Friday, October 17, 2008

Hypocrites of Epic Proportions

I haven't been blogging lately because I have been a bit overwhelmed by life. My parents have begun their snowbird migration; we've started actually doing lessons again -- well, some days; I began a new project with work;- which means I am on a computer often enough; and we can't forget that it is election season. And in election season, I jump right in. I've actually tried to resist blogging about some of this, because if I get started, I might just drive you completely nuts....but I can't help it.

Growing up, in my housethe news was on almost all the time. It was just slightly pre-CNN, but Good Morning America started us off, then at night, national news, then the three local news, and then at least one more at 11 p.m. Throw in the "Nightly Business Report," 60 Minutes, and 20/20; plus two newspapers. Yep. I came from an informed family.

We're much more laid back now....except during election time. I revert back to my pre-marital state...only with cable.

The hypocrisy has been astounding this year.

I can respect questioning whether a woman who has been governor for two years is qualified for the position of Vice President -- as voters, we should be doing that. But since when did the feminist movement decide that it only existed to protect the rights and dignity of women who agreed with them? When it becomes okay to take one woman and slam her so completely with some of the strongest sexist behavior and rhetoric that I have seen in my lifetime....simply because her intelligent female mind disagrees with their agenda, they have lost. Lost terribly.

She's not their type of feminist. She goes out of her way to make her job work with her children; she attends meetings with her baby in a sling and has a crib in her office. She hunts. She loves and respects her husband. She believes that being a successful woman is not tied to being able to the right to kill the life created in your womb. And also, that being a woman with a successful career doesn't mean that you stop being a woman -- biologically, emotionally, vocationally, or in any other -ally. I do not know if she is truly qualified YET to be President, should something happen to McCain, but she has fostered excitement from women who have been longing for someone like her for a LONG time. And those that have given their lives over to denying that connection between our physiology and who we are intrinsically -- they detest her. They detest her so badly that they are willing to embrace behavior that they have abhorred and fought against since the struggles for suffrage.

They are willing to objectify her; make her look small, weak, and dumb. It is disturbing to see. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling over in their graves, I am sure.

And then there is the Joe the Plumber thing. If anything shows that they are not the party of the people, it is this. Joe asks a question of Obama, when Obama is standing in his yard, and Obama's answer shows how he truly is wanting to use taxes to redistribute wealth and penalize success. McCain uses Joe as an now Joe is villified. Oh, how horrendous it is that he portrayed himself as a plumber when he doesn't have a plumber's license....does the man work with friggin' pipes???? Yep. He has a tax lien against him. That shows what a burden taxes can be for the working man. They disdain him. Yet the blue-collar worker is supposed to be the one that they are fighting for. The Democratic Party will fight for long as they don't actually form an opinion...especially one that smacks of ingratitude for them and their great brains being benevolent for us.

I heard a list of the "dirty" political statements that have been stated by either campaign. Obama's were recited first, in list form, and then McCain's. I noticed a huge difference between the two campaigns. While McCain's ads call Obama's qualifications, characer, and positions into question (and yes, going so far as to say that "he (Obama) lied"), the Obama campaign launched far more personal insults, often not dwelling on issues, but upon McCain's mental faculties. Cruelties, t-shirts calling Palin a c**t, hate speech, is all tolerated. McCain is criticized for the smallest statements of some attendees to his rally...and then even that comment (the yelling of the phrase "kill him" is found to not have even occurred, according to many, many witnesses.

Their political campaign sicks the police after any organization or television station that airs ads that call into questions Obama's religion or his stance on guns, his tax plan, etc. When this becomes their tactic, what will happen to conservative radio and freedom of speech if we get a liberal democratic president (and he is VERY liberal) in the White House, and a Democratic Congress with Pelosi and Reid at the head?

I don't think anything was more alarming to me than to hear an educated black man express his support for abortion rights using the very same arguments--the very same words-- that were used 150 years ago by white men who were arguing that blacks were not quite human beings.

