Surveys: U.S. Religious Activists Have ‘Widely Divergent’ Views

As much as I like some of the content on ChristianPost.com, today we have another article (see this post for another) which is too vague to be useful, other than to draw gross conclusions that can only be divisive, rather than edifying. I really hate it when news organizations (the mainstream/conservative/liberal/everyone press) don’t reference the actual questions. The phrasing of the questions is crucial!

For example, “Nearly half of conservatives (48 percent) believe scripture to be the literal word of God”. What was the question? Did they use “inerrant” or “literal” or some other word in the question? Did they ask the polled individual what they meant by that word?

In my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, inerrancy is only applied to salvation¹. So, if I answered, “the bible is inerrant in regards to salvation alone,” would that be a yes or no? Then it would be up to the poller to decide.

In regards to abortion, what are “most cases”? What kind of cases are people thinking about when they hear the question? I almost wrote that I was one of the 54%, because I read “some”. Imagine if “some” had heard “some” rather than “most”.

I guess I’m not a “conservative”. I think there needs be a lot of separation between state and church. I do not believe that because my faith helps me make decisions, that I should be banned from stating such. Nor do I think most people, if they truly thought about it, would want to squelch such (yes, there are a bunch of loud, obnoxious ones who would disagree with me).

I will say that this article notes the imbalance within the Christian community. Yes, helping your fellow man is a vital part of the Christian ethos and scripture. However, coercion by one’s government is not part of the deal. The Roman Catholic tradition has a great balance between what has become two sides, but Roman Catholics as a practical matter are having just the same issues.

The tradition, even in the Protestant Church (such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and the “grandparent” of my denomination), is there. It is the rhetoric, and the American desire for a “simple”, “black-and-white” answer that is creating this insanity, along with the quick response medium of the internet (to which, of course, I’m contributing).

It is also the church, as a whole, that is at fault in the responses to this poll. What is the church teaching? Is it teaching? Is it helping its people wrestle with the faith? It IS okay to wrestle with the faith! That’s what the church fathers did!

This also does bring back to mind this article at the (evil) FoxNews: Has Christian America Come to an End?

In this election cycle, talk about an emerging evangelical political center abounds. Much of the discussion is about how conservative and liberal Christians can work together to realize Christ-commanded essentials and their corollaries: care for the poor, for example, and its extensions regarding access, justice, and health care.

THEOOZE – Articles: Viewing Article

While I agree with Ron Paul’s sentiments regarding limited government, I would strongly urge anyone to think very carefully about not legislating morality. That’s what legislation is: enforced (or coerced) morality. Who pays what taxes, for example, is morality, hence so many arguments about estate taxes and marriage penalties. I am not saying the government has not overstepped its intended boundaries, but such hyperbole without thought has consequences. Questions such as income redistribution are a morality issue, as is marriage.

When he first gets booed in his speech is when he talks about how gold and silver should be the currency of the land, and I’ve had this discussion before. Here is what I came up with then:

U.S. paper currency, along with the Federal Reserve Bank was created during the Civil War (or The War Between the States) to allow for a better interaction between locals on a financial level. Paper currency existed before that, too (including Colonial times). Each bank (which could the one down the block, a different one at the edge of town, or the State (not Federal Bank) issued it’s OWN money, which was actually a certificate for gold or silver stored at the bank. However, one bank would often (especially if across governmental lines, whether city, county, and definitely state) not recognize the legitimacy of the certificate from the other bank.

This created roadblocks to prosperity, especially if one had to buy stuff from a non-local source. The Federal Reserve system created a consistent methodology to allow currency to change hands with greater ease. The Central Bank only printed and issued money to a bank for a maximum of 60% of its gold, establishing a baseline of both gold value, and paper currency value. This system of reserves (gold, but later, silver) was in place until the 1960′s.

The founder’s did have concerns, very great concerns, that multiple currencies would inhibit commerce (and it did), but were unable to convince the states to go along with a common system.

