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...

[perfessor]

...I know that none of but a handful of the wars we have been involved in were justified. Based on the info we had, Operation Iraqi Freedom was. The info was wrong, but something good still came from it.

I believe that it is way to early for such an optimistic assessment. But I do hope you turn out to be right.

[RightWing]

I believe that it is way to early for such an optimistic assessment.

Quite true actually... if we leave now, all would have died in vain... Iraq would simply slip into another dictatorship.

But I do hope you turn out to be right.

I do too.

[dangerdan]

That's my point. We didn't and millions upon millions paid for it.

Ah hah, I get where you are coming from now. I thought you were using them as examples of when there was intervention to try to destabilize them. We cool now.

I also disagree with us dropping the a-bombs on Japan. That was, in my opinion, genocide.

Seems we agree on a number of political issues, seems either you are not so right wing, or I’m not so left wing, or these classifications are rather inept….I think the latter.

Based on the info we had, Operation Iraqi Freedom was. The info was wrong, but something good still came from it.

Hmmm, this is a rather large statement. I think it is very early days yet. The future of Iraq is still precariously hanging in the balance. It is very difficult to say whether the political landscape will have any more civil liberties and freedoms, as we don’t know where it’s heading. And this is not talking into consideration issues outside of Iraq (to which I think have the most significant ramifications). Also in many theories of Just War, there are statements to the effect that “a war for economic gain is not a just war”. At the risk of stating the obvious, the economic gain as a result of the Iraq war would be quite high on the priority list. This should be addressed before we consider a war like Iraq being deemed “just” or “justified”.

There are of course some “good” aspects that have come from the war (just like any political decision), but one should be careful when trying to determine, as a whole, whether the war was “Justified”.

The problem is this: if Saddam didn't have WMDs, then the sanctions worked (couldn't afford to purchase the weapons)... if he did have WMDs, then we had to take them away from him.

I think it’s open to debate whether the sanctions impeded his ability to buy WMD.

Getting back to the subject at hand –

I can’t help but feel that the gung-ho view (that many, not all, Americans have) can be traced back to the end of WW2. Most of the world carried extreme losses from WW2. Unfathomable deaths from the fit, intelligent young men and women is unfortunately only one aspect, and putting this moral issue aside - enormous economic hardships. England being the notable example. Now the exception was America. America gained quite well after WW2. They established themselves as the worlds only superpower, it was a good “business decision” one might say. As a result, in America there seems to be an attitude of adventure and excitement to war, as opposed to many other countries, who view war with vulgar disgust.

Of course I am speaking extremely generally here.

[ST88]

I can’t help but feel that the gung-ho view (that many, not all, Americans have) can be traced back to the end of WW2. Most of the world carried extreme losses from WW2. Unfathomable deaths from the fit, intelligent young men and women is unfortunately only one aspect, and putting this moral issue aside - enormous economic hardships. England being the notable example. Now the exception was America. America gained quite well after WW2. They established themselves as the worlds only superpower, it was a good “business decision” one might say. As a result, in America there seems to be an attitude of adventure and excitement to war, as opposed to many other countries, who view war with vulgar disgust.

Interestingly, this is also true of religion. Christianity came to power in Europe, but because there were hundreds of years of religious warfare (Hugenots, Inquisition, Crusades -- not to mention England's bizarre Cromwell dictatorship), many Europeans view religion as having a diminished role in political life. America did not go through all of that as a national consciousness and so we do not give as much pause when religion enters government, many of us anyway.

[potwalloper.]

Rightwing wrote:

Also, in Saddams regime, the government also killed the people.

So, either way, we get death. We will (over time) bring about more death if we stay with Saddam.

So basically:

We can choose between liberty and some death, or totalitarianism and a lot more death.

What would you choose?

The concern I have is that there has been an arbitrary decision made by one state to change the regime of another. You mention "we can choose". What gives America the right to choose? Violence, death and oppression that's what appears to give you the right.

