Moniker wrote:JAK just a few things, and I'll be back later for the rest. I have other things to do today. :)
My CFR was to this:
JAK wrote:
The UMC was not speaking then against pending war.
In retrospect, many groups, both religious and non-religious, have come to recognize the stupidity of Bush mentality/policy. But it was not at the beginning of war plans for most Christian groups including the UMC. Again, the UMC is not known for pacifism.
Moniker wrote:
CFR! Can you find something that says that the UMC did NOT speak out against the pending war? Pease supply something to back up the claim that "The UMC was not speaking then against the pending war."
I've posted that the COUNCIL OF BISHOPS (who are the executive branch of the UMC organizational structure) DID make statements PRIOR to the war, and I've posted it a few times in this thread. The UMC is an organization -- the council of Bishops were NOT silent. Sooo... that some members were supportive of the War means they went AGAINST doctrine and the authority of the Church. The CHURCH was not silent, not at all. There is NO ONE higher in the Church that can make a statement.
And now to this:
Direct quotes are good, Moniker. You tend to paraphrase then challenge your own paraphrase as if you were challenging what was actually stated.
It’s easy to do, but it often misrepresents the original statement.
Well, can you please find ONE quote of mine saying the UMC was a pacifist Church since you repeatedly bring that up as if I actually stated that... which I didn't.
I understand what the topic is. You made mention of the war and talked about doctrines. It's QUITE relevant to point out that Bush and Cheney (and the members of the UMC that supported the war) actually went against Church authority and doctrine in this conversation. You brought up dangers and one of them was war. You linked that to religion and doctrine. I point out that in the case of the Iraq War that the Church and doctrine was not followed. This isn't relevant?
Hi Moniker,
I asked you what “CFR” meant? Your response gives no information on what “CFR” means.
JAK:
“I don’t know what “CFR” means. So far Is I can see in your post, you never identified it, and I don’t read minds or acronyms." from post dated Mar 11, 2008 8:56 am.
You begin your post Mar 11, 2008 12:24:
Moniker:
“My CFR was to this:”
I still have
no idea what “CFR” stands for.
+++
The distinction which I make is that some members of the clergy who speak do not necessarily speak for the organization of which they are members or officials. Since the United Methodist Church (UMC) has no equivalent to the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), it often does not speak with “one voice” on controversial issues. Of course even today, while the RCC has a pope, clearly the priests have not only made statements contrary to the official position, they have engaged on conduct which has cost the RCC into the billions of dollars to
pay for the conduct of priests.
What you presented was individuals who were quoted. Many of your sources were not official UMC sources both other sources which were quoting Methodist clergy. While they may have been quoting accurately, and I don’t question that, they were not speaking as a singular voice for the UMC.
One of your sources was
The Kentucky Council of Churches (KCC). Of course that is
not the UMC. The extent to which any member group of the KCC may agree
strongly, mildly, or limitedly may vary from group to group.
Notice the relatively soft language here as well.
In addition, their words, as I pointed out were ambiguous.
Consider the
Kentucky source
Following all the “Whereas” statements a conclusion:
Therefore, this 55th Assembly of the delegates to the Kentucky Council of Churches, hereby affirms the following points:
1. Peace requires that all avenues of reconciliation must be explored.
2. We are concerned about the situation in Iraq, and are convinced that the Iraqi government has a duty to stop its internal repression of its citizens, end its threats to the peace of the world, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and respect the legitimate role of the United Nations in ensuring that it does so.
3. We believe that the international community is weakened and respect for law is undermined when national governments act individually rather than collectively to secure justice, safety, and peace among the nations. We affirm with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "This 'war on terrorism' should be fought with the support of the international community and primarily by non-military means, denying terrorists resources, recruits, and opportunities for their evil acts. As our nation seeks to defend our people and values, we should hold fast to our basic principles of justice, freedom, fairness, and openness in our treatment of all persons, especially vulnerable immigrants and refugees." [Statement released by the USCCB on Sept 10, 2002]
4. We observe with grave concern as the United States government makes statements that seem to indicate that it will act unilaterally, no matter what opinions and positions are taken by other nations.
5. We worry that the lack of compelling evidence that Iraq has developed nuclear weapons undermines the democratic process whereby a sound decision may be made regarding the justification of an attack on Iraq. We question whether there are sufficient grounds to fear an imminent attack on the United States. We are concerned also about internal discord and division in our nation just at a time when we have been learning the great worth of community and honoring the amazing diversity within our nation.
