Forced to be Christian

[brooksieb]

It is about oil, and the christian fundamentalists are riding that horse just as hard as they can.

Everyone is riding that horse for oil. So are the athiests, the jews and anyone else that wants a piece of the pie.

[mpjh]

Hmmm, I don't see any evidence that, as a group, atheists are supporting the war. I know that libertarians are opposing it. I know that many leftist that oppose it are atheist or agnostic. I don't think your point is valid.

[Napoleon Ier]

Hmmm, I don't see any evidence that, as a group, atheists are supporting the war. I know that libertarians are opposing it. I know that many leftist that oppose it are atheist or agnostic. I don't think your point is valid.

Probably because atheists don't exist as an organized functional and unified group with an administration capable of issuing definitive positional statements, like Christian Churches might.

[PLAYER57832]

A million innocent deaths against the "greater good," what hubris!

If you don't think people went there for the crusade, just listen to the atheist soldiers who report on the oppressive christian pressure to pray at meals, and the sarcastic remarks made to these atheists after a battle questioning their non-belief. Clearly many soldiers in Iraq consider this a christian against muslim war. I think you only need look at the ultimate leadership to see why.

Again, that some soldiers look to God in times of strife in no way makes this a "Christian war". In fact, though most of the mainline churches try to stay out of this ... basically saying that we support those soldiers who feel they must fight and we support those who feel they must oppose the war, both, there is no large denomination that I know of that has come out in actual favor of the war. In fact, the Pope has many times condemned it. (Protestant churches tend not to have such a single authority and tend to not issue such edicts, but many of the Protestant clergy is very much in opposition to the war).

So, you are saying that a political leader who once claimed that God was directing him is to be considered over and above the many, many legitimate Christian educated leaders? I think you are beginning to show illogic in your debate here.

No one is claiming that there are no individuals who wish to use their faith to justify the war ... quite the contrary. Most would reconcile it with their faith in one way or another (though "reconcile" can mean just that they have to go along given the circumstances, not that they actually like the decisions), BUT, this is quite differant from saying that the Christian church endorses this war or that it is a true war of faith.

The ones making that claim are actually the opposition ... the radical Muslim groups. And, their claim is disputed by the more moderate Moslem groups. (both spellings are considered "correct").

[got tonkaed]

Hmmm, I don't see any evidence that, as a group, atheists are supporting the war. I know that libertarians are opposing it. I know that many leftist that oppose it are atheist or agnostic. I don't think your point is valid.

Probably because atheists don't exist as an organized functional and unified group with an administration capable of issuing definitive positional statements, like Christian Churches might.

This seemingly makes a decent bit of sense. I dont think anyone could claim there is a present Athiest voice that could influence opinion even of like minded thinkers in any way approaching that of the Christian conservatives currently in US politics. Its possible theres overlap between the two positions but i dont think you could argue there is much of a casual link there.

[Snorri1234]

So, you are saying that a political leader who once claimed that God was directing him is to be considered over and above the many, many legitimate Christian educated leaders? I think you are beginning to show illogic in your debate here.

I don't think he's saying that. What he is saying is that a political leader who is president of the USA who claimed that God gave him the thumbs up on invading Iraq is slightly more important than a bunch of other leaders who are just Christian.



I think it is a very dangerous thing when a president can claim God told him to invade a country and nearly noone attacks him on being fucking retarded. A leader of a secular nation who claims God tells him what to do is bad, but a country which doesn't do anything about that and is neither suprised or sickened by it is a very bad thing.

Again, that some soldiers look to God in times of strife in no way makes this a "Christian war". In fact, though most of the mainline churches try to stay out of this ... basically saying that we support those soldiers who feel they must fight and we support those who feel they must oppose the war, both, there is no large denomination that I know of that has come out in actual favor of the war. In fact, the Pope has many times condemned it. (Protestant churches tend not to have such a single authority and tend to not issue such edicts, but many of the Protestant clergy is very much in opposition to the war).

Oh by the way, this thing about churches not being for the war is a bad argument because everybody and their dog opposes the war nowadays. You can't look at the ones who oppose it but you have to look at the ones who do support it and determine what their reasons are. The fact that many christians oppose the war does not mean that it is not religious, that's silly reasoning. I mean, there are thousand of different sects who don't agree with eachother on plenty of things so whether God wants the war in Iraq is also up for dispute.

But you can't deny that the president said God told him to do it, or that he claims his purpose is to rid the world of evil. That is dangerous and scary shit right there.

No one is claiming that there are no individuals who wish to use their faith to justify the war ... quite the contrary. Most would reconcile it with their faith in one way or another (though "reconcile" can mean just that they have to go along given the circumstances, not that they actually like the decisions), BUT, this is quite differant from saying that the Christian church endorses this war or that it is a true war of faith.