And I am still amazed at how I can get letters from my senators and congressmen explaining why they felt the need to vote for this bailout -- all the concerns that guided their decision -- without apparently one thought of whether or not the Constitution gives them the right or responsibility to take such actions....and thus take rights away from us, interfere in the economy, and increase the motivation for banks to be crooked and careless....because they cannot fail. They won't be allowed to fail. Their failing was our final protection against their greed and incompetence. A tough price to pay, yes. But in the end, a good one. We were deprived of that justice, and instead, one unelected official in the executive branch was just given an inordinate amount of power over our economy and to judge what is in the best interest of all of us.

God help us. It is possible we are about to see a very different United States of America emerge.


Lotzastitches said...

Excellent post!

Me said...

Wow. Excellent job.

Elaine said...

VERY well written. (I am a friend of Cheryl (Round Unvarnished Tale) and this is my first comment on your blog.) I agree with you completely, and fear, not so much for my husband and me, but for our children and their children.

ghp said...

Testify! ;^)

Well said. Thank you for taking the time to so cogently and thoughtfully make these important points.

Joy said...

You go girlfriend! I just signed my request for an absentee ballot because I'll either be post-due or with a newborn on Nov. 4. I'm guessing the pro-infanticide smooth talker will win, but at least my conscience will be clear.

Joy said...

P.S. I loved how you brought up the pro-abortion argument being the same as pro-slavery. Everything on this earth falls into one of two categories: person or property. Let's make rape legal, since it's clearly sexist to tell men what they can and can't do with their own bodies while women are allowed to choose, regardless of who is victimized or how severely. Hypocrisy indeed!

You know why Hitler was elected? The economy.

Come, Lord Jesus!

The Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

It is amazing how quickly people will give up their freedom when they are afraid.

Carson's Birthday said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

Carson's Birthday,

If you are truly and legitimately interested in discussing the issues, then go ahead and repost what you did, but put the evangelical minister's name. That length of quote, if there truly is discussion wanted, should have a name to it.

Your blog is under investigation by Blogger for possible violating terms of service....and I really don't care to be spammed.

La said...

My husband and I, while neither Democrat or Republican, were recently discussing the candidates. I do not know who I am voting for. BUT, I do know that the candidate-smearing is really disheartening to me. I have seen way too many rumors about all candidates (including the VP candidates). None have been proven. I have seen way too many interviews taken out of context.

I know that is part of what comes with politics, but I don't think it should be what comes from us, as Christians. I think we have to be really careful about how we go about our vote. We need to vote for and lift up the candidate we think will best lead our country without criticizing, participating in rumors about, or tearing down the other. Americans are watching us, and I believe they are not just watching who we vote for. Part of being Christian may very well be voting for the candidate we think would uphold family values. Part of being Christian is voting for the candidate we feel seeks out principles and issues that are on the mind of Christ. (Is it possible that either or both candidates do that in different ways?). Yet, even more than that (or along with that), we need to display the heart of Christ and act in love towards the candidate we support AND the candidate we oppose (which means not participating in the smears). And being a Christian is respecting the vote of people (and not criticizing or looking down on those) who are voting on the other side of the coin.

Tressa said...

Great post! You said everything that I have been thinking.

I am truly disturbed by the treatment of Joe. I see that free speech in America is coming to an end. I know that it has been coming, but the treatment of Joe has confirmed it for me. If you do not agree with the establishment prepare to have your dirty laundry aired for all to see. Prepare to be slandered and your credibility torn apart. I hope that Joe the Plumber is a very strong man. If something like this had happened to me I would be weeping in my coffee, and all he did was ask an honest question.

The Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...


I do agree that as Christians we do have to be careful to not get into the lies and the dirtiness. I am voting my conscience. As a Christian, I cannot vote for a man who believes that it is okay to kill innocent human beings, clearly created by God to live lives, and who are alive.

If he can't see that, I don't trust his judgement on anything else.

Joe was on Fox News today. He was really classy. He seemed somewhat shy, but well-spoken. He said it was kind of scary becoming such a focus, but if anything good came out of it, he discovered he owed back taxes and was not aware of it before.

