PRESIDENT BUSH’S SPEECH A CHALLENGE TO CHRISTIANS

Moody News ^ | 21 January AD 2004 | The Revd. Dr. Moody Adams

[Abe Froman]

If we're going to be invading another country for that event, then hard, definitive proof is required that this guy was acting under direct orders of Saddam Hussein himself. The proof doesn't rise to that level? No invasion. Plus, I don't remember Bush ever saying that this was a reason. So evidently it isn't the reason.

It would also be would could be considered the most lopsided response to an act of aggression in the history of the world. Other countries have had just as much reason as this to launch strikes against us, however somehow we have permanently hijacked the moral high ground and other countries simply aren't allowed to have greivances against the United States? Get off your horse. The government that has shredded the Constitution over the past 100 years can't be trusted to deal with other countries any more fairly than it has dealt with its own citizens.

[Abe Froman]

Before you start calling someone bigoted and stupid you should know who you're dealing with. Calling a life-long, matured Christian "bigoted" (against Christians, apparently) doesn't look too smart.

[Wolfstar]

Bush is a typical clueless Christian...

Your words, not mine. If that isn't a bigoted statement, I don't know what is.

[keats5]

"Since I don't exist, I certainly don't need to reply to you, then."

Well, you needn't get snippy about it!

In that case, I need not reply to the reply you need not have made.

[Abe Froman]

Let's talk about facts:

#1 Iraq never attacked the United States except for our military, and that was under provocation of our attacks against Iraq's sovereignity, something we would likewise do if done to us (and would no doubt claim the moral high ground if we did.)

#2 Countless other countries are known to have weapons of far greater destruction that Iraq ever did combined with the delivery systems capable of reaching anywhere in the United States mainland, something Iraq never had. We no doubt have nuclear weapons pointed at us this very moment.

#3 There are a number of other countries that commit murder against their peoples on a scale greater than Saddam Hussein.

#4 Any WMD or programs for same were originally given to Saddam by us.


The bottom line is that any of the proposed criteria for invading Saddam Hussein could be likewise levelled at almost any country on earth. Any country or rouge citizen therein *might* be a threat. That does not justify going to war.

[RightWhale]

it is based in faith and mysticism.

How do you know that?

[fish hawk]

Do you believe there is a God? Just a yes or no will suffice. Don't need to explain.

[Abe Froman]

Clueless Christian means what I said----a Christian that is incapable of making the connection between Biblical principles and social policy. If Bush was capable of applying Jesus' teaching to his job as President he would have to change much of his agenda.

Just as I hear other Christians make clueless comments about state welfare and benefits as living up to our "duty to feed the poor", gun control because we must "turn the other cheek", and other complete misunderstandings of the Bible, etc....so has Bush ignored it by proposing further thefts of the many to benefit the few and further illegal (unconstitutional) laws and programs that strengthen the manacles on our liberty. If he can't be trusted in these domestic areas then I see no reason that his judgement on Iraq should be trusted in light of the obvious facts (Iraq proper never attacked the United States proper and there was no obvious or apparent effort to do so on their part.)

[AbsoluteJustice]

Lets dispell some of your myths real quick:

"#1 Iraq never attacked the United States except for our military, and that was under provocation of our attacks against Iraq's sovereignity, something we would likewise do if done to us (and would no doubt claim the moral high ground if we did.)"

So let me get this straight as AGREED upon to end hostilites of the 1992 Gulf war he agreed upon UNFETTERED ACCESS to his country and "no fly zones" were set in place. This agreement was UNITED STATES driven U.N. backed and passed. Never once was he in agreement with this mandate. That in itself is a continuations of military action. This is fact.

you point out that little fact "except for our military". So let me guess our "military" as you like to call it as some object to your disdain is not comprised of Americans? If this were 1942 our military action would not have even been a question if they were to fire on us ONE TIME. Then you loosely throw aroung the term "sovereignity." Under whose rule? A muderous dictator?

-14 resolutions
-same result


"#2 Countless other countries are known to have weapons of far greater destruction that Iraq ever did combined with the delivery systems capable of reaching anywhere in the United States mainland, something Iraq never had. We no doubt have nuclear weapons pointed at us this very moment. "

YES BUT THEY HAVE NOT USED THEM AGAINST OTHER COUNTRIES!! A fact you have failed to ignore. you use the senseless argument but if they have why can't they. This is Iraq who is proven to have used them. that is the difference.

