|
How can both of the U.S. commanders in chief, Bush and Cheney, claim to be "Christians" while starting and/or conducting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are incompatible with the teaching of Jesus Christ? , as I show at great length at . |
|
In contrast however, to "Liberal" Christians who believe what Jesus taught about war and violence, "Conservative" Christians, like many in the Southern Baptist Convention ( which broke with the regular Baptists in order to endorse and defend African American slavery) has no problem giving its blessing to war. They promote war in their schools and churches :
"Beulah Baptist Church is hosting War Games for teen-agers July 8-10 from 6-9:30 p.m. There will be fun, food, prizes and competitions. The Marines will battle the Navy in areas such as War Ball, Obstacle Course, Volleybomb and Huge Mud-Tag. Did George Bush's "Christian" administration have recruiters on hand at such events to "pre-register" these so-called "Christian" teens and get them committed to military service before they actually read the Gospels for themselves and find out how little respect Jesus Christ had for military solutions? and even slavery as "God's Word" at www.JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/ about/christianconservatism.html. "Imperial Christians who equate patriotism with militarism and nationalism now have a book to guide them: The American Patriot's Bible.' See The American Warmonger's Bible, which I haven't read, but imagine uses some of the deplorably scripture that I feature at WhatKindofGod.org. Conservative Christian warmongers sometimes dare to quote the following words of Jesus to support war : "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." What a great example of mis-quoting someone out of context! Here is the context : It's obvious from the context that Jesus wasn't expressing support for what we call "war" vs. "peace" between countries, but rather the inevitability of strife within families when some members of the family want to follow Jesus and some don't. It's hard to imagine sincere people really believing that Jesus was endorsing war or violence in this passage ( or any other). Another conservative once tried to justify the ownership and use of guns to me by quoting these words of Jesus, "the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." Does anyone think that Jesus was recommending the use of swords as anything more than a prop in a play, used not to intimidate, but only to educate? In Matt. 26:52, Jesus said, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." |
|
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean
to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power
knowledge gives."
Before delving into the question of whether the recent war with Iraq was justified when it was started unilaterally by Bush & Blair, I would like to draw your attention to a Senate hearing on May 17, 2005 in which George Galloway, a member of the British Parliament was being accused of corruption in the U.N. "Oil for Food Scandal". Far from being cowed by the U.S. Senate committee, headed by the freshman Republican Senator from Minnesota, Norm Coleman, Mr. Galloway levelled a blistering indictment of the Bush administration, a newsworthy event if ever there was one. Did the mainstream media notice? No. Can you read his testimony on the official Congressional website? No; not any more, because it has vanished, like the weapons of mass destruction. Except that millions of people saw Mr. Galloway's testimony on C-Span, and the official transcript was published on the site, until someone had it removed. Who or what will be removed next ?!? http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0517-35.htm and here is an MP3 recording of at least part of Galloway's testimony : http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/George_Galloway.mp3 And here is a great RealPlayer video of the entire hearing : http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Galloway/Galloway.rm |
|
When Leaders of the U.S. Council of Churches and of George W. Bush's own United Methodist Church were not allowed to address the President in person in the lead up to the war, they had to spend good money to address the following advice to him in a full page New York Times ad:
George W. Bush had no use for the advice of all of the church leaders who signed the statement above or those cited below.
January 4, 2002
The National Council of Churches, which represents the country's Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians and 32 other denominations, has, against all tradition, been brushed aside by this President, while evangelicals have enjoyed unparalleled access. "Bush has shown an ideological commitment to the literalist Christian tradition at the expense of the broader view of the larger religious community," National Council of Churches general secretary Rev. Bob Edgar told Salon.com, which is just a nice way of saying that the girl next door has been dumped for Tammy Faye Baker. "He is the first president not to meet with the leadership of mainline Christian traditions since George Washington. We've been able to talk with the prime minister of Britain and the chancellor of Germany, but not our own president." The Reverend Fritz Ritsch also questioned this historic snub: "I trust God speaks through me," George Bush reportedly told a gathering in Lancaster, PA. "The president apparently believes that he can talk about theology from the bully pulpit without talking to theologians," Ritsch wrote in the Washington Post. "Which begs the question: When did the president become theologian in chief?" Published on Thursday, February 20, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
Archbishops Question Blair's Claim Additional Statements by Various Christian Groups:
The United Methodist Church
A letter to G.W. Bush from
The Episcopal Church
The Society of Friends
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
The Mennonite Central Committee
The Presbyterian Church, USA
The United Church of Christ
The Unitarian Universalist Association There may be few Roman Catholics in the Bush family, but there are many millions of them in the country he leads, and the statements below reflect the long-standing teaching of that church that Roman Catholics are only allowed to engage in a war when it can be justified in their conscience as "a JUST war":
USATODAY.com - Pope fears religious hatred in Iraq war
Vatican Terms Preventive War
|
|
At the time that these religious leaders declared President Bush's war immoral, they did so on the grounds that it was declared without sufficient just cause. They did so even without knowing what they learned later that many of the arguments in favor of the war were at worst a pack of lies, or at best incredibly inept intelligence, (which Bush's people nevertheless assured us was "rock solid"). These religious leaders also did not know that the war would be conducted in such an immoral fashion, using illegal means, such as the well-documented torture, and using immoral weapons which are resulting in horrible damage and suffering to innocent people not just in our time, but to many, many, many generations to come. www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html shows many actual photographs of the horrible harm being done to innocent mothers and babies in our name, by our troops, using weapons that all Americans are paying for, whether they like it or not.