He doesn't seem to be willing to jump on the campaign bandwagon, and I am happy for that. But he has been through a lot.

The Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

p.s., I apologize to you all about the typos, etc. I wrote the post at 1 in the morning, and haven't had time to go through and edit yet.

Joy said...

That's right, RPW. A candidate who isn't interested in protecting the unborn is a candidate who isn't interested in protecting America's future.

ghp said...

Yes, that's why Life is not so easily/glibly dismissed as a "single-issue" or "single-issue voter" thing. It touches on so many things beyond the obvious one of life -- judgment, priorities, (crass) pragmatism, individual liberty (and the protection thereof), etc.

Really listening to what a candidate says about the Life issue, and how they answer (or don't answer) the questions at the heart of the issue, as well as the questions that flow from that core, generally tells you most everything you need to know.

And in this general election, it has laid Obama bare, exposing him more than it has McCain.

La said...

I know that babies are precious. I know that. I just had one, and I would never, ever think that it would be ethical to kill such life. I don't agree with Obama on this issue. But it has been said that Republicans think that life begins at conception and ends at birth. They care about the life of the precious babies, but they aren't at all phased by McCain's joke about bombing Iran or his commitment to war, even if it takes 100 years. As compared to our almost 5000 American deaths, over 1 million Iraqi deaths have resulted from this war.( Those are also precious lives. Lives that God cares about. And somehow, because America has an "us, them mentality", those lives don't matter as much. I will vote my conscious as well. Obama, in being committed to just foreign policy, wants to do something about the lives that are being lost in Iraq. He wants to promote peace and diplomatic relations with our enemies. I commend him for that. Jesus Christ does say, "Suffer the little children unto me", but He also says, just as passionately, I am sure, "Love your enemies. Bless those that curse you, do good to those that hate you." How is committing to war for the next 100 years any less abhorrent than being pro-choice? I am in total agreement with you that the lives of precious babies are valuable. But so are the Iraqis that McCain is committed to killing in his presidency.

elephantschild said...

It's stretching the discussion, I think, to say that McCain is "committed" to killing Iraqis.

I think it's also unfair to assume that any administration is committing to "100 years" more of war.

Remember that the Kurds were gassed by Saddam *after* the US left during the first Iraq war.

With all due respect, I would argue, strongly, that war, even the most terrible war, is "better" than leaving babies who have survived an abortion attempt to die alone without even comfort care. Mr. Obama voted against the Infants Born Alive Act in Illinois, a bill that even NARAL supported.

That's a deal breaker for me. War has a chance of ending, and everyone agrees it's a sometimes-necessary evil; abortion up to and including the 9th month of pregancy is a de-facto civil right in this country.

Your total for no. of deaths in this Iraqi war, Americans and Iraqis, still has not topped the number of abortions in the US alone for 2007.

And no-one has ever extrapolated the average number of deaths in Iraq under Saddam's regime forward for the years since he has been removed from power. I wonder, what would that number be?

The Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...

Saddam Hussein was a man who took his inspiration from the Turks who genocided the Armenians, and also from Hitler. He also personally compensated families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Iraq is an area where there have been centuries of battle, and with the terror that Hussein caused out of the way, they went back to some of those battles between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Those deaths are in those counts. We didn't cause them. We helped to facilitate an environment where they could begin working together.

Al Quaida was strongly in Iraq after we deposed and arrested Hussein. They came into a country that was not theirs and waged war against us by blowing up Iraqis. We did not force women and children to put bombs on their bodies and blow up soldiers. We did not slaughter whole villages that did not cooperate. We did not kill people who had done something as simple as vote.

Unfortunately, in war, civilians die. Terrorists make the war about killing civilians. We desperately try to avoid that. We are not responsible for a good portion of that 1.4 million, if it is an accurate number.