The Christian church endorsing it or not is unimportant. What the personal motives and reasons of the ones who engage in the war are is important. And sadly a lot of them seem to be religious. (There is quite the anti-other-religions thought in the army.)

[PLAYER57832]

So, you are saying that a political leader who once claimed that God was directing him is to be considered over and above the many, many legitimate Christian educated leaders? I think you are beginning to show illogic in your debate here.

I don't think he's saying that. What he is saying is that a political leader who is president of the USA who claimed that God gave him the thumbs up on invading Iraq is slightly more important than a bunch of other leaders who are just Christian.

I understood, I just completely disagreed.

Politically, being president is important, but religiously ... no. Being president does not make your religious beliefs more credible... often the opposite.

I think it is a very dangerous thing when a president can claim God told him to invade a country and nearly noone attacks him on being fucking retarded. A leader of a secular nation who claims God tells him what to do is bad, but a country which doesn't do anything about that and is neither suprised or sickened by it is a very bad thing.

The word I would use is "blasphemy". In Christianity, there is no harsher criticism.

The Christian church endorsing it or not is unimportant. What the personal motives and reasons of the ones who engage in the war are is important. And sadly a lot of them seem to be religious. (There is quite the anti-other-religions thought in the army.)

[/quote]

Individuals will always justify their actions, including reconciling them with their religion, but to make it a true religious war, you would have to find more than those individuals or a few isolated churches.

Christianity is right now the predominant religion of the west, so naturally a large number of people in the west who do anything will claim to be Christian. But, the wider a religion, the more you will find people who claim to subscribe, but may not in reality. That is what I am saying. The question is not whether those individuals see religious backing. The question is whether that position is really supported by the religion... and the views of clergy are much more pertinent, critical to that than the view of a few individuals.

Some Christians do support the war, but it is still not a "Christian" war, because it is not backed by the majority of the church. (at least not on religious grounds!)

[lgoasklucyl]

I'm not saying this as a blanket statement but rather an observation I have made. My girlfriend's family is incredibly religious and will pretty much follow and support word-for-word whatever their church asks of them. Now, I have many, MANY problems with this church (as does my girlfriend- and she has tied herself onto a different religion because of it) but they do openly support the war and pretty much everything that crawls out of Bush's mouth regardless of it having any basis in logic.

This absolutely horrified me so I asked around to other people in my life and it seems that those individuals belonging to Catholic churches actually have their priests supporting the war and speaking in favor of it and Bush. This frightens me because a good portion of these individuals will follow the preachings of the heads of their specific church regardless of their personal opinion. I know as a fact that my girlfriend's father for one (this is a remarriage) was opposed to war and most of Bush's ideals pre-remarriage, but after the remarriage and attending of this church changed all of his opinions and now adamantly supports the war and many other right wing ideals.

I smell mind control.

[Snorri1234]

I understood, I just completely disagreed.

Politically, being president is important, but religiously ... no. Being president does not make your religious beliefs more credible... often the opposite.

Actually, I do think you misunderstood then. It is not about credibility. It is about what the belief that fuels the war is. The war is being marketed as a Good vs Evil, Western Christian vs Easthern Islam struggle. Whether all churches support the war or not is unimportant, because the ones who support and engage in the war do it out of religious conviction. (For the most part at least.)

Individuals will always justify their actions, including reconciling them with their religion, but to make it a true religious war, you would have to find more than those individuals or a few isolated churches.

Why?

Christianity is right now the predominant religion of the west, so naturally a large number of people in the west who do anything will claim to be Christian. But, the wider a religion, the more you will find people who claim to subscribe, but may not in reality. That is what I am saying. The question is not whether those individuals see religious backing. The question is whether that position is really supported by the religion... and the views of clergy are much more pertinent, critical to that than the view of a few individuals.

But that's not the point. It's not a question of whether the religious support is legit and backed by scripture or dogma, because it certainly isn't, but of the motive and reason behind the war. Islamic terrorism is a religious struggle because the terrorists base their actions on their own interpretation of the religion. Even though the religion (being the clergy) itself may actually claim that the interpretation is faulty, it doesn't mean that the struggle is suddenly not religious.

Some Christians do support the war, but it is still not a "Christian" war, because it is not backed by the majority of the church. (at least not on religious grounds!)

That doesn't matter. All that matters is whether the ones who fight the war are justifying their actions based on religion or not.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not saying this as a blanket statement but rather an observation I have made. My girlfriend's family is incredibly religious and will pretty much follow and support word-for-word whatever their church asks of them. Now, I have many, MANY problems with this church (as does my girlfriend- and she has tied herself onto a different religion because of it) but they do openly support the war and pretty much everything that crawls out of Bush's mouth regardless of it having any basis in logic.

