Why Are American Christians So Bloodthirsty?

[Spongemom]

Why Are Some American Christians So Bloodthirsty?
Understanding Pro-war Christians' Indifference to Civilian Deaths
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

It's been going on for years now. Almost daily we read that another child, another parent, another sister or brother, another grandpa or aunt, is killed in Afghanistan or Iraq by U.S. weaponry in Mr. Bush's "war on terror." Sometimes it's a wedding party, or a bunch of kids, or a family of six. Sometimes it's a journalist, or a whole group of journalists, who may even be killed on camera in real time for all the world to see and hear.

But no matter how bad it gets, nothing seems to change Americans' support for war, which for some reason is stiffest among Christian supporters of the Bush administration. "Stuff happens in a war zone." "Don't worry because God is in control." With these and other slogans, I've been reassured by countless pro-war Christians that, as long as civilians aren't intentionally targeted, taking their lives is okay, maybe even predestined, God's will.

Recently a Christian from Australia wrote to ask, "Why are American Christians so bloodthirsty? Why do they support the war in Iraq, no matter how many innocent people are made to suffer? We just don't understand why they're willing to kill other people so that they can feel more safe – it's so selfish!"

She's right, and she's wrong. She's right about the fact that many Christians in America will blindly support whichever war their president promotes, with the assumption that his much-advertised praying guarantees us that God approves of all those bombs and missiles, and even the inevitable collateral damage.

This "don't worry, be happy" stance of pro-war Christians can make those of us who suffer at the news of civilian deaths almost green with envy: How do they go blithely to church, pray and give an offering, then go eat some nice mashed potatoes and gravy at Cracker Barrel with nary a worry about the families being bombed or shot or crushed by their own military at that very moment?

But she's wrong in her assumption that all Christians in the U.S. find civilian deaths an acceptable price to (let someone else) pay for Mr. Bush's ultimate goals. Many, including those in the evangelical community, were raised to obey Jesus' teachings above any other, and suffer mightily whenever they learn that more innocent people have lost their lives to this terrorizing "war on terror."

She's also wrong about the seemingly bloodthirsty attitude of pro-war Christians; most of them are nice people on a personal basis. They love their kids and their fellow Americans, and would never have supported the bombing of, say, Oklahoma City's malls and suburbs in an effort to target a Timothy McVeigh. And they certainly don't go around saying they hope a lot more civilians are killed by U.S. bombs and guns. They've been trained to deny it's happening or downplay its importance, thinking instead about Iraq's future democracy, the next life, or the "big picture."

Failure to Care: How it Happens

The reasons for blindness or indifference toward civilian casualties are several. Many if not most pro-war Christians, particularly those in the southern and midwestern states:

-rarely see news accounts of civilian casualties because our major TV news programs and newspapers either omit those stories altogether or mention them in passing (without photos, the crucial element in terms of public opinion) and, wanting to believe that Bush's war is working, do not seek out evidence of the maiming and killing of our troops or of Iraqi civilians,

-have been immunized against thinking for themselves or doubting the Bush administration with certain Bible verses (particularly those verses in Romans telling us to obey and submit to governmental authority figures) – a passive stance that's strikingly different from the questioning that Jesus both urged and modeled toward greedy, power-seeking, and hypocritical authority figures (e.g., "false prophets" and "wolves in sheep's clothing"),

-are told not to worry, when they do hear of civilian casualties, that life in the flesh is less important than life eternal (one European writer told me that a friend confided, "Yes it's sad, but if some Iraqi civilians are killed by U.S. bombs and it saves even one soul, it will have been worth it" – a sentiment that, sadly, is not unusual),

-feel they dare not oppose this or any war because talking about peace, objecting to war's human cost, or even referring to the United Nations has become associated in their minds with the Antichrist and eternal damnation, thanks to fictional works based on Thessalonians such as the Left Behind books and video (this video makes clear the fearful reasoning behind the knee-jerk reactions of many pro-war Christians against peace itself, peacemakers of any kind [poignant indeed in light of Jesus' teaching, "Blessed are the peacemakers"], the Middle East "road map," international dialogue and cooperation, and any form of human rights accountability), and

-have been convinced by right-wing preachers, authors and radio hosts (people like Rush Limbaugh are the most influential, because their voices are heard for hours daily rather than written in a book or heard once a week in church) to shift their allegiance away from Jesus' teachings about merciful behavior toward and compassion for family and stranger alike ("the least of these") to the more pro-violence, pro-war values espoused by various non-Gospel biblical writers.