The amazing thing is that the war on Iraq is sold in so many different ways - first it was WMD (that Bush allegedly thought were there) then it was freeing the population from a dictator (an insulting distortion of the truth - America supported Saddam, sold him the technology to assist him in the Iran-Iraq war!)

There is only one reason why America invaded Iraq - OIL.

Please don't use altruistic arguments to justify invasion and murder when the underlying reason was economic.

If America is so interested in freeing people from oppression where are they in the Sudan? In Zimbabwe? the list is endless.

Oil, oil and three times oil.

The argument of the threat of "global terror" is often used as some form of justification for this war. I have come to the conclusion that global terror is a construct that has been developed by politicians to justify their existence following the end of the cold war and is not supported by the evidence.

More people die in road traffic accidents in the UK every year than were killed in 911. Multiply that up across the world and the degree of death from cars far outweighs any threat from terrorists.

There is also a distinct lack of evidence that AQ is anything other than a concept in real terms with there being no global terror network at all. The problem is that fear of terror operates as a cycle - each time a terrorist attack occurs politicians use this to confirm the idea that there is some form of global conspiracy - Bin Laden has become the new Soviet Block - and then take action that instead of reducing conflict actually increases it.

If you lived abroad and had to watch your friends and families being killed and America being occupied by a hostile force what would your reaction be? Would you be more or less likely to become a terrorist? The answer is obvious.

You cannot force peace or democracy upon a people whose values differ so widely from your own. America's concept of democracy is not the concept of those in the middle east. Democracy has to grow, it can't in my view be forced.

The future for those in Iraq appears to be bleak...my prediction is a collapse into civil war and anarchy - I hope I am proved wrong.

[RightWing]

About me being "RightWing": It's more or less an inside joke with some friends and I. When I first discovered the political realm I was "right winger"... it was said that I was so far right wing that I fell out of the window and became independent.

But back to the discussion at hand...

I have personally, since my last posts, researched this topic a great deal. Like most Americans at this point, I am recognizing that it was a bad decision; regardless of how you look at it. I have also come to the conclusion that freedom isn't a gift to give, it is a wage to earn.

The concern I have is that there has been an arbitrary decision made by one state to change the regime of another. You mention "we can choose". What gives America the right to choose? Violence, death and oppression that's what appears to give you the right.

It's not a right so much as it is an obligation. If I saw a middle aged man beating an elderly woman to death in a local supermarket, would I stop him? Within all of my power to do so, yes. The same holds true, morally, with the situation in Iraq.

The amazing thing is that the war on Iraq is sold in so many different ways - first it was WMD (that Bush allegedly thought were there) then it was freeing the population from a dictator (an insulting distortion of the truth - America supported Saddam, sold him the technology to assist him in the Iran-Iraq war!)

That's like saying this:

Let's say you gave a beggar a couple of bucks for a burger... he buys a switchblade, and runs over to a bystander and is about to hold them hostage. Do you:

A. Go, "Well, I gave him the money, so I obviously supported him, I guess I should just let him do whatever", or
B. *machine gun sounds*

There is only one reason why America invaded Iraq - OIL.

Really? That's news to me. Then why are we fighting them who have the oil, and supporting Israel who doesn't have any oil?

Please don't use altruistic arguments to justify invasion and murder when the underlying reason was economic.

Murder? I don't believe that has been proven to have happened at this point in the debate. The same with Operation Iraqi Freedom being caused by economic ideologies...

Especially considering Bush would be hurting Texan oil companies. (I don't respect the man. I honor him as our Commander and Chief, but not as a man. I personally associate myself [if at all] with the Constitution Party)

If America is so interested in freeing people from oppression where are they in the Sudan? In Zimbabwe? the list is endless.

Because there are few people willing to commit political suicide for the freedom of the masses... also, again, I personally don't think the war was justified, I do, however, believe that good came from it and support us from staying there for a year or two longer.

Oil, oil and three times oil.

Do you have any support for this claim? I've done quite a bit of research on our energy policies and our oil dependence... why wouldn't we just drill in ANWR? Why would we go to war (against those that had the oil), while we could reduce our dependence from Saudi Oil by 100% for about 40 years?