Instead, Iraq is a country where peace is beginning to occur. Shiites and Sunnis are talking after hundreds of years of not doing so. Whole villages are taking up arms and blowing up Al Quaida terrorists and driving them out. The government is beginning to prosper, and whereas a few years ago, they could not get enough people to willingly become police officers, many are joining and they are getting strong enough to police themselves.

They even have the freedom to contract out some of their oil fields to China.

Hopefully thorugh this all, we will have an ally in an area that despises us, one more country that embraces some form of democracy, and will be open to Christianity (though that is not our government's goal, religious freedom is a noble goal - and it is always a good thing to make one less country where Christianity is a crime).

I have never talked to a soldier who didn't believe that what we are doing over there, in the end, is good. It is regrettable that innocent people are dying (though the non-innocent are counted in those numbers). Can you honestly say they would be better off under the torture and evil of Hussein, under the influence of Al Qaida, or Iran's extremist government?

It is incredibly unfair to say that Republicans only care for people until they are born. They just don't think the government should devote the resources to it that they do. We do better when the government is out of our hair. I administer social science studies for a major university. Study after study that has been done for years has shown that Republicans give more money, volunteer more time to charity. More would be done, but government regulation prevents charities and churches from doing more (one example, my husband's family's church wanted to open up a free clinic. The hospital was excited to let their interns work there so that they could get experience practicing medicine away from technology. The government wouldn't let them use the house they purchased in a properly zoned area, because it had one bathroom. A clinic supposedly needed seperate ones for men and women.) They have to hire someone to run their foodbank rather than the volunteers, simply in order to make sure they don't give out certain foods that would counter WIC and Welfare regulations. I just saw a 20/20 last night that said that the majority of the houses that have been rebuilt after Katrina were done by volunteer organizations that were able to get around having government aid, because the regulations and multiple agencies that were involved contradicted each other and kept anything from happening.

We are not commiting to war for the next 100 years. But there always is evil to be fought, both in our country and in others. There is such a thing as a just war, and peace at any cost is not good...for our country, or for the world as a whole. History teaches us that.

I also believe that we will be in more wars if Obama is elected. Putin will continue his invasions, the Iranian government will not consider him a threat, Al Quaeda will test him, and he has already offended the Iraqi President, who does not respect him for suggesting that he might not honor an agreement made with the Bush Administration (a serious breach of diplomacy on the part of a presidential nominee).

And as far as abortions go...there is a point when something is so evil that the majority of your efforts are focused on ending that. Our country got to that point with slavery...and millions died over that, as well. It was worth it for our soldiers to die to defeat Germany and end the Holocaust. 40 million children have died due to abortion. 40 million. We should be focusing on that. We should be doing everything we can to end that. And really, what is the economy, the job market, when compared to such an atrocity????

La said...

I would dare to venture that any time we commit to war (and McCain did say himself that he was going to stay there for as long as it takes, even if it was 100 years), we commit to killing people. That is the ugly truth of war. You might say that any time someone is pro-choice, they are committed to killing people. I would agree. One difference I see, though, is that McCain is unwilling to go it any other way. He is unwilling to try being diplomatic. He is unwilling to talk to our enemies. To do so would be to appease them. Obama wants to try something new. He wants to destroy the "us-them mentality". Also, Obama, while I do not like his stance on abortion, is committed to reducing this horrific problem. He is committed to strengthening the support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption. Those things will reduce abortions much more than simply waiting to overturn Roe v. Wade, which hasn't happened in the last 35 years anyway, no matter who our president has been.
Again, I want to reiterate that I do not think that either McCain OR Obama have it right. I think both, in their own way, have little respect for human life. I wish that our President, our leader, could lead us in loving and seeing ALL people as a beautiful creation of God. They will fail us. They are human. They are politicians, for God's sake. :) But my point was just this: I think, as Christians, we need to be careful about how we talk about the election. Both parties seem to see such giant faults in the other. Both parties seem to think that the other party just doesn't get it or hasn't thought about the issues...otherwise, why in the WORLD would they be voting that way?! I would guess that Christians on BOTH sides of the coin have given it much thought and much prayer and have voted (or will vote) according to conscience. Reading posts like this make it sound like there is only one way. I don't believe that. And i think respect for the other way is necessary, in order for us to truly be living like Christ. I am not good at it. I know that. But I think we all need to continue to work towards that goal.

The Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...


You wrote:
Both parties seem to think that the other party just doesn't get it or hasn't thought about the issues...otherwise, why in the WORLD would they be voting that way

You are right. There often is this attitude toward each other. And it is condescending and infuriating.

Personally, I don't think that this is the case. I have attended an incredibly liberal university -- so small and liberal that most who attend sought out the school based on that -- and I enjoyed the discussions that we had, and I was able to respectfully maintain friends there and despite my occasionally expressing my view in class, I maintained the respect of my professors. In fact, this was a school where Bill Ayers work in progressive education and "social justice" was highly respected.

I have worked in fields that are typically very liberal. I have been a social worker, and I have am a field interviewer for major university social science surveys.
I also have friends in these fields.

As a social worker, I worked with families whose children had been taken from them due to neglect or abuse. Really, the people who most view as the low-life of the earth. Many of them were not. And all of them were people that Christ loved, and when I worked with them, I did my best to treat them and love them as such...because no one else was. I couldn't tell them that, but I could show it.

I agree that all need respect, but when I had a situation where a teenage boy was beating up his brother, and the single mother would not stand up to him, call the kid's probation officer, call their social worker, I informed her very clearly that I was reporting it, and the kids were taken away. I continued to work with her to help her acquire the skills and get her life together so that she could get her kids back, while her kids were placed in a therapeutic group home -- and all involved, kids included, two months later said it needed to happen.

McCain never said that they don't try to improve situations in order to get to a place where dialog can take place...its just that the PRESIDENT doesn't sit down with the PRESIDENT of a rogue nation. There are many reasons for this. We saw it before World War II. Hitler met with the leaders of the free world each time he invaded another country to take back what had been Germany's in WWI, and assured each country he would not do it again. Each leader proclaimed that they were just letting Germany regain some of the honor...the honor that was cruelly taken away after WWI. Each leader was disgraced as Poland, Belgium, and France fell, because they gave Germany honor when they should not have had it, and they were lied to.

The Soviet Union tried to do the same thing.

But this doesn't preclude sending our ambassadors, members of our State Department, even our Secretary of State to set the stage, negotiate, and set terms until this can happen. That's why countries have State Departments and Secretaries of States. That's what Kissinger did so that we could be on speaking terms with China. But Kissinger did all of that BEFORE President Nixon went to China. Kissinger did amazing things in the world of diplomacy, and after the first debate where this was discussed, Kissinger said that McCain was absolutely right.

We do things to make relations better. We took North Korea off of the terrorist threat list, and they started dismantling bombs.

But there is an underlying assumption also that if anyone is just given a chance, they will show their goodness. This is not the case with some people, and their words and behavior show they need to prove more than others that they have some aspect of good will before their word will be trusted. Iran is such a nation. They are building nuclear arms, and they are posturing toward Israel, an ally of ours (and I am not one who believes that the future of Christianity hinges on the nation of Israel). We do not disgrace our allies by treating their enemies like allies, and we do not allow diplomatic honors to a country that is posturing as such until they stop posturing.

There is evil out there. There are people/countries/religion that embrace evil and actually wish ill will toward another person/ethnic group/country/religion and they are willing to lie to our faces, trick us, and commit atrocities while they are doing it.

And on the other side of it, we do not sit down with a leader, give them all appearances of giving them our good will, which is what allowing them to meet with the leader of our country bestows, and really, in reality, not believe them or trust them at all. The insult that would give would cause more damage than refusing to sit down with them at all until there is a sign of dismantling nuclear weapons or insisting that troops be moved.

Quite honestly, this is done so that wars are avoided. There is a long history of wars that were started because one ruler met with another ruler and then their agreement was broken, and a nation's honor was insulted. Tell me, what do you think we should do if Barack Obama met with the president of Iran (and I am not even going to try to type his name, I can say it...), and because we didn't do our preliminary steps, it turns out that he staged the whole thing jut to have an opportunity to spit in the face, either metaphorically or literally, of the leader of the free world? It has happened before. It has started wars.