Now as to the value of gold versus paper, it’s a straw man to me. I don’t value gold as a currency. I see its value, these days, as being a great electrical conductor. What has made it valuable in the human psyche is that we can decorate ourselves with it. And that is what made it valuable in the past, and still. It is what you can do with it. ALL currency is a simplified barter system. If I think that my product is worth 1oz of gold, but you think its worth .5oz, that is no different than my thinking that its worth $500, and you thinking it’s worth $250.

It is all based upon perceived value.

Many that believe themselves in the same camp as Ron Paul state that the federal government has no say right to make money, while Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now all that being said, perhaps he meant returning to a gold/silver based backed system of paper and coins. Honestly, no matter what the currency is, no matter by what it is backed, it is all a matter of perceived value. The value of our currency is perception as well, hence his annoyance at the falling dollar. However, depending on the industry, that can be a good thing, except when you’ve outsourced everything, which is a another result of freedom.

Continuing past this, he makes valid (an in my opinion correct) point that there is a habit of looking to Washington,D.C. to fix the problem, and that habit has to be broken. However, the current batch of Republicans will not support that. How does he think they get elected?

He then attacks, rightly, the U.N., and for liberals (whether R’s or D’s) who look to the U.N. to justify (the U.S. gives too much money to actually look for real help from the U.N.) their more “progressive” desires. I also believe that there is validity to his implied point that we obey laws (or someone tries) that the U.N. has passed, without having any granted (by its members nations) power to it to do so.

However, we agreed to the WTO independently of the U.N., as a treaty I believe, obligating ourselves to it as a matter of trade. Now, Ron Paul could say let’s withdrawal from it, but the President (other than signing the bill) has no authority to do so. I am also not sure that the WTO has been effective, whether against or for the U.S., so this could just be another windmill to tilt at (please correct me if I’m wrong). I could probably be persuaded to get out of it purely on reducing government bureaucracy.

If he would stick to freedom (yes, I understand that he views the U.N. and the WTO as anathemas to freedom), where he shines, he would do much better. He is absolutely correct that far too many people rely more on the government than themselves. It will take at least 3 faithful and stalwart generations to break one generation’s failure (see Amit Shlaes abridged speech at Hillsdale)

He then goes on to the “Just War” theory, about which no one should speak, unless they speak of which “Just War” theory. The “Just War” theory has evolved from righteous war to no war at all. Depending on which version of the “Just War” theory you are using, and what you use as a rationale, any war could be just. It always boils down to which is a worse evil, the status quo, or a war (and its aftermath, which is the trust test anyways, not the war itself). As to WMDs (which he referred to as nonexistent), I believe we have a long way to go before we realize the (in)validity of multiple “intelligence” agencies (UK, French, German, Russian, and US all thought Iraq had them). However, I do think we rushed into that one. Maybe. Saddam was a very smart nut case (bad combo), and thus very unpredictable. Kim Il Sung, on the other hand, just throws a temper tantrum, gets his quiet money (or whatever vice he wants to fulfill), and goes and hides for a while, although perhaps the same “intelligence” that guided the Israeli Air Force to attack a site in Syria, and which guided the thoughts of WMDs in Iraq, made the same mistake again (although bureaucrats rarely take risks of repeating the same mistake, they prefer doing nothing) in regards to North Korean nuclear material in Syria.

Now his “declaring war” is kind of weird. Congress declared war by passing the resolution authorizing it. So his reasoning that we either wouldn’t be at war (so no troops lost), or we wouldn’t be arguing about it is off. Regardless of what our history books now say, we have declared war many times, and have still had plenty of protest anyways, especially in regards to continuing it. That is part of the process.

The last booing was at this point, and booing does not add to the discussion, nor do Ron Paul’s comments, frankly. The question before us is which is more evil, abandoning those in Iraq (the justification, or lack thereof, of the war is no longer relevant), or finishing the job (which, granted, still needs to be completely defined, which is part of the problem as well).

Now all THAT being said, I hope he stays in the race, in hopes that the Republican party will repent of their Democrat tendencies.

Sorry about going on so long. I think I’m done now.