Here are more photographs, [ one of a portfolio of photos called "The Unseen Gulf War", to be found at: ] digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_intro.html Everybody knows that the bombs and missiles that George Bush & Tony Blair unleashed in our name did not just obliterate buildings. They have brutally maimed or ended the lives of many beautiful perfectly innocent people like these.
see many more pictures from www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims.
A friend of mine has observed regarding Americans watching and supporting the war as it was being televised:
In Chiang Mai, Thailand, at the conference Religion, Gender
Equity and Economics, the representative from South Africa said
at the opening reception, "What are you Americans going to do to
the world this time?" And before I could even try to reply, she
went on, "We are the people who should be voting in your
election. After all, your president affects our lives more than
he does yours." |
|
Statements by Various JEWISH Groups:
The Union of American Hebrew Congregations
The American Jewish Congress
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs Statements by Various MUSLIM Groups: The Arab American Anti-Discrimination Council
The Council on American-Islamic Relations
The Islamic Human Rights Commission See this Youtube video, The real terrorist was me US Soldier, by one of our soldiers in Iraq. |
See why many West Point Graduates are disowning the war created and mismanaged by our current "Commander in Chief" : www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org and why so many others in the Military feel the same way :
MilitaryFamiliesSpeakOut yahoo groups
|
to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt Here is what Bush's friends in the business community are writing about this war in Business Week magazine Not even President George Bush I agrees with President Bush II's war !
This group proves that Military people atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2003-03-26/fishwrapper.html "Jerry Lempcke, a professor at Holy Cross College in Massachusetts, has scoured the records from the 1960s and 1970s. "It simply never happened," he told me last week, adding that other researchers have found the same. No news reports, no evidence that anti-war demonstrators abused our troops. "The spitting story evolved as a way to discredit the anti-war movement," says Lempcke, a Vietnam vet. "It was particularly used in 1990 and '91 to persuade people against opposing the first Gulf war. The grounding of the story was as an alibi to explain why we lost the Vietnam war, that it was lost on the home front from a lack of patriotism. And the clear record shows that the spitting did not happen and that the war was lost long before public opinion had turned against it." ( the "Noisy Minority" ) by Mark Twain The loud little handful - as usual - will shout for the war. The pulpit will – warily and cautiously – object. . . at first. The great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the antiwar audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men. . . Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. "When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fail. Think of it, always." "I know not what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." "The nuclear arms race is like two people standing in a room up to their waists in gasoline arguing over who has the most matches."
|
Foreshadowed the Century to Come (20th) The American-Philippine War of 1899–1902 "The decision to crush the Philippine independence movement (by Republican imperialists,o President McKinley and Senator Albert Jeremiah Beveridge of Indiana) put America firmly on the path to imperialism and all its consequences.." [ Read excellent article at http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_americanphilippine_war_of_18991902#ixzz0cpNmP02I ] What REALLY Crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 ?
| |
|
"The New American Legacy of George W. Bush" by David Fabie, (a former Republican and an HR/Learning and Development Consultant in San Francisco, CA, who says "my political party left ME in 1992". )
"I remember the day like it was just yesterday. June 12th, 1987. I was a 17 year-old exchange student in Germany. Standing there at the Berlin Wall watching the President of the United States state in words so clear, so commanding that they seemed to reverberate through the crowd like an electric current. What do you remember about Ford & the"Mayaguez incident"? Everybody who lived through the Carter years remembers how impotent he appeared to be. What a contrast to strong Republican presidents like Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bushes 41 & 43. If those who lived through the Gerald Ford administration, however, remember the "Mayaguez incident" at all, what they remember is that Ford acted forcefully to the hijacking of an American commercial ship by terrorists and quickly rescued all 39 of the American civilian captives. Even at the time nobody seemed to care that the cost of rescuing those 39 civilians was the lives of 42 military personnel, not to mention those who were badly wounded. Because Carter was cautious and patient and lost no American lives, he was deemed weak, while Ford was viewed as strong.
|