Each of these is a powerful influence, but when combined, they dramatically alter Christian values in fundamental ways. Whereas evangelical churches used to teach compassion (in liberal doses, not conservative soundbites) and warn against responding to threats or attacks with violence, today's conservative churches urge parishioners to support capital punishment, zero-tolerance policies of all kinds, and corporal punishment to "shape the will" of babies, toddlers, and children. Someone raised in this kind of environment grows up to become an adult who's afraid to step out of line, and who naturally resents or even hates those who feel free to do so.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card summed it up best: President Bush sees Americans as so many children who need a father to guide and protect them. Indeed, conservative Christians are raised for a dictatorship where the "leaders" make the calls and are not to be questioned, rather than a democracy, where dissent is a cherished right. As linguistics professor George Lakoff has concluded from his study of the conservative-liberal divide that's polarizing American society, conservatives (the popular but by no means accurate label) are accustomed to, hence gravitate toward, a strict father – and nothing can be more strict than "our father" Bush demanding that we accept without question all the "stuff" that happens in his war.

Moral Relativism: In War, Anything Goes

But most importantly, conservative Christianity in the U.S. has succumbed to that which it has, in decades past, most rigorously warned against: moral relativism. By restricting any discussion of morality to sexual behavior, right-wing politicians have obliterated the once-central Christian teaching that the way we teach others is of paramount importance to God. Cleverly "working the room," pro-war politicians have infiltrated churches to such a degree that killings and torture are no longer within the province of morality. When morality is only about sex, no aspect of war – even the killing of entire families – can arouse criticism, much less condemnation.

In short, everything that happens in the execution of war, even that which is flagrantly in violation of the moral values that Jesus taught regarding violence and revenge, prayer for enemies and peacemaking, becomes acceptable when Jesus' teachings are compartmentalized as relevant only in our personal lives. When Jesus is sidelined, those parts of the Bible that support authority, no matter what it does to innocent people, will take precedence. This is what has happened (often with the prodding, political influence and financial support of right-wing political organizations) in many of our churches today. Unless Christians begin to speak up publicly for the teachings of Christ – the cornerstone of our faith – we will continue to slide into the kind of moral relativism that causes others to wonder why we are so bloodthirsty.

Comments on this please...

[mitty]

[Replying to post 39 by East of Eden] Were those Yanks responsible for the war-crimes and crimes-against-humanity in Vietnam ever held responsible. Only a junior officer was scape-goated for the My-Lai massacre. What about the senior officers directing the massacre from their choppers above. What about those who instigated and directed the Phoenix program of terrorism and torture and murder of civilians. What about Henry Kissinger and his crimes-against-humanity. What about those who committed the crimes-against-humanity by ordering the indiscriminate defoliation and the damnation of future generations.

It's just too easy for you Yanks to point the finger at others, it's time to look in the mirror and make reparations for your havoc.

[Darias]

As you know, the United States has not declared war since WWII. No other war since has been declared by Congress, as the Constitution mandates. Is it really surprising to you that government tends not to abide by its own laws?

Who cares? This is the dumbest criticisms ever made by Ron Paul and his supporters. Declaring war is merely a formality. Just because Congress didn't officially declare war doesn't mean that Congress did not approve the war. Congress gave its consent to invade Iraq and held multiple sessions devoted to the question of whether or not to fund the war.

The sentiment that it doesn't matter, especially coming from you, is just dishonest in the extreme. Congress isn't supposed to simply give consent to the whims of the president. And the president should not be able to initiate a military action at the drop of a hat (i. e. Libya).

I'm not going to go into civics 101, but I'll leave you with this excerpt:

I’m not sure that this is resonating with those that are unfamiliar with what a declaration of war means. For most people, the declaration of war is a formality whereby the president makes sure that it is agreeable to the Congress that he utilizes the military. Some might even go so far as to say it is the president “asking permission� from the Congress to do so. By this reasoning, both Presidents Bush and Obama have complied, especially considering H.J. Res. 114 (October 16, 2002). With that resolution, Congress authorized the president to use military force in the war on terror. What is the difference between that and a declaration of war?

The answer is both intuitive and supported by history. First, a “declaration� has nothing to do with “permission.� Neither is it the same thing as creation or initiation. One can only declare something that already exists. Therefore, a declaration of war does not create a war or initiate a war. A declaration of war is a resolution passed by Congress recognizing that the United States is already at war.

The intent of the declaration of war power is for the government to have an adjudication process for war analogous to a criminal trial for domestic crimes. Evidence must be presented that the nation in question has committed overt acts of war against the United States. The Congress must deliberate on that evidence and then vote on whether or not a state of war exists. The actual declaration of war is analogous to a conviction at a criminal trial. The Congress issues the “verdict� and the president is called upon to employ the military. To wage war without a declaration of war is akin to a lynching: there has been no finding of guilt before force has been employed in response.