More people die in road traffic accidents in the UK every year than were killed in 911. Multiply that up across the world and the degree of death from cars far outweighs any threat from terrorists.

Quite frankly, this idea scares me.

Just because a lot of people die all the time doesn't mean that thousands of people getting murdered in our cities by... by... criminals [for lack of better word] is no "big deal".

I do, however, support lifting, or abolishing, CAFE standards considering they have been linked to thousands of deaths because of a loophole. This is another topic though.

There is also a distinct lack of evidence that AQ is anything other than a concept in real terms with there being no global terror network at all. The problem is that fear of terror operates as a cycle - each time a terrorist attack occurs politicians use this to confirm the idea that there is some form of global conspiracy - Bin Laden has become the new Soviet Block - and then take action that instead of reducing conflict actually increases it.

This is an extreme claim. Do you have any evidence yourself to support it?

If you lived abroad and had to watch your friends and families being killed and America being occupied by a hostile force what would your reaction be? Would you be more or less likely to become a terrorist? The answer is obvious.

I will concede you this point.

You cannot force peace or democracy upon a people whose values differ so widely from your own. America's concept of democracy is not the concept of those in the middle east. Democracy has to grow, it can't in my view be forced.

Bravo! I completely agree. Nothing could be closer to the truth.

The future for those in Iraq appears to be bleak...my prediction is a collapse into civil war and anarchy - I hope I am proved wrong.

I do too... all we can do is hope and pray.

God bless,
RightWing

[potwalloper.]

Quote:
The concern I have is that there has been an arbitrary decision made by one state to change the regime of another. You mention "we can choose". What gives America the right to choose? Violence, death and oppression that's what appears to give you the right.

It's not a right so much as it is an obligation.

A feeling of obligation does not somehow confer a right. It is patronising in the extreme for Americans to somehow believe that they know what is right and wrong and then to feel they are somehow justified in the use of military force to apply their view to others. Many people have done this throughout history - names that come to mind include Hitler, Stalin....

Quote:
The amazing thing is that the war on Iraq is sold in so many different ways - first it was WMD (that Bush allegedly thought were there) then it was freeing the population from a dictator (an insulting distortion of the truth - America supported Saddam, sold him the technology to assist him in the Iran-Iraq war!)

That's like saying this:

Let's say you gave a beggar a couple of bucks for a burger... he buys a switchblade, and runs over to a bystander and is about to hold them hostage. Do you:

A. Go, "Well, I gave him the money, so I obviously supported him, I guess I should just let him do whatever", or
B. *machine gun sounds*

A more proper analogy with the US relationship with Saddam is:

You give a beggar a machine gun and encourage him to slaughter a few hundred civilians. He follows your encouragement and begins the slaughter. Then he turns the machine gun somewhere else and begins slaughtering them. Do you:

1 Sell him nerve agents to better enable the slaughter of tens of thousands rather than just hundreds
2 Turn away and let him get on with it
3 Continuing encouraging him while it suits your political purpose and only when he is of no further use step in to stop him and whilst so doing flagrantly disregard international law and murder thousands of civilians yourself?

Ooooh - a hard choice for our benevolent friends in the US! :2gun:

Quote:
There is only one reason why America invaded Iraq - OIL.

Really? That's news to me. Then why are we fighting them who have the oil, and supporting Israel who doesn't have any oil?

Are the American public really so naive? The survival of all Western societies depends on the oil supply. Having an uncertain and hostile regime sitting on top of one of the largest untapped oil-reserves in the World, and potentially threatening other members of OPEC, does not suit the US purpose. Better methinks to depose Saddam and insert a puppet regime that is friendly to US interests. Oh, and by the way American companies will also get all of the lucrative contracts for the rebuilding programme - funded by oil. Saddam offered no direct threat to the US or the UK. He was no more and no less a dictator than others who do not influence oil production. He has no proven links to AQ. In spite of this Iraq was invaded but other similar regimes were left to stand. The difference was oil.
The support of Israel is a fundamentally different issue although it does make one wonder - would America slaughter jewish civilians with the same relish that they seem to slaughter islamic ones?