However, one thing isn’t addressed in Jim Lobe’s article is that there are two countries currently that are trying to fill the vacuum left by the deconstruction of the U.S.S.R., the Russian Federation, and the P.R.C. (China). If the U.S. doesn’t arm the “allied” “moderate” Arab states, the Russians or Chinese will, and much of the leverage of the U.S. disappears (argue whether that’s good or bad at Another March Towards Independence).

I believe that there is probably some hope in the Administration (especially with articles such as, A War We Just Might Win – New York Times) that by bolstering the Arab states militarily, they may be able and willing (if just to get weapons) to aid in the stabilization of Iraq. I hope they are looking at this with their eyes open (no, I don’t have much hope of that), not with the thought that it will be different this time (such as the Israeli/Palestinian “peace” “agreements”).

The Belmont Club: Another Satan Emerges

If there is one word, I would use to sum up the atmosphere in Iraq — on the streets, in the countryside, in the neighborhoods and at the national level — that word would be fear.

The longer I am here, the more I am persuaded that progress in Iraq cannot be analyzed solely in terms of these discreet, precisely defined benchmarks because, in many cases, these benchmarks do not serve as reliable measures of everything that is important — Iraqi attitudes toward each other and their willingness to work toward political reconciliation.

The media and the politicians are always quick to discuss the failures of the military, but as former President Bill Clinton said (quoted, derogatorily, by NewsMax), there is no military victory possible here. He’s right (sorry, NewsMax). Both the Ambassador and former President Clinton (not the president-elect one) have it right. This must be “won” by the Iraqi people.

However, what the Ambassador has right, and future-first-something Clinton has WAY wrong, is that, currently, the only possibility (other than letting Al-Quaida or Iran run things) for that to occur is with Coalition troops doing what they can to provide it. However, at some point the Iraqi people will have to take it upon themselves to do so. Although, I have to say, every time some politician calls for withdrawal (which I’m sure Al-Jazeera trumpets quite loudly), the Iraqi people have an incentive NOT to step up, because if we leave, THEY’RE DEAD!

Then there’s Senator Kerry stepping into it, trying to build a case that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will happen to all those people who stood up for freedom, if we should abandon them.

Look, I want my friends to come home, and my family not be redeployed. However, do people like Kerry and Clinton remember (or even care) what was said of Vietnam Vets when they came back? I, and others, have noticed an increased number of vehicles sporting the Vietnam Service Ribbon. I don’t think that’s coincidence. These vets who served (and 99.99+% served well) are supporting those troops that are serving now, by displaying a ribbon that used to engender scorn (still does, but those same people scorn anything military). They see, probably unconsciously, history repeating itself. Let’s finish our task in Iraq, and bring them home in victory.

(*whine*) But it’s taking too long!

Brief history lesson. Hitler took power in 1933. The Marshall Plan was over in 1951 (I think). That puts an entire World War (from build-up to somewhat recovered) in a span under 20 years. The Germans populace had had democracy before Hitler, and thus a history of it. The people of Iraq had Saddam from 1979 to 2003, and military government before (and during) him, and a monarchy before that. Add to that the lunatics (mostly from outside of Iraq) that keep destroying that which is built back up (like power plant, oil production, factories, etcetera). What do you expect? People that do not have a history of Western thought aren’t going to start thinking like us! They have to find their own way.

They have to stop fearing. They have to find their own way, as did the U.S.. Quick question, was the first union of the states a success or a failure? A failure! That’s why the Constitution was written, because the Articles of Confederation didn’t work! I am so confused about politicians. I don’t know if they say the things they do because they don’t grasp history or societal inertia, or because they believe they can say it and it will be true. Of course, much of the body politic works the same way.

Which brings me, in a very round about way, my homage to Senator Clinton’s (crowned-president-elect) book, when she was still First Lady, It Takes A Village To Raise A Child. It will take the Western world, working together, to build a new jewel of hope in the Middle East, because there are too many who feel threatened by the freedom it represents.