Herein lies the difference between H.J. Res. 114 and a declaration of war. In order for President Bush to have obtained a declaration of war against Iraq, he would have had to present his case that Iraq had already committed overt acts of war against the United States. Like a prosecutor, he would have had to convince the “jury� (Congress) that Iraq was guilty – not of “possessing weapons of mass destruction� but of having already aggressed against the United States. Obviously, he would not have been able to do this. In fact, the absence of any overt acts of war by the nations in question is the reason that there were no declarations of war against Korea, Viet Nam, Bosnia, or any other nation that the U.S. government has waged war against since WWII.

The declaration of war power requires the government to obey the law of nature that that no individual or group may initiate force against another. It ensures that before the executive launches a military action against another nation, a separate body deliberates on evidence and agrees that said nation has been an aggressor. Only then is waging war justified.

[center][. . . .][/center]

Every other past declaration of war in U.S. history follows exactly this format. The president presents evidence. The Congress votes on the validity of that evidence. It declares that war already exists. It then directs the president to use the military to end the war.

Had this constitutional process been followed, the United States would not have been involved in the wars in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, or Afghanistan. The declaration of war power ensures that the U.S. government never initiates force, but only uses the military to defend its citizens against an aggressor.

Following the constitution on this point would have kept the United States out of every war since WWII and prevented the U.S. government from running up a large portion of its unresolvable debt. Abiding the law of nature is not only moral, but cost-effective.

During the South Carolina Republican Primary Debate on May 5, Herman Cain articulated his position on the government’s war powers. He stated that, as president, he would not involve the U.S. military in war unless three criteria were met. 1. There was a clear objective. 2. There was a verifiable U.S. interest in question. 3. There was a clear path to victory.

While his comments clearly titillated the audience panel interviewed after the debate, one must recognize that Adolph Hitler’s wars would have been justified on this basis. Are those the only criteria upon which the U.S. government should base its decision to go to war? How about, “They attacked us?� That should be the one and only reason.

Going to war without a declaration of war not only represents aggression against the nation in question, but against every U.S. taxpayer as well. The only argument that can be made for taxing a free people is that taxation is necessary to underwrite protection of their lives, liberties, and properties. The only way that they can be compelled to pay for a war is if a state of war exists between them and another nation. To tax them for a war fought for other reasons, including defending people other than themselves, is to aggress against them. Once the government is allowed to do that, it is time to stop calling the United States “the land of the free.�

Alternatively, if you want to help save a people who are being slaughtered by their government, sign up yourself, pay for the war yourself, take the risk yourself. Either do it by joining an organization you financed, or become a militiaman in the resistance. Don't put your moral prerogatives on the lives of me and my family, and don't pay for it with my money.

And for the love of god, don't act like the US military exists just to prevent genocides. This government only prevented two genocides and the interruption of one (the Holocaust) was accidental. There have been countless other genocides occurring throughout history and this government and society hasn't given a damn.

The US didn't go to Iraq to free it, it went for ulterior motives and stayed for ulterior motives. It failed to prop up a reliable friendly government in place of Saddam's regime, and while it managed to insure Iraq would continue to trade oil for US Dollars, the postponing of the inevitable collapse of Petrodollar does not justify lives wasted, wealth squandered, enemies made, and civilians slaughtered. Future generations will not only have to pay for the war, but face the blowback from the war, and deal with economic collapse when oil rich nations stop trading oil for worthless fiat US dollars. Our kids will pay for the sins of their fathers.

One of Osama bin Laden's biggest motives for attacking the US in the first place was precisely because he thought bringing down the US, in the same way he thought he brought down the Soviet Union, would ultimately destabilize the puppet governments in the Middle East that were beholden to it. This is why insurgents tend to ally themselves with civilians engaging in civil disobedience against their dictatorial governments -- like in Libya and Syria.

This is nonsense. What puppet governments are you referring to? You mean the governments in the Middle East that accept western values? [/quote]




And the reason why Bin Laden and his radical followers committ terrorism against the west is ebcause of our way of life. It's because of our culture and society. Anybody who is not deluded by liberal propoganda understands this. If we were to completely exist the Middle East do you honestly think the problem of terrorism would disapper?
It is within American interests to ensure that Islamic fundamentalists do not acquire nuclear capability.[/quote]

It is within American interests to promote democracy and freedom around the world, and one of the most unfree regions in the world is the Middle East.

No it's not; if it was, then the US government wouldn't have supported/be supporting: Saddam, Mubarak, Shah Pahlavi, King Abdullah, President Hadi, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, etc., etc. All of these leaders have engaged in human rights abuses and the states under their rule has been very much less than free.

The Middle East is one of the least free regions in the world as a consequence of US foreign policy, which more often than not subsidizes Islamic fundamentalists (in Saudi Arabia, etc.) and oppressive states like Yemen and Mubarak's Egypt.

