Posted on 10/19/2006 9:26:09 AM PDT by unspun
/snip/
The U.N. wants to send 20,000 U.N. troops to Darfur to replace an ill-equipped and understaffed African Union force that has not been able to quell the violence. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir argued that U.N. forces would start a "re-colonization" of Africa.
Evangelical leaders said they are not calling for U.S. military intervention, but instead want the U.S. to use its authority as a world leader to get a multinational force into the country.
The campaign includes print newspaper ads, a letter-writing campaign to Bush and other activities. Among the supporters are some of the top names in the evangelical movement: the Revs. Ted Haggard and Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals; the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; and the Rev. Geoff Tunnicliffe of the World Evangelical Alliance.
Leaders are asking to meet with Bush to discuss their concerns.
/snip/
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Where is a coalition of the truly willing?
And where are African nations? How about wonderful South Africa?
I'll take "None of our Business" for $200, Alex.
In some ways Africa makes the mideast look like a walk in the park.
We'll mark you down in the isolationist, hold back on the war against worldwide jihadist takeover, don't care about genocide, don't care about Christian persecution category.
I agree. I am deeply offended by those ads in the Washington DC and New York papers that make it sound as if what's going on in Sudan is somehow Bush's fault, or the fault of the United States, and withhold the fact that it is Muslims who are doing the killing and starving of Africans there. The UN should call on some of its non-contributing members for a change if it wants to go into that particular quagmire.
I consider myself an evangelical Christian, but I have never heard of these "leaders".
I also question the wisdom of asking for UN help. To me that is like asking the ACLU for help defending Christian's free speech.
"The campaign includes print newspaper ads, a letter-writing campaign to Bush and other activities. Among the supporters are some of the top names in the evangelical movement: the Revs. Ted Haggard and Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals; the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; and the Rev. Geoff Tunnicliffe of the World Evangelical Alliance."
Can any Evangelical Freepers tell me what they know about the actual standing of these Evangelical Groups among American Evangelicals? Are they legit, or are they groups that hijak an identity so as to appear to represent all those one would think have that identity (like the NACCP).
The National Association of Evangelicals is solid. Ted Haggard is true-Bible-based-blue.
That I haven't heard of the other groups I sadly attribute to my own ignorance. Maybe I'll have/take the time to look them up (on a non-Google search engine).
http://www.nae.net
http://www.tedhaggard.com
http://www.nhclc.org
http://www.worldevangelicalalliance.com/
http://www.wearesources.org/
There is an increasing tendency to lump all evangelicals together with a new round of 'easy believism' that can be traced to some of the mega churches. That would be a mistake, expecially compared to the concerns of these councils.
I only asked because I went to a big "Save Darfur" event in New York City a short while back, sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition, which includes Christian groups.
The event was (1)dominated by Amnesty International in terms of physical and dominant visual presence (to them it was used for their own membership drive and anti-US political program), (2)used Madeline Halfbright as the keynote speaker, who ended her speech and kicked of the rest of the speakers with anti-Bush jabs (3)which a number of speakers used to say (and I'll paraphrase) "either BUSH gets a UN force into Darfur or WE won't forget that in November", and (4) implying that Bush alone has some magic mojo to move China and Russia closer to the U.S. position on Darfur (which wants a stronger UN force in Darfur).
I left in disgust and told my local "Save Darfur" Christian friends that I was withdrawing my support until they withdrew from the Save Darfur Coalition.
I just wrote Ted Haggard.
I gave him my eyewitness report of the "Bush bashing" Save Darfur event that the coalition hosted in New York City in September.
I explained to him how more than one speaker (1)tried to imply that Bush alone could get a UN force into Darfur and (2)if he didn't that fact should not be forgotten in November.
I told him that in my view the American left is doing, in the Save Darfur Coaltion, what it always does. It hijacks and issue and appends it to its own political agenda. That is what they see as the role of the Save Darfur Coaltion - just another tool in their political war against Bush.
The Ted Harrgard's of this world should (1)acknowledge the political subversion being forced on their good intentions and (2)regroup as a separate Jewish-Christian alliance on the issue of Darfur.
Dead wrong on the first part. Most of the Christians in the Sudan have already been killed or rescued by groups like Christian Freedom International. What you have left is Muslim v. Muslim. Islam is pure evil and when you have competing forms of evil killing each other off, it is best to just stand by and let them fight.
How is this our problem?
Aha. Thanks for the clarification.
You contradict yourself. There are plenty of Christians left. Also, animists.
Even if there are, which I doubt, that still does not make Darfur "our" problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.