Obama has said some ridiculous things in regards to foreign relations. He has already issued threats to nations as to how he will handle them, he has underestimated what Putin is doing. He has insulted allies and potential allies.

We are not looking beyond what Obama is saying. With all of the talk about Ayers, for instance, do you know what Ayers does, NOW? He writes curriculum and structures schools for the purpose of indoctrinating children in the ideas of social justice, which primarily dwell on the evils of our government and its sins. I am not saying that our real sins and evils shouldn't be taught in history, but this is very different. The good things (that give him the ability to write about these things at all) are not addressed in a way that leads children toward Communist ideals. All is evil. I've seen his curriculum where these ideas flow through all subjects (except math...they haven't gotten math done yet).

Barack Obama didn't just "know" Ayers. Their wives worked together. His wife has expressed these ideas. Obama was placed as the head of the Annenberg Challenge Committee by Ayers because Obama expressed approval of the foundations of the Social Justice concepts and those specifically addressed by Ayers. Obama awarded millions of dollars of funding toward Ayers' work. He was mentioned in Ayers memoirs and reviewed them. there is a lot more than just his palling around with a former terrorist. This is about NOW, and how this relationship as well as others show what direction that Obama will go when he is elected.

I am trying all I can do to be fair, but I don't believe in embracing all tha the media throws at me, so I look at the facts behind what is said, and I am truly concerned and a little scared by Obama. But in the end, this place is for my opinions and thoughts, and this is where my thoughts have led me.

La said...

I am again amazed at the diI am again amazed at the difference of opinion, depending on what side of the fence you are on.
You said, "I am trying all I can do to be fair, but I don't believe in embracing all that the media throws at me, so I look at the facts behind what is said, and I am truly concerned and a little scared by Obama." I would say the same thing, only I would replace the last name. I am a concerned and a little scared by a presidential candidate that throws around half-truths in order to scare a vulnerable America into voting for him. Most of what has been said about Obama has been proven false. His connection with Ayers was minimal and hardly a close friendship or someone on his campaign, (besides, why hasn't Obama mentioned McCain's connection to G. G. Liddy, who also does not claim repentance?), Obama's pastor was many times taken out of context (one not only needs to listen to the whole sermon, but one also needs to consider the culture of the black church). And while I admit I do not know first hand of Ayer's work in social justice education, I think it does America well to take its head out of the sand ONCE in awhile to remember that we HAVEN'T been the best country when it comes to social justice. We mistreated slaves, we kicked Native Americans out of their homes, we killed lots of people based on false information (think: weapons of mass destruction). It does us good to remember that part of our remember and to actually repent of this kind of evil treatment to people who God considers our equals...That isn't indoctrinating them with communism (unless I would need to read his books to see it). That is simply balancing the history books of the know, the ones that said that Indians were violent and mean...that said that slavery was actually beneficial for the slaves, because they were given the chance to get saved.
Again, I say, I know that YOU think that your way of thinking is right, and it might be...but the "other side" is just as admirable in their thinking and in their reasons for voting Obama.
I think, when I read over our comments, that we are BOTH arrogant and place way too much faith in our own rational thinking. I think, in the end, both men have good AND bad in them. Neither of them is going to be the savior or the death of America. Either one could have some good and some bad come out of their presidency. I just think we have to be careful in thinking we have all the answers, in politics or in life in general. We don't. You are right that you can say whatever you want on your blog. I respect that. I usually enjoy reading your blog. I enjoy this, actually! :) But just know that some people, honest and truly passionate Christians, may read it and feel offended or even personally attacked.

Barb the Evil Genius said...