You clearly don't understand the historical context behind these decisions. Like I said, the United States allied itself with Stalin during WWII because there was a greater evil that exist, Adolf Hitler. Similarly, the United States allied itself with Iraq because a greater evil existed at the time, Iran. The fact that America makes a strategic alliance with another nation doesn't mean that America condones or endorses the policies of that nation. And to say that the Middle East is unfree due to American foreign policy is outrageous. American foreign policy has been formulated as a reaction to the instability and tyranny in the Middle East, which is itself due to Islamic fundamentalism.[/quote]

Do you not see how contradictory your opening statement is. You claim America stands for spreading freedom and democracy and stopping tyranny, and I counter with the reality of a horrible foreign policy that implements that which it is believed to counter. And you retort with "context!"

If US foreign policy is consistently out of step with American values, then you cannot claim that it wages wars on those grounds; it simply doesn't.

Actually, libertarianism is grounded on first principles, natural rights and the like. The Non-Agression Principle, one you should be familiar with if you do indeed claim to be libertarian, states that the initiation of force is immoral. This is why murder, rape, and theft are immoral, because they all involve a violation of consent via the initiation of violence or force. And this is the enemy of liberty and freedom.

In a war like the Iraq war, who is the United State government intiating aggression against? It's intiating agression against another state that oppressed and killed its own people. The Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein committed mass atrocities against it's people, thereby violating the non agression you claim to extol. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to take action in order to prevent the Iraqi governmetn from violating the non agression principle to any further extent.

You've admitted that taxation is theft, but this is how you arrive to that conclusion. Taxation is theft because it involves coercion by the state; if you do not pay your taxes, you will ultimately be imprisoned; this means that taxes the way they are set up now are not voluntary.

And you haven't thought out this position clearly enough. Taxiation is theft, but it is necessary to have a government and fund it and the only way to do so is by taxiation. Therefore, some taxiation/theft is legitimate.

War violates the principles of freedom because war is monopolized by the state, is financed by thievery, and waged by those who may oppose it. There is nothing wrong with self-defense, but preemptive undeclared warfare and military interventionism that benefits the growth and power of the state is illegal by the state's own standards (the Constitution). The only legitimate type of war is a defensive one.

So WWII was illegitimate according to your standards. All those Jews being burned in the furnaces, well who cares. In Darias' world, we only go to war if and only if we have a direct stake in the outcome. The real question that we have to ask ourselves is will we stand by, as a nation, while mass atrocities are being committed and we have the means to stop it. I am not comfortable sitting around and doing nothing while my brothers and sisters in other parts of the world are being slaughtered and subjected to oppression.

And isolationism isn't libertarian, of course. Non-interventionism is, because that's precisely what the founders of the US wanted. They warned about entangling alliances and the legacy of the Roman Empire shows that no nation can survive the economic consequences of maintaining an empire. The United States is no exception.

Well, if everybody followed the principles of non intervention than America wouldn't exist. The only reason why we have America is because the French intervened and helped us during the revolution.

No one can be a serious libertarian and a hardcore neoconservative at the same time, not without a serious case of cognitive dissonance. I mean how does one complain about big government, spending, and debt, yet at the same time be an apologist for the Pentagon and support every wasteful program and every pointless war? How does one justify complaining about social spending, yet rejoice at a trillion dollars being wasted in the Middle East? How does one maintain the idea that policing the world and bombing people wins hearts and minds or does anything to slow the spread of terrorism when those very things metastasize it?

I think that being a social conservative and a libertarian is impossible.

I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion, but you're very much mistaken if you think this. I don't smoke marijuana, I rarely drink alcohol, I tend to be pro-life in most cases, and I'm a virgin. In many ways I am a social conservative, but I do not need the state to enforce my views and preference onto others. Turns out you can worship Jesus without wanting the government to ban Wicca. You can be pro-life without voting to outlaw abortion, and you are free to believe that homosexuality is the worst sin without voting away the legal rights of 5% of the population. Real life examples of social conservative libertarians include Ron and Rand Paul, among others. Unless you confuse conservatism with Dominionism, I don't see how you could think being a libertarian is impossible for a social conservative.

However, being a neoconservative and a libertarian isn't. There is nothing about neoconservatism that contradicts libertarianism. As a neocon myself, I am supporting the libertarian principle of freedom and liberty by promoting it abroard.

Of course it is; neoconservatives spare no expense and no time when it comes to spending other people's money and recruiting other people's children in order to initiate aggressive wars, invasions, and regime change. Neoconservatives may or may not be aware that state interests are the only motive for such war, not idealism; and that any good that might result from conquest is only useful to justify a war after the fact. Most neoconservatives are under the illusion that the US is a global hero for justice and freedom, spreading liberty and democracy, when the reality is it simply swaps one regime with human rights abuses for a more US friendly one that tends to do the same thing... and oftentimes doesn't cooperate.