"#3 There are a number of other countries that commit murder against their peoples on a scale greater than Saddam Hussein. "

Oh ya? hundreds of thousands? Whom we have had war with? And who signed on the dotted line to terms to end combat? Name me one that fits this description.

"#4 Any WMD or programs for same were originally given to Saddam by us."

The same old liberal rant. WE GAVE HIM THE WEAPONS!!

Different time my friend. At this time we were allied with him to defeat a common enemy; Iran. At this time we supplied him the means to keep away a common enemy. But we did not give him to the scale of which he had developed and aquired on his own. Different Presidents different policy. So tell me what does any of this have to do with the 1991 cease fire agreement and the 14 resolutions sanctioned against his country?

I am awaiting with much anticipation on this one.

[thinktwice]

I don't know if there is a God or not.

No one does.

[keats5]

OK. Assume for the sake of argument that God does exist.
Are you positive He would never communicate with His people?

[MEGoody]

"The gospel of Christ is not metaphysically based in reality, it is based in faith and mysticism."

So only those things of the material realm can be 'reality'? If that's not what you meant, please provide a definition of 'reality.'

[MEGoody]

"The gospel of Christ is not metaphysically based in reality, it is based in faith and mysticism."

So only those things of the material realm can be 'reality'? If that's not what you meant, please provide a definition of 'reality' that will help clarify your point.

[MEGoody]

"Jesus told us to give to the poor, not steal from others and give that to the poor."

Jesus also said to render unto Caesar. . .Christians are expected to pay taxes without having to be threatened with imprisonment, et al.

"I'm all for defending our country when it has been attacked."

Great, so pre-emption isn't your bad. I would remind you, however, that the God of the bible sent Israel into war a number of times pre-emptively.

So which are you - a clueless Christian or a clueless non-Christian? It must be one or the other since you've obviously missed some things in your study of scripture.

[keats5]

That's funny. You posted twice to thinktwice.

[MEGoody]

LOL Yeah, I noticed that. It was a glitch in the system, but how appropo.

[My2Cents]

Good commentary.

[Abe Froman]

Your response assumes that we should have gone to war with Saddam the first time he didn't attack our country (last time I checked, Kuwait is not and never was United States territory.)

I don't care what any U.N. resolution says, as long as I argue that we should withdraw from the U.N. and remove it from our borders I will not be duplicitous and use their proclamations as justification for anything.

The Soviet Union, under a murderous dictator, murdered more people than any other government in history and we never invaded them. So evidently the mere fact that a murderous dictator runs a country is not justification for invasion of that country (nor should it be.) Or is your justification simply that Saddam used WMD to kill people, and the type of weapon used is the problem? That would be especially meaningless.

We did not invade Japan in, say, 1940 because we thought they *might* attack Pearl Harbor in the future. We did not go to war with Germany in, say, 1940 because we thought they *might* go to war with America. We went to war with them only after 1) Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and 2) Germany declared war upon the United States (IIRC they also attacked U.S. ships with their submarines.)

I don't care if Iraq has used WMD on anyone or where they got it from. If we opposed military action by every country that initiated it on anyone else, we would be at war with half the earth. Moreover, WE GAVE THEM THAT CRAP because we supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. Now you would hypocritically use that as justification to invade Iraq?

Jefferson warned against having huge standing armies because they are a temptation to engage in "foreign military adventures." The Iraq war, and especially the post-war occupation, is a textbook example.

[thinktwice]

I'd say that the Gospels are more or less biographical tales handed down many years before finding their way into a written format.

[Wolfstar]

If Bush was capable of applying Jesus' teaching to his job as President he would have to change much of his agenda.

Last I checked, the title is President of the United States, not president of the Christians. Even before Washington was elected our first president — in fact, during the debates as the Constitution was being written — the hallmark of the presidency was that it was to be the one national elective office that represented ALL the people and ALL the states.

Although every past and future president has and will be the sum of his life experiences, including religious experiences, no president has or ever should overtly apply religious teachings to the secular job of being President of the United States. A president has to call each issue like he sees it, all the while knowing that in a nation as vast as this, it is inevitable that at least a few million people will disagree with him on nearly every decision.

Jesus explicitly affirms the distinction between a secular government and private religious faith when he teaches us to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."