It is distressing for me to realize that Christ died for the terrorists, too. As violent and anti-Christian as they are, Jesus died for even them. So how do we balance that awareness with the job of killing them? I don’t have a well-developed answer for that one. I never got to the point that I’d aim at a German and hope to hit him while praying for his soul at the same time. But I was able to avoid hating the Nazis while I fought, and I thought that this was important for me as I tried to balance my faith with my combat duties.

See the rest of the article here: An Old Soldier’s Advice

I, as a Christian, believe I stand as a voice that tries to get this lost world to hear God, and to follow God’s ways. The question really is, how to get people to listen when they don’t want to. How do you get people to listen when what is said is the opposite of their desired behavior?

I don’t have an answer. Watching the news, political hacks, various “cause” websites, and everything that is spewed forth, I’m not sure that love can be heard, except in private personal conversation, and depending on the individuals involved, maybe not then either. We have a situation in this country with anger. I’m not talking about gangs, gun violence, moronic parents who take their children’s sports too seriously. Politics, and much that is important involves politics, is anger. If one person is more angry, than they get more coverage. In response, even people who would otherwise not be angry, have an automatic escalation in tension. Sadly, that tension gets connected to the issue, and then discussion of the issue no longer becomes a way to discuss (and hopefully solve) an issue, but a rant.

Some of the best discussions about certain issues are happening out of the limelight. Some serious solutions are coming out of those discussions, but they do not see the light of day because those who are truly trying to solve the issues aren’t angry about them.

How did I get here from the beginning of this post? Simple, the way things are going currently, I cannot discuss where I see something being wrong, without someone reacting as if attacked. The sad part is, I feel a need to help them. I am moved by love to help them. I certainly don’t hate those I seek to help, what would be the point. Are they my enemies? Not from my point of view, however, from their point of view, I am their enemy, as is my faith.

How do you share in love, when the only currency that is understood is anger?

The true goal is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If a person has a living vital relationship with Jesus Christ, it is that relationship that will change them. It won’t be fancy arguments. It won’t be facts. It won’t be tirades. It won’t be the shallow love of a human being. It will be the gracious, faithful, living, and deep love of God, lived through Jesus Christ, felt and experienced through the Holy Spirit.

One of the things that has bugged me in recent years is how few people seem to recognize the holiday as what it was originally intended to be, a day of recognition for those who have served their country, especially those who died doing so. While I believe it will still bug me to some degree, the main speaker, provided his perspective. He was one of those officers I who I wish I had met in my short stint in the Army R.O.T.C., Lt. Col. Kenneth Hunt.

He spoke of being happy to see people hauling their ATV’s, their campers, their whatever, off to enjoy the three day weekend. Why would a person who has risked his life to allow me the freedom to write this and worship Jesus Christ, be happy at those off to enjoy their three day weekend? Because they are free. That is what all those people traipsing off means to him.

Honestly, and sadly, it says better of him than me. If all of us were as unselfish as that, I’d say we’d all be much better off.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 15:13

21st Century King James Version

As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth that shall be different from all the other kingdoms; it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it into pieces.

I was reading Daniel 7:19-27, and it struck me that the United States of America may very well be the fourth beast. The first response of some will be that the USA is not a beast, of course their opposites on the political spectrum will say that it is. The Book of Daniel is very much a prophetical and vision based. It is not literal.

“…shall be different from all the other kingdoms…”. The United States of America is different from any other country.

“It will devour the whole earth…” From a political standpoint, and sadly much in a cultural viewpoint, this is reality as well.

As much as I love my country, the current divide between the lovers and loathers (American Citizens all), tells me that the USA is on its way out. It won’t go down easily, or soon. What ten kingdoms, then will it devolve to?

We call the USA a “Christian” nation. It was. It is no longer, and hasn’t been for a great many decades (which decade in the 20^th century is up for debate). As sad as this makes me feel, the kingdom to which is owed my greatest loyalty is not of this earth, and that kingdom shall not pass away.

millionsoulsaware.org is a not for profit project started in march 2007 that has the mission to raise awareness by featuring an article on an important topic that needs attention. Millionsoulsaware.org doesn’t ask for donations, but asks you to spread the word. The millionsoulsaware.org goal is to get one million souls aware on the current subject. This goal is measured by the project counter on the mainpage. Our goal will be reached by asking people on the internet to spread the awareness by promoting millionsoulsaware.org. We believe the internet is the perfect way to reach a wide audience worldwide. Awareness is the starting point for a better world!