A US foreign policy that is aggressive and manipulative not only produces anti-Americanism and terrorism; it also employs it for its purposes. It erodes civil liberties at home in the name of keeping us safe from retaliation. The more wars that are declared, the more troops and funds are necessary to wage them, and even more are required to maintain control. It creates enemies and then demands we destroy them, and then in the name of spreading freedom it necessitates all of us be spied on in case of terrorist attacks which would not be happening weren't for the misguided policy in the first place! And worse, the policies that destroy the 4th amendment are never enough to stop the terrorists anyway. More government begets bigger government, and you cannot be a libertarian if you support the growth of the state. Enraging the world and bullying your neighbors does not mean a strong defense; it means less security.

When is the last time you heard of a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist attack in a country not involved in Iraq? They tend to be directed at the US and the UK, not Switzerland. I guess that's because Switzerland isn't as free and prosperous and it has absolutely nothing to do with US involvement in the Middle East throughout the latter half of the 20th century -- no, can't be. It's just cause we're free and their Muslims. Who can forget the Islamic invasion of American soil in 1787?

I mean, seriously, this is a lesson that liberals and conservatives need to realize. What's the greater incentive for the growth of Islamic terrorism? The ravings of Osama or your house destroyed and family killed by a US drone strike? No one is coming to attack us because the Qur'an says so; it's always, always in response to the US sticking it's crotch in every part of the Muslim world.

WHY DO THEY CONTINUE HATE US? HINT, IT'S NOT 'CAUSE APPLE PIE AND VOTING. 176 of these of this are enough reasons to make thousands of bin Ladens.

[center][/center]



THIS is all the motive a Muslim man needs to want to kill Americans. The result of indiscriminate signature drone strikes; it inspires terrorist sympathizers and it inspires lone wolfs like the Boston bombers. I mean all you have to do is read why people do things.

One is not only a fool to deny the connection, but an ignorance of such magnitude leads to more death for us and more death for them. It is the height of arrogance on behalf of people like Maher and Hitchens and neoconservatives alike to continue to delude themselves into thinking that 9/11 was the beginning of time and that Muslim envy of our freedoms and obscure radical Muslim dogma is the only reason why the entire Middle East hates us. That Islam is a bringer of death but the United States is just hugs and democracy for everyone. Take a good hard look at your own religion, statists.

You are the one being inconsistent because you seem to be perfectly fine with foreigners living under tyranny.

To the contrary, I despise all repressive governments, including the ones the US installs in place of the dictators they remove. Do you honestly think being able to vote for one of two pre-approved candidates makes you free? Do you honestly think an election is the epitome of liberty? Like I said before, Iran has elections all the time; are they free?

Why do you think Iraqis are free? Honestly, in what way are Iraqis free? They don't have a free press[url]; criticism of the state and its government [url=http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/editorials/007070.html]is a crime. Wake up and smell the burning oilfields, Winepusher. How the hell can you even begin to have a free country without a free press?!

And like I said, war and defense is a legitimate function of government. You may not agree with the wisdom of it, but please stop spreading the lie that war is somehow unconstitutional.

I'm not a pacifist; I believe in self-defense. I'm not trying to convince you that war isn't an option. I'm even willing to lean ear to the idea that defense is a legitimate role for the state; although I feel defense companies can do just as well minus the nationalism. And I never made the claim that war is forbidden by the Constitution.

But pre-emptive wars, wars of conquest/national-interest, and undeclared wars not made in self-defense are unconstitutional. This government was originally designed not to be an empire.

And on a final note, your last point is brilliantly refuted by Christopher Hitchens who said, "It's absurd to think that the cause of terrorism is our opposition to it." Seriously, how can you believe such nonsense?

Christopher Hitchens should have stuck to his dayjob. Both his neoconservative views and Ayn Rand's Objectivist views on the issue of foreign policy are disastrously stupid and callous.

Hitchens let his hatred of religion compel him into believing Islamic terrorism had everything to do with radical doctrines and nothing to do with the United States' wars and support of dictatorships in the Middle East. You r

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 39 by East of Eden] Were those Yanks responsible for the war-crimes and crimes-against-humanity in Vietnam ever held responsible. Only a junior officer was scape-goated for the My-Lai massacre. What about the senior officers directing the massacre from their choppers above. What about those who instigated and directed the Phoenix program of terrorism and torture and murder of civilians. What about Henry Kissinger and his crimes-against-humanity. What about those who committed the crimes-against-humanity by ordering the indiscriminate defoliation and the damnation of future generations.

It's just too easy for you Yanks to point the finger at others, it's time to look in the mirror and make reparations for your havoc.

Maybe you'll read it this time: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html The North had a My-Lai every day.

What country are you from?