Quote:
Please don't use altruistic arguments to justify invasion and murder when the underlying reason was economic.

Murder? I don't believe that has been proven to have happened at this point in the debate. The same with Operation Iraqi Freedom being caused by economic ideologies...

Murder - the unlawful killing of another human being. Sounds like America has commited murder to me (or what else do you call the slaughter of 14,619 people?)

Try this website www.iraqbodycount.net/

Quote:
More people die in road traffic accidents in the UK every year than were killed in 911. Multiply that up across the world and the degree of death from cars far outweighs any threat from terrorists.

Quite frankly, this idea scares me.

Just because a lot of people die all the time doesn't mean that thousands of people getting murdered in our cities by... by... criminals [for lack of better word] is no "big deal".

Thousands of people? If you mean 911 then yes it was thousands. Where are all of the other thousands of people who have been killed by terrorists linked to AQ?

...and criminals? Were the French Resistance criminals when they fought against nazi oppression in the second world war? There is always another perspective on issues such as this - one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Quote:
There is also a distinct lack of evidence that AQ is anything other than a concept in real terms with there being no global terror network at all. The problem is that fear of terror operates as a cycle - each time a terrorist attack occurs politicians use this to confirm the idea that there is some form of global conspiracy - Bin Laden has become the new Soviet Block - and then take action that instead of reducing conflict actually increases it.

This is an extreme claim. Do you have any evidence yourself to support it?

Do you have any evidence to oppose it? Where is this "global terror network"?

Are there armies of dark skinned islamic terrorists hiding in every town? Cells just waiting to be activated and then they will slit the fair-skinned throats of innocent Americans? AK47s hidden in cupboards, grenades under floors? That muslim who smiled at you in the street and then looked away - is he a suicide bomber?

Paranoia is easy to generate and becomes self-sustaining. Politicians need a reason to be. They sold themselves on the improvement of prosperity in the early 20th C, then after the War they reinvented themselves as the great protectors against the Soviet Block and sold themselves on that basis. Now that there is no Cold War and Western countries are generally prosperous what can be their USP? Oh yes - we'll protect you against the dreaded muslims who lurk in every corner.

Get real - you are being taken for a ride on the issue of Global terror and don't even know it.

Quote:
If you lived abroad and had to watch your friends and families being killed and America being occupied by a hostile force what would your reaction be? Would you be more or less likely to become a terrorist? The answer is obvious.

I will concede you this point.

So will you also concede that the war in Iraq is more likely to increase the hatred of America in the middle-East and the number of terrorist attacks?

We call them insurgents - they see themselves as martyrs for their cause...

I'm not in any way supporting the actions of terrorists - I simply feel that Americans are so far from understanding their motives that there is little chance of ever resolving middle-Eastern issues in a non-violent manner where intervention from America (either direct or indirect through the support of Israel) is involved.

[Tigerlilly]

I chalk it up to the Paradox of the Pulpit.

[RescuedByMary]

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...

[center]EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON TV IS FAKE[/center]

[center]EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON TV IS FAKE[/center]

[center]EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON TV IS FAKE[/center]

[center]EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON TV IS FAKE[/center]




[center]The Actor that plays George Bush



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... VZuVNcFyTU
[/center]


[center]WATCH THAT SHOULDER SHAKE [/center]


[center][/center]






[center]The Actor that plays Laura Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 7wa_MNT-U8
[/center]





[center][/center]


[center]
[/center]







..

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1 by Spongemom]

The standard insult to Christians I see. How typical.

Why not support Christian Missionaries going into all the world and converting as many people as they can to Christ? How many millions of Christian people exiting the thousands and thousands of denominational-Churches every week are actually doing anything violent?

Ever looked at who is actually inventing "weapons of mass destructions"? Our educated Secularists in our Education Institutions.

Look to the godless among the uncaring would you? Reality points there.