6. We believe that a potential pre-emptive attack against Iraq would exacerbate the violent crisis that continues between Palestine and Israel. Moreover, we also believe that there is grave danger that military action, far from defeating terrorism, will create even more terrorists, fueling a conflagration of hatred that will last for generations to come. The events of September 11th have shown us that it is very hard to protect citizens against terroristic violence that does not discriminate between civilians and the military. This is a new situation in human history. Again, we join our voices to the eloquence of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in asserting: "As we confront evil acts, which no cause can justify, this 'war on terrorism' must not deflect us from sustained commitment to overcome poverty, conflict and injustice, particularly in the Middle East and the developing world, which can provide fertile ground in which hopelessness and terrorism thrive. Our faith calls us to seek not only a safer world, but a more just and peaceful world for all God's children." [Ibid]
Thus, 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.
+++
So as we see from your list you have mostly non-UMC groups:
The Kentucky Council of Churches
The National Council of Churches
Church World Service
World Council of Churches
CommonDreams. org News Center
Global Ministries The United Methodist Church
In this one you actually have an official
UMC website based on the logo at the top.
It begins by citing John Wesley
born 1703. However, in spite of that, the UMC becomes a participant in war indirectly in the following paragraph from this source.
“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.”
+++
So, while opposing war, it does not oppose
care for those carrying the weapons of war with the intent to kill and maim others. Today, that means give medical care to a wounded warrior and assist his
going back to war.
Hence, the UMC opposes war in general (as many Christian organizations do). But, it favors helping wounded soldiers so that they can do
what?. What does this mean? It means that
once a war begins the UMC takes action which will prolong the fighting in the war. No help to any of the wounded would likely cause an end to the war sooner with fewer deaths. We have
a mixed message in this source.
In pointing that out, I’m not attempting to make a case against helping but rather to demonstrate that the position is
not as entirely against war as you have projected. If the position were entirely against war, an organization would not do the very thing which makes the
continuation of war more likely and
more comfortable. This is not to defend the notion that
war is comfortable.
But, helping people so that they can continue to fight (and do what?) is actually
assisting in war. Many who are injured in war and who are not severely injured and receive help even from religious groups
go on to fight another day.
+++
Now notice the last paragraph, the conclusion of the UMC site you provided.
“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.” (bold added for focus)
Pray for peace has long been popular. Who can argue against that idea? But see the bold emphasis. Just whom are
we praying for here? We are praying “for the men and women engaged in combat.”
Now just what “men and women” are these for whom
we are praying? Notice that a close reading makes that conclusion
vague. It appears that
we (in this case Americans) are
praying for
Americans engaged in combat.”
If that is the case, what is the intent? It appears the intent is to manipulate God to the benefit of “the men and women engaged in combat” who are [b]Americans or American allies. It would hardly seem a logical conclusion that
we are “praying” for the
enemy of the Americans “engaged in combat.”
So
pray for peace. That’s easy and
vague. But when the UMC gets close to the specifics (and it does not get very close), it
prays for the men and women engaged in combat on ONE side.
Even while expressing
pro-peace prayer, there is
pro- “the men and women engaged in combat.”.
While the concluding paragraph expresses
pray for people who are seen as enemies, the religious organizations (in this example the UMC) can hardly have it both ways. Does the UMC favor assistance at an equal level for “people who … are seen as enemies”? It’s a
paradox of impossibility for the UMC or for any group who engages in such ambiguity.
It’s irrational to claim one is
praying for one’s enemy while at the same time, aiding
one side to better equip or prepare it
to kill people on the
other side.
It’s a
paradox. It’s an inconsistent position which only has a
nice sound to it so long as one does not apply it to a specific case.
There is no source which you presented which states that the UMC believes that it or its members should pray for the well-being and the protection of Iraqis from American bombs.
Consider how absurd that would be and how irrational.
Pray for “the men and women engaged in combat” and [i]pray for the Iraqis who are going to be bombed by “the men and women engaged in combat” so that the Iraqis will be kept safe from the harm [i]our “men and women engaged in combat”
intend to inflict on the Iraqis.
+++
While I addressed “Dangers of Religion” and gave many websites previously never contested or challenged by anyone, I have also addressed yours here (given limited time).
What, then, are the “Dangers of Religion” in this paradoxical position?
One danger is the very one we have all heard:
President Bush claims he
talks to God. President Bush also claims
God talks to him. Consider the disaster, the tragedy, the devastation of human life which has occurred from the
applied religion of President Bush as he has
listened to God and gone to war.
“Dangers of Religion” is the topic of focus. When people, even an individual who happens to be President of the most militarily powerful nation in the world
uses religion as a basis for
foreign policy we have a clear
danger of religion.
Moniker pointed to the fact that
Bush & Cheney are religious. They both have claimed that. Both also
pray “God Bless America!” Both of these elected heads of state have used religion to bolster their position and bolster their appeal to Americans to support their policies (as they have discussed with
God their policies, their plans, their intent to preemptively attack Iraq).