[mitty]

[Replying to post 39 by East of Eden] Were those Yanks responsible for the war-crimes and crimes-against-humanity in Vietnam ever held responsible. Only a junior officer was scape-goated for the My-Lai massacre. What about the senior officers directing the massacre from their choppers above. What about those who instigated and directed the Phoenix program of terrorism and torture and murder of civilians. What about Henry Kissinger and his crimes-against-humanity. What about those who committed the crimes-against-humanity by ordering the indiscriminate defoliation and the damnation of future generations.

It's just too easy for you Yanks to point the finger at others, it's time to look in the mirror and make reparations for your havoc.

Maybe you'll read it this time: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html The North had a My-Lai every day.

What country are you from?

I can't be bothered, or are you saying that the Yanks committed a My-Lai every day? And I seem to recall that a a bloke apparently once talked about seeing the speck of wood in someone else's eye but not seeing the plank of wood in their own eye, and that those who are without fault can caste the first stone.

Australia, and I wasted two years of my life as a reluctant conscript, one year as the microbiologist and parasitologist at 1AFH Vung Tau. And in retrospect I should have borrowed my girlfriend's knickers and lipstick for the medical.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 41 by East of Eden] I guess the systematic burning of villages and napalming of children and genetic defects from agent orange was just regarded as collateral damage and supported by a god. And perhaps those crimes-against-humanity were inspired by the crimes-against-humanity of Joshua and Moses etc who used their created god as an excuse for their atrocities when they butchered little kiddies and the unborn too. And just how much of Saigon and the countryside was destroyed by the indiscriminate bombing by the North's equivalent of the B52? And I see little has been learnt since and that the weapon's industry is still in full control, just as the firearm's industry is fully in control of the NRA in order to sell firearms to kiddies as required under the outdated sacred second amendment.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 41 by East of Eden] I guess the systematic burning of villages and napalming of children and genetic defects from agent orange was just regarded as collateral damage and supported by a god. And perhaps those crimes-against-humanity were inspired by the crimes-against-humanity of Joshua and Moses etc who used their created god as an excuse for their atrocities when they butchered little kiddies and the unborn too. And just how much of Saigon and the countryside was destroyed by the indiscriminate bombing by the North's equivalent of the B52?

You don't know what you're talking about if you think agent orange's side effects were intentional or even known back then, many US personel were also victims of it. Our bombing was hardly indiscriminate, we didn't even bomb ships unloading NVA war materials in Hanoi for diplomatic reasons. You fabricate US bad intentions while ignoring infinately larger and truly systematic Communist crimes. I think I know whose side you're on. As far as the Old Testament, Israel had as much right to defend herself as we did when we bombed Hiroshima to end that war.

And I see little has been learnt since and that the weapon's industry is still in full control, just as the firearm's industry is fully in control of the NRA in order to sell firearms to kiddies as required under the outdated sacred second amendment.

The gun industry contributes about 1% of the NRA's support, most of it comes from normal Americans, an additional 500,000 of whom have joined the NRA this year alone. Its called democracy. Perhaps supporters of Communist dictatorships aren't familiar with that term.

Getting back to the OP, here is a serious response from an article by Robert M. Bowman, Fr.

"The prohibition against murder forbids killing innocent human beings. In Genesis 9:6, human beings who are guilty of murder are themselves subject to having their life taken away by man. This makes it clear that the prohibition against murder is a command prohibiting the taking of life away from human beings who have not killed and are not threatening to kill other human beings. It does not forbid killing in self-defense or the use of lethal force by police, soldiers, or executioners. Here again, it is worth noting that the Hebrew râtsach and the Greek phoneuô are never used in the Bible to refer to killing in war. Therefore, pro-life advocates are not being inconsistent when they oppose abortion but endorse capital punishment and military force. The pro-life claim is not that it is always wrong for human beings to kill other human beings, but that it is always wrong for human beings to kill innocent human beings."

[mitty]

[Replying to post 41 by East of Eden] I guess the systematic burning of villages and napalming of children and genetic defects from agent orange was just regarded as collateral damage and supported by a god. And perhaps those crimes-against-humanity were inspired by the crimes-against-humanity of Joshua and Moses etc who used their created god as an excuse for their atrocities when they butchered little kiddies and the unborn too. And just how much of Saigon and the countryside was destroyed by the indiscriminate bombing by the North's equivalent of the B52?

You don't know what you're talking about if you think agent orange's side effects were intentional or even known back then, many US personel were also victims of it. Our bombing was hardly indiscriminate, we didn't even bomb ships unloading NVA war materials in Hanoi for diplomatic reasons. You fabricate US bad intentions while ignoring infinately larger and truly systematic Communist crimes. I think I know whose side you're on. As far as the Old Testament, Israel had as much right to defend herself as we did when we bombed Hiroshima to end that war.

