Posted on 09/24/2015 10:26:34 PM PDT by WilliamIII
This spring, many Syrian Christians rejected protestors' demands for embattled president Bashar al-Assad to resign. But Christians did broadly endorse democratic reforms that would bring an end to dictatorship.
"We do not support those who are calling for the fall of the regime, simply because we are [for] the process of reform and changes," said Yohanna Ibrahim, Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan of Aleppo, at a religious summit in France.
In late May, International Christian Concern, an evangelical ministry to the persecuted church, released to Christianity Today an anonymous open letter from a "trusted Syrian source" that explains why many Syrian Christians support Assad's regime. The two-page letter calls for help from the larger Christian community. It says in part:
• "Christian service has flourished remarkably in Syria. We regard Syria as a model Arab country when it comes to freedom of worship."
• Radical Muslim groups are "responsible for the disturbance" in the country. "Christians are the first to be persecuted when we talk about governmental change."
• "We are seeking [Christians'] help to prevent what happened in Iraq and Egypt from happening in Syria. Christian service in Syria is in danger now."
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Putin supports Assad. Christians prefer Assad. USA is trying to get rid of Assad. ???
“Christian service has flourished remarkably in Syria. We regard Syria as a model Arab country when it comes to freedom of worship.”
******************************************************************************************************
Which is why, IMHO, the Obama regime has sought the destabilization and destruction of Syria’s government. And, yes, I know that it is a dictatorship...but it is far, far better than the Islamic State and other spawn of the Muslim Brotherhood.
What would possesses a christian mind to want to stay in that latrine?..
“christian” CAN BE A NEBULOUS WORD..
That is very interesting. I have not known what to think of Assad because I hear such contradictory reports.
Obama goes around the world accusing US of hegemony and apologizing for past mistakes, so what does he do? The same thing
Right now, the best form of government in an Arab country is a benevolent Autocracy.
Why the ??? Look at who we have as President.
Unmentioned: that the fall of Assad will mean an appalling massacre of Christians.
That’s what you get when you have Obama and his buddy McCain trying to handle foreign policy. And yes, McCain was in on the Syrian decision making.
Correction. Ozero is trying to get rid of Assad. The issue in Syria is extremely complicated, probably because of the failed leadership of Ozero.
I have been against us policy on Syria for years, ever since I was schooled by a acquaintance about what was going on with US policy in Syria. I do not understand how we can except Castro in Cuba but we have to topple Syria. We can except the kingdom of Saudi Arabia on of the bloodiest instigators of sharia law but Syria a country in the Middle east that actually try’s to protect its minority religion Christianity has to be toppled. to me it seems as if there are concerns that have nothing to do with morality behind are foreign policy and everything to so with making money off are foreign policy by some key players.
Actually, Obama accused the NeoCon republicans, who controlled US foreign policy during the GW Bush years, as being the force promoting the US as the world hegemon, and he apologized for that.
The cornerstone of the NeoCon foreign policy doctrine is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which would become the Bush Doctrine.
Simply stated, or overly simplified, The Wolfowitz-NeoCon-Bush doctrine says the US won the cold, was the last remaining super power, and therefore the world hegemon.
NeoCons are idealists. They subscribe to a foreign policy big on humanitarianism and nation building.
NeoCons are unilateralists. They are opposed to multilateralism and say multilateralism is weakness, leading from behind. They say that the world order can exist only as a hierarchy of power with the US at the top and multilateral organizations such as the UN or NATO are a waste of time.
Obama is a Realist and a multilateralist. If you had to use one word to describe his foreign policy, it would be multilateralism.
As a senator, he was given a seat on the Senate Foreign Relation Committee and would align himself with the GOP realist Dick Lugar. When Obama began his run for the presidency(2007), he would hire two prominent Realists as advisors, Colin Powell and Dan Shapiro.
Obama's foreign policy team is composed of Realists and Liberal Interventionists, but the Realists dominate. Obama hired the GOP Realist Brent Scowcroft to vet all his foreign policy appointees
“That is very interesting. I have not known what to think of Assad because I hear such contradictory reports.”
We are trained by our culture, literature and movies to see the world in simple terms of good versus evil. The bible is the architype of this good versus evil proposition. The Middle East is a different culture and Christianity is a tiny portion of that culture. In the Middle East there is very little we would see as good and much we would see as evil. The short end of this spectrum runs from good towards the middle, which is not as “good” towards the far end which is all evil. Close to good is the evil that simply tolerates and occasionally abuses Christians. This is where Assad is. Further along, not far along, mind you, the spectrum rapes Christians and forcibly converts them. You’d think that was evil, and it is, but then a short distance further along the spectrum people boil Christians alive, drown them, burn them to death and behead them. In comparison, the line further to the good side where they just rape and convert seems better.
We have to suspend our concepts of good and evil and accept that Assad is the better of the options. He is as close to good as the region can create. This begs the question, why didn’t Obama support, train and arm the Christians rather than “moderate” Muslims who later joined the far, far evil side of the spectrum? I think we all have our own answer to that question.
As to why people who live there don’t leave? With all its warts and dangers, it’s home.
I have the same questions but the dilemma is when you couple that with Syria’s passionate attack on US forces in Iraq and their unqualified support of Iraq before. And then you remember that under the brutal dictatorship of Hossain the Christian population was allowed to worship freely.
Ahhhh! such confusion!!
Thank you for your explanation. It is stunning just how evil evil can be.
Confirms 100% what my Syrian high school students told me about living under Assad as Christians. They were able to function freely without muslim persecution under him.
Assad has never cut off Christian heads. If he is overthrown you will see the Muslim Brotherhood or the Mullahs take over. I’ll stick with the strongman. They keep these 7th century barbarians in line and they keep Islam in line.
Assad puts all of these people in danger and can not win the war with his minority. Christians are pawns to him. The Assad regime has killed more people than anyone. Chances are, Assad has helped ISIS as well in bombing, if he were helping Christians, why would he do this?
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-assads-air-force-is-now-a-force-multiplier-for-isis-2015-6
Ultimately, he can not maintain power.
I listened to an interview a few years ago with a Bishop living in Syria. He was begging the west to stay out of Syria, saying that under Assad and other dictators in the ME the Christians were allowed to live in peace because the Muslim factions were kept under control, and that democracy doesn’t work well in places where tribal and sectarian conflicts exists.
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.