This absolutely horrified me so I asked around to other people in my life and it seems that those individuals belonging to Catholic churches actually have their priests supporting the war and speaking in favor of it and Bush. This frightens me because a good portion of these individuals will follow the preachings of the heads of their specific church regardless of their personal opinion. I know as a fact that my girlfriend's father for one (this is a remarriage) was opposed to war and most of Bush's ideals pre-remarriage, but after the remarriage and attending of this church changed all of his opinions and now adamantly supports the war and many other right wing ideals.

I smell mind control.

When people stop thinking, anything can happen.

Some priests have supported Bush because of his anti-abortion stances, but the Pope is against the war and all Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope.

I still say more Christians are opposed to the war on the grounds of their faith than for it because of their faith ... and that many in favor of it do so for reasons that have little or nothing to do with Christianity.

[Napoleon Ier]

"all Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope"

Oh dear, but the proddies do make me laugh.

[PLAYER57832]

I understood, I just completely disagreed.

Politically, being president is important, but religiously ... no. Being president does not make your religious beliefs more credible... often the opposite.

Actually, I do think you misunderstood then. It is not about credibility. It is about what the belief that fuels the war is. The war is being marketed as a Good vs Evil, Western Christian vs Easthern Islam struggle. Whether all churches support the war or not is unimportant, because the ones who support and engage in the war do it out of religious conviction. (For the most part at least.)

This is much more than basic "credibility". This has to do with authority. The Pope has authority over all Roman Catholics. Most Protestants don't give ANY clergy that much power. We make our own choices with guidance of clergy, but the choices are between us and God. Some sects DO give their clergy power, as I. above suggested, but those churches are generally rejected by the rest.

For Bush to claim that he HAD that power ... takes away much of the credibility that he had. In fact, his credibility within the more conservative churches particularly went down. (though not universally, there are exceptions.) One thing most valid churches will continually admonish their parishoners is to "compare what I say against the Bible". Anyone who does not do that, with honesty, is not speaking from God.

Individuals will always justify their actions, including reconciling them with their religion, but to make it a true religious war, you would have to find more than those individuals or a few isolated churches.

Why?

Christianity is right now the predominant religion of the west, so naturally a large number of people in the west who do anything will claim to be Christian. But, the wider a religion, the more you will find people who claim to subscribe, but may not in reality. That is what I am saying. The question is not whether those individuals see religious backing. The question is whether that position is really supported by the religion... and the views of clergy are much more pertinent, critical to that than the view of a few individuals.

But that's not the point. It's not a question of whether the religious support is legit and backed by scripture or dogma, because it certainly isn't, but of the motive and reason behind the war. Islamic terrorism is a religious struggle because the terrorists base their actions on their own interpretation of the religion. Even though the religion (being the clergy) itself may actually claim that the interpretation is faulty, it doesn't mean that the struggle is suddenly not religious.

The differance is that clerics, and not just an isolated few, ARE supporting this and putting it forward as a religious war. It is the opposite here. Many churches did support Bush, and as a result supported the war, but NOT because he claimed it was a "Godly" war... he has not that authority. The Pope could call Roman Catholics to war, but has not. Islamic leaders, however are more like the Pope in that they do have the religious authority to issue
edicts, which to a lesser or greater extent must be followed.


A few churches supps are not. It is just some individuals who want to say this is so.

Some Christians do support the war, but it is still not a "Christian" war, because it is not backed by the majority of the church. (at least not on religious grounds!)

That doesn't matter. All that matters is whether the ones who fight the war are justifying their actions based on religion or not.[/quote]
It certainly does matter, because if you say this is a "Christian" war, then you are saying it is MY war...a nd that of many of my fellow church goers. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Does the fact that the KKK likes to claim they are "following the Bible" make THAT a legitimate battle... of course not! It is no differant here. These folks supporting the Iraq war are not (generally) as insane as the KKK, but the principal holds.

[lgoasklucyl]

Okay so let's tie another thread in here.

The 'Heaven, I'm in Heaven' thread discussed whether or not you needed 'Jesus' to go to heaven, and that recent polls showed religious individuals becoming more open about other religions and believing through being moral individuals others could still enter heaven. A good number of religious individuals on the board, however, stated you needed Jesus/God and they were the only way to heaven.

This statement indicates that all others (ie: atheist and all other religions (since they do not follow Jesus and may not worship the same/similar God)) will be ascending into the firey pits of hell. Does this not declare all other religious individuals inherently evil in the fact that your God will be sending them into an eternity of pain and suffering, merely because they practiced a different religion? On top of that: religion could be said to have a more sizable influence on the war if, in fact, these religions are declaring religious individuals from other areas 'evil' simply based on their life style choices.