And I see little has been learnt since and that the weapon's industry is still in full control, just as the firearm's industry is fully in control of the NRA in order to sell firearms to kiddies as required under the outdated sacred second amendment.

The gun industry contributes about 1% of the NRA's support, most of it comes from normal Americans, an additional 500,000 of whom have joined the NRA this year alone. Its called democracy. Perhaps supporters of Communist dictatorships aren't familiar with that term.

Getting back to the OP, here is a serious response from an article by Robert M. Bowman, Fr.

"The prohibition against murder forbids killing innocent human beings. In Genesis 9:6, human beings who are guilty of murder are themselves subject to having their life taken away by man. This makes it clear that the prohibition against murder is a command prohibiting the taking of life away from human beings who have not killed and are not threatening to kill other human beings. It does not forbid killing in self-defense or the use of lethal force by police, soldiers, or executioners. Here again, it is worth noting that the Hebrew râtsach and the Greek phoneuô are never used in the Bible to refer to killing in war. Therefore, pro-life advocates are not being inconsistent when they oppose abortion but endorse capital punishment and military force. The pro-life claim is not that it is always wrong for human beings to kill other human beings, but that it is always wrong for human beings to kill innocent human beings."

What nonsense. So an imagined god, created in the image of the biblical writers, dictates the American paranoia about "reds and homosexuals under the bed" and the current fiasco in trying to change the middle east.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 41 by East of Eden] I guess the systematic burning of villages and napalming of children and genetic defects from agent orange was just regarded as collateral damage and supported by a god. And perhaps those crimes-against-humanity were inspired by the crimes-against-humanity of Joshua and Moses etc who used their created god as an excuse for their atrocities when they butchered little kiddies and the unborn too. And just how much of Saigon and the countryside was destroyed by the indiscriminate bombing by the North's equivalent of the B52?

You don't know what you're talking about if you think agent orange's side effects were intentional or even known back then, many US personel were also victims of it. Our bombing was hardly indiscriminate, we didn't even bomb ships unloading NVA war materials in Hanoi for diplomatic reasons. You fabricate US bad intentions while ignoring infinately larger and truly systematic Communist crimes. I think I know whose side you're on. As far as the Old Testament, Israel had as much right to defend herself as we did when we bombed Hiroshima to end that war.

And I see little has been learnt since and that the weapon's industry is still in full control, just as the firearm's industry is fully in control of the NRA in order to sell firearms to kiddies as required under the outdated sacred second amendment.

The gun industry contributes about 1% of the NRA's support, most of it comes from normal Americans, an additional 500,000 of whom have joined the NRA this year alone. Its called democracy. Perhaps supporters of Communist dictatorships aren't familiar with that term.

Getting back to the OP, here is a serious response from an article by Robert M. Bowman, Fr.

"The prohibition against murder forbids killing innocent human beings. In Genesis 9:6, human beings who are guilty of murder are themselves subject to having their life taken away by man. This makes it clear that the prohibition against murder is a command prohibiting the taking of life away from human beings who have not killed and are not threatening to kill other human beings. It does not forbid killing in self-defense or the use of lethal force by police, soldiers, or executioners. Here again, it is worth noting that the Hebrew râtsach and the Greek phoneuô are never used in the Bible to refer to killing in war. Therefore, pro-life advocates are not being inconsistent when they oppose abortion but endorse capital punishment and military force. The pro-life claim is not that it is always wrong for human beings to kill other human beings, but that it is always wrong for human beings to kill innocent human beings."

What nonsense. So an imagined god, created in the image of the biblical writers, dictates the American paranoia about "reds and homosexuals under the bed" and the current fiasco in trying to change the middle east.

I reject your caricature, I believe God exists and is not silent, but has spoken to us through His word. What that has to do with American foreign policy I'm not sure.

[mitty]

[Replying to post 41 by East of Eden] I guess the systematic burning of villages and napalming of children and genetic defects from agent orange was just regarded as collateral damage and supported by a god. And perhaps those crimes-against-humanity were inspired by the crimes-against-humanity of Joshua and Moses etc who used their created god as an excuse for their atrocities when they butchered little kiddies and the unborn too. And just how much of Saigon and the countryside was destroyed by the indiscriminate bombing by the North's equivalent of the B52?

You don't know what you're talking about if you think agent orange's side effects were intentional or even known back then, many US personel were also victims of it. Our bombing was hardly indiscriminate, we didn't even bomb ships unloading NVA war materials in Hanoi for diplomatic reasons. You fabricate US bad intentions while ignoring infinately larger and truly systematic Communist crimes. I think I know whose side you're on. As far as the Old Testament, Israel had as much right to defend herself as we did when we bombed Hiroshima to end that war.