Most of what has been said about Obama has been proven false. His connection with Ayers was minimal and hardly a close friendship or someone on his campaign

I think you are the one who is repeating falsehoods. Obama is a close friend of Ayers and launched his campaign from Ayers house. It's been suggested, with good reason, that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's two books.
The Common Room 1
The Common Room 2
The Common Room 3
The Anchoress on the ghost-writing issue
National Review's The Corner
Pajamas Media
Gateway Pundit
Jim Treacher
I could go on, but it hardly seems worth it. And as far as war, Biden just said, Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

Do you have any facts to offer, or just talking points? You can say you agree with the socialist and Marxist policies we'd get with Obama and I'd respect you more than now while you piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

La said...

I have a difficult time thinking that random blog, apparently written by McCain supporters, are very reliable. I don't know if ( is any MORE reliable, but I would dare to venture that it is. It is written by a group of professional, unbiased researchers who simply research the topics, offer a conclusion, and actually show references for each piece.

La said...

Rebellious, should we talk about war and how it is not murder or would you rather not have the conversation go there? Because I just don't know what to do with the verses that say, "Love your enemy. Bless those that curse you. Do good to those that hate you." War is in direct opposition to that. And I don't know if Jesus distinguishes between the two. Maybe he does. But even so, both are not okay. Neither is justifiable. But it seems that Americans somehow forget what Christ says about war in the name of "But we are killing for our freedom! We wouldn't have freedom of religion without defending ourselves" And I say, but does God prioritize our freedom over our being representatives of His peace? I think probably not. War IS murder. Abortion is murder. Both are against what God has for us.

elephantschild said...

La, most of the blogs Barb listed are from the top five heavy-hitters of the new media. If she had added Powerline & Drudge, she might have hit them all. :)

They are the blogs CNN & BBC people go to get a handle on the current buzz.

And there is no such thing as an unbiased anything. Even if it is a anti-conspiracy website.

The Rebellious Pastor's Wife said...


I am enjoying the discussion as well, and I don't mind going into a discussion on the difference between war and murder. I just can't tonight. Mondays are nuts, so I deleted the message I started because I just couldn't gather my thoughts. I'll get back to it tomorrow, hopefully. It is actually one of my busiest weeks of the year.

Evan said...

Wow. Great discussion.

I'm not going to wade into this at all except to take personal exception the estimated 1.2 million Iraqi dead. This number is a composite of a study published in The Lancet which was shown immediately to have fatal methodological flaws, combined with the media report tally published by Iraqi Body Count, which has also been shown to have absolutely no anchor in reality.

My personal exception comes from having been there and spoken with many, many Iraqis. I'll admit my experience was limited: I was in and around only two different cities, and for specific periods of time. But 1.2 million is a huge number, out of a country of only 28 million total. If you subtract the 5.5 million in Iraqi Kurdistan, which has been safer than most of America since 2003, you'd be looking at nearly 1 person in 20 killed in the last 5 years! Just about everyone ought to know someone, either immediate family or close associate, who's been killed in the violence. And yet, in my interactions with hundreds of Iraqis, I never met anyone who had lost family in the sectarian violence. Nearly everyone I spoke to, however, had lost someone to Saddam. Even if they, for some reason, felt more comfortable talking about the family they lost to Saddam, that alone says something about how they feel. Just an anecdote, I know, and I know full well other areas bore worse under the sectarian violence. But to anyone who's been there, 1.2 million is absolutely implausible, just on the sheer logistics.

Barb the Evil Genius said...

Sorry, la, but Snopes is a leftist, and he doesn't really offer much *proof*, except for people saying, no, no, Obama's not associated with Ayers. Well, Obama's spokesmen denied that Obama wrote a blurb for one of Ayers' books. Oops. Guess what. He did. What else are Obama's spokesmen lying about, I wonder?

And the Headmistress at the Common Room, at least, has made it very clear she is not voting for McCain. If you actually read her blog you might find that out.

Thursday's Child said...

Wow! I'm going to have to reread it just for the fun of it. LOL

La said...