The current issue is refugee camps, and while there will probably be some disagreements on the cause, effect, and resolution of the issue that MillionSoulsAware.org will bring up. At this point, I’m not going to argue that at least their first issue is definitely worth learning about.

Also, please note that I have added a text box at the top of the left-most column, as I want more people to learn about these issues.

The United States should establish a National Security Court designed to handle terrorism cases fairly but also in a way that does not jeopardize public safety…

I have never felt that those who are believed to be terrorists, should have the luxury of the U.S. Court system, for they are an enemy combatant. The problem is that our entire system, and the global court system, is geared towards nation upon nation conflict, not terrorism.

However, I’m not sure a military tribunal is acceptable either.  I think this is a reasonable middle-of-the-road solution that should be looked by both sides.

There will be a call that Bush is a “lame duck”, but he now will not be vetoing bills from his political party. If President Bush vetoes a bill, there will be almost no chance that it will be overturned. However, President Bush may define himself as a lame duck with the resignation of Rumsfeld today (see “The real Rumsfeld I knew“). I’ve never understood the whole “lame duck” thing. I think it has a lot to do with this idiotic perception that vetoes are necessarily bad. I hope Bush wakes up. I was just going to talk about the election, but the Rumsfeld thing is BAD! I guess Bush is more like his father than we thought: caring more about being liked, than being effective, and actually finishing what was started. Gates’ nomination, especially with his part of the Baker-Hamilton Committee speaks volumes, and this is what separates most politicians from the people (regardless of party affiliation). This seems to a Karl Rove move; in other words, pure politics.

Regardless of what you think of President Bush, he has done his best, and has tried to be a leader. However, his habits betrayed him, and us. Back in the days of his governorship, he worked hand in hand with those that opposed him. I agree that working together is good, but only when working toward a common agreed goal. Bush is back to working together, purely for working together. He’s earned it. While certain aspects of his presidency will be viewed, later, as successful, his failures as a leader, at least for the short term, will outweigh the good he has done. Since he is now convinced that the Democrats should call the shots, I guess he will be a rubber stamp president (even more than he is now).

Iraq is a mess. It is winnable in that it can be a democracy, but Bush’s failure to separate himself from the Republican defeat and to view himself not as a Republican but as the leader of the greatest country on Earth, causes me to say…

Bush is a loser, and so now we, the citizens of the United States of America, are too.

Observe the inversion of justice here. Benevolent, individualistic, life-loving Americans, and death-worshipping, collectivist, nihilistic Arabs—such as the dancing Arabs who celebrated 9/11—are regarded as equally worthy of protection by the American military. The exception is if the American is a soldier and the Arab is a civilian, in which case the Arab’s life is of greater value.

To the extent that Just War Theory is practiced, it leads to unnecessary fear, suffering, and death visited on innocent nations—and to the rise of evil movements and regimes—all while it claims to be virtuous and practical.

(What I say below is my opinion, and based upon what I read and hear, and therefore may be a wildly inaccurate understanding of the Iraqi people.)

The people of Iraq have been cowed for so long (habits learned well under Sadam have not yet been unlearned, it seems), that they find it hard within themselves to fight back. Instead of focusing all our efforts on the Iraqi government’s security forces (which some are rumored to be acting as death squads), we should spend our efforts on the Iraqi people. I believe we can trust the Iraqi people to govern themselves, except the problem is that all these blood-thirsty “militias” keep trying to kill them.

