborhoods, and our global community.
God is calling us, the church of Jesus Christ, to be "a house of prayer for
all the nations." Please join us, your Council of Bishops from around the
world, in prayer and witness to God's vision in which the lion and the lamb
lie down together in peace.
In the name of Christ, the Prince of Peace,
Sharon A. Brown Christopher
And here's the Methodist Church concerned for the humanitarian aspect of the Iraqis
http://gbgm-umc.org/Umcor/emergency/iraq.stmIf we argue that some Methodists opposed Bush war policy, that would be accurate.
Exactly. Yet, the CHURCH was opposed to Bush going into Iraq. So the people that are Methodists that supported the war went against their Church and the doctrines.
CFR on this:
JAK wrote:The United Methodist Church (UMC) also was silent on the Iraq war at its beginning.
'Cause my evidence (seen above says the precise opposite of that) and I can get HUNDREDS of more links that the United Methodist Church was NOT silent at all -- rather they were in the news, in the pulpits as an attempt to not invade Iraq.