Hi rebellious,
I just reread this post, and I really do want to have a discussion about Jesus' new command: to love our enemies, to bless those that curse us, to pray for those that persecute..." How do we follow this commandment and be in the middle of a war? I know some Christians ( are voting for Obama, because they appreciate his desire for diplomacy, for peace, discussion, instead of conquest. Some would say that is idealistic thinking, and it MAY very well be, but does that mean we stop trying? Is not trying a disregard for Jesus' desire for love, prayer, blessing, and turning the other cheek (in response to our enemies)? I am so not trying to be difficult. I really want to learn from the conversation. I am still researching this one, and frankly, rebellious, your intelligent and respectful responses have given me much to think about. Thanks. Barb, I hope I don't sound as hostile as you do! :) When I reread my responses, it seems like I might. Sorry. I'll try what I have been applauding in my comments: diplomacy. :)

Jungle Mom said...

I suppose we should have left Hitler alone and allowed him to exterminate the Jews?
The command of Christ to love our neighbors is given to the individual and is not meant for the Government for as Paul so clearly states when speaking about human governments, he states that they act as "God's minister" to both those who do good and bad. "If you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God's minister." Back in Paul's day, there were no police forces in Israel and Rome, for there solely existed the Roman armies and the Sanhedrin Court, who administered the "sword" to "those who were doing what is bad." The Roman armies would thus engage in individual, group and national disturbances. This of course, included carnal warfare. On the other hand, to live by the rule of using the sword or violence to settle personal disputes, is not in harmony with Christ's teachings. (Romans 13:4; 12:17-21)
One must not let their emotions read into scripture what is not there, nor add to it. The 'sword' is clearly approved of here as tthe minister of God', when yielded by the state.

White Rabbit said...

Dear Jungle Mom,

Please read this as though i were speaking it in a very respectful voice. i am not trying to belittle you at all. i know that sometimes what we "write" does not reflect how we are "speaking". Tone of voice is everything, yet it is missing in a written format. So with much respect,

White Rabbit

i think this is why for the first 300 years of the Christianity the Church did not allow Christians to remain in the military. This is why many Christians from the Anabaptist background still refuse to be involved in the military.

As far as the Jews and Hitler go, America didn't get involved in the war until the Germans began attacking our cargo ships. Before this they even refused persecuted Jews passage into the country because it was over their quota they had set.

So what was the real reason America got involved in the war? Maybe they woke up, or maybe it was economic. i think maybe we should ask the people in Darfur what they think the reason was.

Finally, when Jesus tells us to love our "enemies" the word translated "enemies" is used over 140 times in the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew bible most commonly used by the Jews of Jesus' day) for political and national enemies. It is used less than 20 times to refer to personal enemies.

Rome was occupying Israel. If you asked any Jew who their enemy was in Jesus' day they would have said Rome, not each other. Even the Hindu's and Muslims got along when Britian was occupying their land. It is always the occupier that is the enemy, and this is what was understood by Jesus' audience.

The goverment is God's servant to a certain extent. They also rebel against God. That is the picture in the OT over and over. We are also told that we are to submit to the government so long as it does not cause us to disobey the will of God. Killing your enemy is considered disobedience.

There was a bumper sticker that read: When Jesus said to "love your enemies" i think he probably meant we shouldn't kill them."

Christians need to determine what rule they will live by. We do not belong to any nation. We are citizens of the kingdom of God. Wouldn't be the sin of all sins if a Christian pulled the trigger on another Christian, both thinking that by serving their country they were doing God a favor?

Christianity is a religion of non-retaliation and non-violence. "Love your enemy, bless those who persecute you". i don't think persecution Jesus was talking about was from a "personal" enemy. i'm sorry, but "personal" enemy does not seem to have much support.

i believe the proper response to the Jewish persecution would have been the German church standing up alongside the Jews in a non-violent protest and being willing to die along side of the Jews to demonstrate Christ's example and love for all people. i believe the shame this would have caused the Germans would have eventually caused them to rethink, just as this was effective when Gandhi used it to drive out the British occupation.

The church lost her nerve. They were too afraid to identify with the persecuted. They failed to live out the teachings of Christ.