And I see little has been learnt since and that the weapon's industry is still in full control, just as the firearm's industry is fully in control of the NRA in order to sell firearms to kiddies as required under the outdated sacred second amendment.

The gun industry contributes about 1% of the NRA's support, most of it comes from normal Americans, an additional 500,000 of whom have joined the NRA this year alone. Its called democracy. Perhaps supporters of Communist dictatorships aren't familiar with that term.

Getting back to the OP, here is a serious response from an article by Robert M. Bowman, Fr.

"The prohibition against murder forbids killing innocent human beings. In Genesis 9:6, human beings who are guilty of murder are themselves subject to having their life taken away by man. This makes it clear that the prohibition against murder is a command prohibiting the taking of life away from human beings who have not killed and are not threatening to kill other human beings. It does not forbid killing in self-defense or the use of lethal force by police, soldiers, or executioners. Here again, it is worth noting that the Hebrew râtsach and the Greek phoneuô are never used in the Bible to refer to killing in war. Therefore, pro-life advocates are not being inconsistent when they oppose abortion but endorse capital punishment and military force. The pro-life claim is not that it is always wrong for human beings to kill other human beings, but that it is always wrong for human beings to kill innocent human beings."

What nonsense. So an imagined god, created in the image of the biblical writers, dictates the American paranoia about "reds and homosexuals under the bed" and the current fiasco in trying to change the middle east.

I reject your caricature, I believe God exists and is not silent, but has spoken to us through His word. What that has to do with American foreign policy I'm not sure.

Has anyone ever seen or heard this god which the biblical writers created in their image. Abraham and other biblical characters susposedly had regular chats and walks with it (Gen 19) although that god wasn't exactly an omniscient or omnipresent one. But either way, the only winners in the current fiascos are the weapons manufacturers and the fire-arms industry which controls the NRA, and so much for your democracy which doesn't exist. The closest to a democracy are the elected oligarchies which can hardly be described as true democracies.

[East of Eden]

[Replying to post 41 by East of Eden] I guess the systematic burning of villages and napalming of children and genetic defects from agent orange was just regarded as collateral damage and supported by a god. And perhaps those crimes-against-humanity were inspired by the crimes-against-humanity of Joshua and Moses etc who used their created god as an excuse for their atrocities when they butchered little kiddies and the unborn too. And just how much of Saigon and the countryside was destroyed by the indiscriminate bombing by the North's equivalent of the B52?

You don't know what you're talking about if you think agent orange's side effects were intentional or even known back then, many US personel were also victims of it. Our bombing was hardly indiscriminate, we didn't even bomb ships unloading NVA war materials in Hanoi for diplomatic reasons. You fabricate US bad intentions while ignoring infinately larger and truly systematic Communist crimes. I think I know whose side you're on. As far as the Old Testament, Israel had as much right to defend herself as we did when we bombed Hiroshima to end that war.

And I see little has been learnt since and that the weapon's industry is still in full control, just as the firearm's industry is fully in control of the NRA in order to sell firearms to kiddies as required under the outdated sacred second amendment.

The gun industry contributes about 1% of the NRA's support, most of it comes from normal Americans, an additional 500,000 of whom have joined the NRA this year alone. Its called democracy. Perhaps supporters of Communist dictatorships aren't familiar with that term.

Getting back to the OP, here is a serious response from an article by Robert M. Bowman, Fr.

"The prohibition against murder forbids killing innocent human beings. In Genesis 9:6, human beings who are guilty of murder are themselves subject to having their life taken away by man. This makes it clear that the prohibition against murder is a command prohibiting the taking of life away from human beings who have not killed and are not threatening to kill other human beings. It does not forbid killing in self-defense or the use of lethal force by police, soldiers, or executioners. Here again, it is worth noting that the Hebrew râtsach and the Greek phoneuô are never used in the Bible to refer to killing in war. Therefore, pro-life advocates are not being inconsistent when they oppose abortion but endorse capital punishment and military force. The pro-life claim is not that it is always wrong for human beings to kill other human beings, but that it is always wrong for human beings to kill innocent human beings."

What nonsense. So an imagined god, created in the image of the biblical writers, dictates the American paranoia about "reds and homosexuals under the bed" and the current fiasco in trying to change the middle east.

I reject your caricature, I believe God exists and is not silent, but has spoken to us through His word. What that has to do with American foreign policy I'm not sure.

Has anyone ever seen or heard this god which the biblical writers created in their image. Abraham and other biblical characters susposedly had regular chats and walks with it (Gen 19) although that god wasn't exactly an omniscient or omnipresent one. But either way, the only winners in the current fiascos are the weapons manufacturers and the fire-arms industry which controls the NRA, and so much for your democracy which doesn't exist. The closest to a democracy are the elected oligarchies which can hardly be described as true democracies.

Lots of people have seen God and spoken with Him, for details, see the Bible.