Let’s arm them. If we want to arm them under the auspices of gender equality, anyone over the age of 12 (male or female) is given (not issued) a Winchester .22 (hey, at least I didn’t say M-16 or AK-47) repeating rifle, and a semi-automatic pistol. The only law is that, of course, only shoot in self defense (not in celebration), and that the pistol is to be worn visibly at all times outside of the home (and due to doors being broken down in the night, I would strongly suggest keeping the pistol at hand at home). There would be the option of carrying the Winchester, but it would not be required.

Here’s the refrain “but they’ll kill everyone. It will be a blood bath!” Yada, yada, yada.

Even die-hard Republicans (supposedly in the pocket of the NRA), have heard that so many times, that many are beginning to believe it: despite evidence to the contrary. Granted, this is not being reported on (why am I not surprised) in this fashion, but as a general rule, the stricter the gun control laws (here in the states), the higher the crime rate. Hmmm, oh, yes, the typical refrain, “when owing a gun is a crime, only criminals have guns.” Put another way, if someone is going to rob (an illegal act) you, do you really think that they’ll say to themselves, “I’m not going to use a gun, since it is illegal to have one.” Instead their thoughts are probably along this line, “hmmm, it’s illegal to own a gun, so my victim, who is a law abiding citizen won’t have one, therefore I win when I use my gun.”

Now, before someone says, “this guy’s blood-thirsty,” I’m not. I pretty much avoid violence. I even do my best to avoid it on TV and with movies (and that’s a chore). Being a (not very good) Christian, it is even more important to avoid unnecessary violence. However, in no way shape or form, is defending one’s family unnecessary!

A sad part of the cold war, was how very human is was, and there is a very important lesson in it. Most people have heard of “Mutually Assured Destruction”. This is where both the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. had enough nuclear armaments to irradiate the world, depending on which report was read, 17 to 30-something times. Once was enough! However, that led to a forced diplomacy, the actual cold war itself. Neither side was willing to take on the other, because it wasn’t worth it, which was (and is) the point.

Most of these obnoxious evil people running around killing everyone, are trying to impose their version of an Islamic state, or getting revenge that was put on hold by Sadam. However, if they knew that everyone was armed, honestly, how likely do you think this will continue.

I would guess that the suicide bombings and car bombings and IED killings would increase, for a short while. Since the media and convienient anti-war mouths keep saying how bad it is over in Iraq, a slight uptick wouldn’t even be noticeable (that is sarcasm. Any uptick is BAD). However, once the people realize and fully comprehend that they have the power to steer their course (and, frankly, the responsibility), I would guess that things would quiet down quickly.

Now, the one thing I don’t know, is whether the majority of the Iraqi people have arms. I remember the pictures of people shooting guns into the air to celebrate the fall of Sadam, but how many of those who were shooting into the air, are now shooting people.

I believe that the biggest danger is that the Bush Administration, the Iraqi government, or other world governments, believe that the government must grant peace and freedom, while in truth the people must recognize that is THEIR peace and THEIR freedom, of which they GIVE a PORTION to the government.

Op Eds Now More Central in War than Bullets
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun [NY Sun title: The West Must Learn The Public Relations of War]
October 17, 2006

Regardless of what you think of Mr. Pipes otherwise, his analysis regarding this aspect is correct. I believe it is what Republicans, and President Bush’s administration in particular (are you listening Karl Rove?), don’t get. I think those who oppose the war get it somewhat, but haven’t learned the self-restraint required.

However, I think Mr. Pipes also has it somewhat wrong as well. Regardless of what those in their towers (whether it be the ivory tower of academia, the gray tower of politics, or the black tower of the press) think of the rest of us, we are quite capable of reading between the lines. Granted, however, that also requires ALL the facts, which politicians and mainstream media (including FoxNews) try spoonfeed us only a few of, be available.

Regarding the facts in question, you can provide factual information, but still lie. A lie by omission is still a lie.

This is one of those many emails I have received regarding 9/11. I don’t know who put this together, but they deserve a lot of credit

Osama Bin Laden, your time is short;
We’d rather you die, than come to court.
Why are you hiding if it was in God’s name?
You’re just a punk with a turban; a pathetic shame.

I have a question, about your theory and laws;
“How come you never die for the cause?”