[CrazyAnglican]

Bush called it a crusade during a press conference at the beginning of the war. He said god told him to do it during a face to face interview with a main stream media anchor last year.

Also:

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Okay, this is you're evidence that GW has been in top level talks with the Almighty? Two things immediately strike me. Take a look at the sentene structure Mr. Shaath is using. He is obviously a proficient speaker of English, but not entirely at home w/ the language.

A native speaker can easily spot the ambiguity of that statement. Why "God would say...."instead of "God said...."? It's quite obviously a statement of opinion, not one about an actual conversation. You, yourself, said that you don't mind if religious people hold public office. So, that's okay, but they can't pray, or have an opinion about what the right course of action should be? That's all I see in Mr. Shaath's comment. Sure you can make an argument otherwise, but it's way too ambiguous to be conclusive. It's a third hand comment filtered through a non-native speaker who probably opposes GW's policies anyway.

[CrazyAnglican]

Now let's take a look at GW's comments.

Also:

He told Bob Woodward - whose 2004 book, Plan of Attack, is the definitive account of the administration's road to war in Iraq - that after giving the order to invade in March 2003, he walked in the White House garden, praying "that our troops be safe, be protected by the Almighty". As he went into this critical period, he told Mr Woodward, "I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will.

"I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case, I pray that I will be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then of course, I pray for forgiveness."

Quite clearly he is not stating that he knows God's will. He says that he prays about it and hopes to be a good messenger of it, but then prays for forgiveness? For a Christian, there is no need to be forgiven if you are following God's will. That very statement belies uncertainty that wouldn't be there in the case of some supposed talk. You're confusing the Christian habit of prayer with an physical discussion. This simply is not the case.

Another telling sign of Mr Bush's religion was his answer to Mr Woodward's question on whether he had asked his father - the former president who refused to launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq after driving Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 - for advice on what to do.

The current President replied that his earthly father was "the wrong father to appeal to for advice ... there is a higher father that I appeal to".

Your source wasn't the least bit biased there was he? Telling sign of his religion, What need do we have of telling signs? GW is very outward and outspoken about his beliefs, it's not exactly a mystery. All he's doing is echoing a common Christian theme of answering to a higher authority. Big deal.

[mpjh]

Look, if you want to deny that Bush talks to god, and thinks that god directs him, enjoy yourself. The rest of the world knows the man for the crazy evangelical that he is.

[CrazyAnglican]

In September 2001,

On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.

There are these handy little gizmos in the English language called appositive phrases. They are used to redefine or bring into focus a term that was used earlier. Notice that he redefines "crusade" as a "war on terrorism". Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Holy War theory. Crusade can mean an overt campaign for a specific purpose. Clearly this is the meaning that he's attributing to the word.

Also notice that bin Laden is a "renegade" Islamic fundamentalist. What is a renegade, but one that goes against the established order. That statement combined with the fact that there are Muslims fighting alongside us tends to blur the strict religious lines a bit. Yet, still we have atheists fighting over there too. How do you reconcile that? Are they mercs?

[CrazyAnglican]

Look, if you want to deny that Bush talks to god, and thinks that god directs him, enjoy yourself. The rest of the world knows the man for the crazy evangelical that he is.

....and speaking for the entire world is just fine, isn't it?

[luns101]

Look, if you want to deny that Bush talks to god, and thinks that god directs him, enjoy yourself. The rest of the world knows the man for the crazy evangelical that he is.

OK, I'll enjoy myself.

The White House denied Bush said it

Mahmoud Abbas denied Bush said it

Nabil Sha'ath is your source...the same man who claimed Israel forged documents seized from Yasser Arafat's office in Ramallah indicating that the Palestinian Authority was funding the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade.

[CrazyAnglican]

You mean the whole world doesn't disagree with me? Whew, that's a relief.

[luns101]

...and I just realized I was sarcastic in that last post. It just bugged me the way the conversation was going.

My apologies, mpjh. I should just state the facts and leave it at that.

[DaGip]

...and I just realized I was sarcastic in that last post. It just bugged me the way the conversation was going.

My apologies, mpjh. I should just state the facts and leave it at that.

Luns loves you!!!.....awww!

[luns101]

...and I just realized I was sarcastic in that last post. It just bugged me the way the conversation was going.

My apologies, mpjh. I should just state the facts and leave it at that.

Luns loves you!!!.....awww!

...but not the Anti-Luns

[DaGip]

...and I just realized I was sarcastic in that last post. It just bugged me the way the conversation was going.

My apologies, mpjh. I should just state the facts and leave it at that.

Luns loves you!!!.....awww!

...but not the Anti-Luns

You are the AntiLuns...you are misleading the masses into Oblivion.

[mpjh]

That brought the crazy evangelicals to their feet.