And, this attack of Iraq was billed as a strike against those who brought down the World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon. Implied and sometimes stated was
God is on our side. Implied if not stated was
God to whom we pray will assist us against our enemies. And our
enemies are in
Iraq. Therefore, what we can do, what we must do is
attack Iraq which is part of “the axis of evil.” (G. W. Bush)
+++
The UMC source contained sufficient ambiguity as I have addressed here. But with a large membership, that is essential to avoid offense.
+++
JAK previously:
Direct quotes are good, Moniker. You tend to paraphrase then challenge your own paraphrase as if you were challenging what was actually stated.
It’s easy to do, but it often misrepresents the original statement.
JAK:
That reference was to your paraphrasing what others said and what I said I particular.
Moniker stated:
Well, can you please find ONE quote of mine saying the UMC was a pacifist Church since you repeatedly bring that up as if I actually stated that... which I didn't.
JAK:
Incorrect understanding of my comment, Moniker. My statement stood alone regarding the fact that the UMC was
not historically a pacifist organization. It was not an affirmation that you had claimed otherwise. You’re misreading the context.
Moniker:
I understand what the topic is. You made mention of the war and talked about doctrines. It's QUITE relevant to point out that Bush and Cheney (and the members of the UMC that supported the war) actually went against Church authority and doctrine in this conversation.
JAK:
I’m skeptical that you really understand that the issue is “Dangers of Religion.” Perhaps, but you don’t demonstrate that by tangent issues.
What is “relevant” is that Bush & Cheney planned and executed national policy. It’s not relevant that they are members of the UMC any more than it was relevant that J. F. Kennedy was a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
What
is relevant is separation of church and state (The Constitution of the United States).
Regardless of what the UMC clergy may have said, Bush & Cheney
claimed they were
religious. They
claimed they practiced their religion. That was their
use of religion for
political purposes.
That
fact of use of religion
supports “Dangers of Religion.” They were ignorant, or they lied regarding their religious views. In the case of Bush, he claimed to
talk to God. I don't recall Cheney every claimed this. Halliburton paid him $34 million in severence and $150,000 a year while he was Vice President. I suspect he "talked" to Halliburton.
Moniker:
You brought up dangers and one of them was war. You linked that to religion and doctrine.
JAK:
That’s correct. Religion
historically has been intimately
connected to war. The fact that Bush and Cheney used their religion (their personal beliefs) as a spring-board to the Presidency is, in itself, a
danger of religion.
Religion has been
used by kings, emperors, and now President Bush as a basis for politics and political goals.
As some take religion seriously, that makes the
use of religion dangerous.
+++
Previously, you had stated that you did not see how religion was dangerous.
I have demonstrated
how it is dangerous not only historically (all those websites no one ever addressed), but presently in such persons of G. W. Bush and D. Cheney. Both
claim to use religion as their guide. It is also
dangerous in other venues. I do not for a moment suggest that
only Bush and Cheney have
used religion dangerously.
Muslims are using it and have used it. Hence, “Dangers of Relgion.” Religion appleals to emotion. Emotion is not trivial. And Bush used emotion
and religion to justify the attack on Iraq.
I agree with the view that the less militant, the less dogmatic, the more agnostic a religion, the less danger it tends to pose. Historically,
religion has been dogmatic. Religion is still dogmatic. Historically, there are “Dangers of Religion.”
If you intend to argue that there are
NO Dangers of Religion, you have a difficult case to make. While you previously stated that you didn’t have much interest in the
history of religion, I strongly disagree with that lack of interest.
Evolution of religion is clearly demonstrated (not in this post, of course). In previous posts, I demonstrated “Dangers of Religion.” I have demonstrated it here in the
policies of Bush.
===
My thesis is by no means
limited to any religion, singularly.
The Islamic terrorists who took down the World Trade Center and the Pentagon demonstrated
“Dangers of Religion” Without question, what they did was dreadful (in our view) and it was
a product of religion. What Bush did in response was
a product of nationalism and religion.
While another topic could be “nationalism” as opposed to
internationalism, that latter was not the focus of my original post. Also, given the limitations of this bb, that extension might be unacceptable on this bb.
Moniker stated:
I point out that in the case of the Iraq War that the Church and doctrine was not followed. This isn't relevant?
JAK:
First, the “doctrine” is ambiguous as I have clarified above in this post.
Second, elected public officials are to adhere to
The Constitution of the United States. Several things are “relevant.” The first, I have just recognized. It is the separation of church and state.
Third, “Methodists” as a large group of people
do not speak with one voice. And their members are not required to implement any
voice in the execution of their responsibilities as elected officials by
the people, not by
the UMC or any other religious organization.
+++
“Truth by assertion” is a modus operandi of religion. It is inherently what makes for “Dangers of Religion.”
“Faith based conclusion” is also a modus operandi of religion. It is inherently what makes for “Dangers of Religion.”
These are the fundamental positions which can be supported with irrefutable particulars of evidence.
JAK