Is it because you’re a coward who counts on others?
Well here in America, we stand by our brothers.

As is usual, you failed in your mission;
you expected pure chaos, you can keep on wishing
Americans are now focused and stronger than ever;

Your death has become our next endeavor.

What you tried to kill, doesn’t live in our walls;
It’s not in buildings or shopping malls.

If all of our structures came crashing down;
It would still be there, safe and sound.

Because pride and courage can’t be destroyed;
if the towers leave a deep void.

We’ll band together and fill the holes
We’ll bury our dead and bless their souls.

But then our energy will focus on you;
And you’ll feel the wrath of the Red, White and Blue.

So slither and hide like a snake in the grass;
Because America’s coming to kick your ass!!!

Keep this going. PASS IT ON

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Is ‘Mainstream Christianity’ Morally Relevant Right Now?

Tom Marsland
Thursday, March 20, 2003

Pope John Paul II recently condemned America and Great Britain’s “alliance of the willing” for wanting to liberate the Iraqi people and stop Hussein’s proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Clearly, Pope John Paul II is a decent man by almost any standard, but he’s somehow sadly devolved the notion of peace to a level not consistent with the intent of his (and my) faith’s fundamental beliefs.

This moral confusion is not just a ‘Catholic leadership thing.’ Guilt abounds everywhere, as the blood of Saddam’s victims lies at the feet of virtually all of mainstream Protestantism as well!

In condemning free nations for desiring to liberate oppressed peoples from despotic regimes, virtually all World Council of Churches member congregations have sided against war … therefore against freedom for the Iraqi people, and thereby with Saddam, and with the U.N. too.

One would expect the U.N. to be corrupted by this world’s ill values, but would not expect the same corruption of values from the mainstream Christian Church. The ‘liberal church’ has said, “Wars are moral only when approved by the U.N.”

This turns the traditional moral authority given the church over to the U.N., a worldly organization with despotic regimes such as Libya at the head of its Human Rights Commission. Even Iraq is in key leadership positions at present.

From abortion to homosexuality, there is wholesale flight from godly virtue in many, if not most, denominations. Forgotten are the faith’s once noble stands for the oppressed, for the innocent of this world, for those without a voice (perhaps abortion has promulgated this?).

Statements such as “Jesus would never endorse warfare” sound good, but are totally false.

Jesus’ teaching offered the church’s founding fathers perfect moral clarity. Through inspired writing, the Christian Bible set in stone immutable principles for the governance of His Church in this world.

From Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

In Luke’s Gospel, He said: “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” and “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

From John’s Gospel: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives.”

In essence, he is self-defining his ‘peace’ as being different from that of the world’s peace, which usually looks at peace as ‘absence of present hostilities.’

Peace is NOT the eternal absence of warfare amongst nations, which would only ensure ‘victory by default’ for every evil regime! Righteous undertaking of warfare by nations is commanded by God in Christianity’s book! Such a nation ought therefore to believe its own inspired writings or bail on the faith, as commandments are not a voluntary matter.

I am not saying right-thinking Christians ought to look at Iraq as a Holy War. Let’s leave that sort of talk to Islam. I am simply stating that there are religious principles that direct nations to justly quench the flames of evil, not fan them with appeasement and rhetoric.

The Prophet Jeremiah warned us (nation states) that turning one’s back on the suffering of others made one guilty too, and subject to God’s punishment as well: “Administer justice every morning; rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done – burn with no one to quench it.”

Now, you may or may not share any of these beliefs, but it’s not your beliefs I’ve been writing about. I am referring to inconsistency of belief and actions in the mainstream church. Why does modern Christianity ‘walk’ on these elements of God’s nature? It does disservice to all, as it provides an incomplete picture of His nature and our responsibilities.

If honest, there is at least one thing that all may agree upon: It is hypocritical to say you are a Christian and then live by a code entirely outside the principles of Jesus, a believer in just war and the author of a terrific book about it.

Editor’s note:
Become a member of NewsMax’s “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” Club – get the T-shirt – Click Here Now