102 days into their captivity, a video has been broadcast by al Jazeera showing three of four activists held hostage in Iraq. Not shown in the video is American Tom Fox.
The video shows Canadians James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden, and Briton Norman Kember sitting on chairs. Although no audio was broadcast, al Jazeera reports that the three plead for their governments to help secure their release. The three also ask that Gulf States help them--a less than cryptic message asking for a ransom.
This video is the first in which such a request is made and confirms speculation that 'The Swords of Righteousness Brigade' is after money. The group has been linked to the Islamic Army in Iraq. It is not uncommon in Iraq for 'insurgents' to use ransoms paid for hostages to fund their terroristic activities.
It is not clear what significance, if any exists, there is to the fact that the sole American is not shown on the video. We hope and pray that he remains in good health.
As always, the Left-wing 'Christian' group used the opportunity to highlight their political agenda. In a press statement, the CPT attempted to highlight 'abuses' by the Multinational forces in Iraq. Further, they claim that the 'root cause' of the hostage taking "is the U.S. and British-led invasion and occupation of Iraq."
It's sad and disgusting that supposed 'Christians' would attempt to find fault with those who are trying to rescue the four hostages, rather than with those who are holding them.
We call for the immediate and unconditional release of the four hostages. Those who are holding them bear 100% of the responsibility for this depraved and barbaric act.
Posted by: Gene at March 07, 2006 08:54 AM (Hhtfi)
2
>>>It's sad and disgusting that supposed 'Christians' would attempt to find fault with those who are trying to rescue the four hostages, rather than with those who are holding them.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again-- welcome to the upside down world of Liberalism.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 09:03 AM (8e/V4)
3
Yes, yes, we know, the religion of peace and the insurgents hold no responsibility for their criminal acts, it is all Bush's fault.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 07, 2006 10:03 AM (rUyw4)
4
As always, JJ...
How long before people will wake up? Islamists don't care, wether you're there for the good of people. They want cash, and our death.
- Max
Posted by: Max at March 07, 2006 10:07 AM (WM45z)
5
Although no audio was broadcast, al Jazeera reports that the three plead for their governments to help secure their release. The three also ask that Gulf States help them--a less than cryptic message asking for a ransom.
This video is the first in which such a request is made and confirms speculation that 'The Swords of Righteousness Brigade' is after money.Can you post a link to that report. The Aljazeera report I found makes no mention of ransom: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/60840A64-B0D0-4A2E-901A-0D659F7F4623.htm
Thanks.
Posted by: John Stephens at March 07, 2006 10:20 AM (Sxyd3)
6
I'm very interested in viewing an unedited copy of the video. If y'all find a link to that anywhere, could you eMail me? The address is mail {at} beardedbaby {dot} net. Thanks!
Posted by: John Stephens at March 07, 2006 10:24 AM (Sxyd3)
7
You have to go to Ogrish to see the video. For some reason Rusty doesn't allow me to provide a link to Ogrish. The video is from Al Jazeera so the anchors are obviously speaking arabic. The hostages are speaking bu Al Jazeera didn't air any audio of their dialogue.
Posted by: Max Power at March 07, 2006 11:15 AM (CnDtU)
8
Other people may find it interesting to see the comments posted at the end of last Nov.about his matter.
Posted by: john ryan at March 07, 2006 11:33 AM (TcoRJ)
9
Not to question their supposed 'Christianity' but I don't remember where in the Bible it says that you are to actively seek being killed for political causes.
The point is, even if these people get beheaded, it theologically won't be martyrdom (In the Christian sense). It'll just be murder, and they'll be just additional victims of the "Minutemen"
Posted by: Paul at March 07, 2006 11:36 AM (KHshG)
10
If they are killed, they won't be killed for proclaiming Christ, so no, they won't be martyrs-- just suicidal Lib dummies.
Praying for their safe return.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 11:40 AM (8e/V4)
11
It's not a good sign, that all were shown but the American, there really is no reason to not do that (especially if they're attempting to get a ransom) unless he is injured from a beating, or killed.
Let's hope for a rescue soon.
Posted by: cdave at March 07, 2006 11:55 AM (CcXvt)
12
I'd argue that if they were there out of a commitment to Christ, then they might well qualify as martyrs.
However, in that case, they should be following the example of Ignatius of Antioch and other early martyrs who embraced their martyrdom and didn't engage in cravenly begging for someone to save them from making the ultimate sacrifice for Christ.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at March 07, 2006 12:00 PM (fI2Yv)
13
>>>I'd argue that if they were there out of a commitment to Christ, then they might well qualify as martyrs.
I'll buy that. But more likely they were in Iraq out of a commitment to Leftwing politics. Plenty of other places around the globe where people are dying (like Darfur), but in Iraq they think they can stick it "Bush." That's just plain ol moonbattery.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 12:17 PM (8e/V4)
14
HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX
Where's Tom Fox? Holding the camera.
HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX
CPT only goes where there is an anti-western, usually socialist, "resistance". Their entire area of operations are: Chiapas, Columbia, Israel and Iraq. You're right, they'd never take their directive to "get in the way" to Darfur.
HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX HOAX
Posted by: jummy at March 07, 2006 01:04 PM (Z81HX)
15
Rhymes With Right,
It's more likely that they were made to beg for their lives like all the rest are. They're told what to say in these videos. They have a script they are forced to follow. They have firmly said in the past (before the kidnapping) that they do not want anyone to try and rescue them should they be captured.
Posted by: Oyster at March 07, 2006 01:07 PM (n/nt4)
16
i sincerely hope that the hostages are found and exposed before any randsom money is collected and put to use. my prayers are elsewhere.
Posted by: jummy at March 07, 2006 01:17 PM (Z81HX)
17
Shut up you far right idiot.
Posted by: Max Power at March 07, 2006 01:20 PM (CnDtU)
18
First,
A big thanks to Shackleford for continuing to follow this story. It is not widely followed. Surprise, surprise...not even by the magickal "liberals" that JJ and JC seem to always be at war with.
I also appreciate the extensive linkage to prior discussions. It maintains a continuity of discourse and provides an institutional memory for those who may be joining in late.
The absence of Tom Fox is very concerning. I would note that if the various hostages are truly pleading for their government's to help that both Canada and Britain have made it clear at official levels that they will not negotiate with terrorists, but they are happy to listen to representatives. For some reason, the US has made absolutely no statement whatsoever regarding this hostage taking. It is the dog that did not bark.
You would think that somewhere between the coverage of missing honeymooners, and cute blondes the cable networks would find some time to cover the story. But again, there is a difference on this between the US and the other countries (UK and Canada). Jill Carroll... who we also remember is being held hostage... certainly gets more coverage in the US.
Given the lack of hard information it is unclear who exactly is controlling this situation. Time will tell. The record on this is intact and need not be revisted here. However, I think it is important to set the record straight since some here (even in this thread) feel compelled to malign or ridicule the hostages. Tom Fox was explicit about why he was going to Iraq. He addressed that point in his first entry of his blog
Waiting In the Light"
The topic is covered in the entry titled
Fight or Flight?
He cites
Matthew 5:39 as his foundation. That particular cite, like
"an eye for an eye" is one of the most commonly misquoted lines in the Bible. It is impossible to say what Tom Fox reads into it exactly, but I think it is important to note the literal reading of that text. "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Many mistakenly interpret that to mean "if someone hits you, let him hit you again."
Here is an alternative interpretation: The location of the assault is clearly specified. The Right Cheek. Not the face. Not the jaw. Not the head. Look at yourself in the mirror. Your left cheek's reflection is where another person's right cheek would be if they were facing you. Now standing in front of the mirror, reach up strike that right cheek. If you are right handed, as 85% of people are, you will have to strike them with your back hand. In other words, you will be slapping them, not punching them. That is the assault you would give to one you considered inferior or subordinate...not your equal. By turning to
offer the other cheek, you are not inviting them to slap you. You are challenging them to fight you as an equal. By stepping into the lion's den as the CPT4 did, they are not inviting anyone to abuse them. They are challenging everyone to confront what is occuring. And they are willing to do this armed only with their faith.
In conclusion, I don't think it is particularly relevant whether they are "martyrs" or not. What is important is that for those who are seriously concerned about their safety, we must respoect why they made the conscious decision to bear witness to their faith.
I would not be so presumptuous as to put words in Tom Fox's mouth. However, since he is a Quaker, I am sure he would find meaning in this:
"Thou sayest Christ said this and the apostles said that, but what canst thou say?"
-George Fox
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 07, 2006 01:35 PM (l4h/M)
19
For some reason, the US has made absolutely no statement whatsoever regarding this hostage taking. It is the dog that did not bark.
Canada and Britain have made it clear at official levels that they will not negotiate with terrorists, but they are happy to listen to representatives.
I believe that is because like other Governments the official front is "we do not negotiate with Terrorists" but "we do provide the cash to non-government agencies to secure their release"
Why not send ol' Jessie Jackson with a black bag full of Katrina cash to negotiate for their release, damn American hostage policy.
Posted by: cdave at March 07, 2006 02:06 PM (CcXvt)
20
The Swords of Rightiousness Brigade is a fake, ad hoc group assembled to carry out this fundraising mission.
The CPTs "witnessing" to them consisted of developing these contacts and negotiating this plan: stage a hoax kidnapping to 1) help the insurgency by raising money through ransom, and 2) help the western left by generating a narrative about a humane, principled "resistance" which displays mercy to fellow-travellers.
The CPTs "Get in the way." They perform this sort of service for Hamas, Al Aqsa, the FARC, the ELN, et al, but not for the victims of Darfur's genocide or anyone suffering from real repression. What they do does not indicate "bravery" or require "courage", except to the extent that fraud is a morally daunting undertaking for people who presumably possess concience.
The CPT "hostages" are neither hostages, nor are they in any danger.
When this is exposed, it will be the fourth high-profile hostage hoax, taking its place next to Gulianna Segrina and Susan Osthoff, who was found with a portion of the ransom money after her rescue.
Posted by: clemto at March 07, 2006 02:08 PM (Z81HX)
21
background noise,
why the sunday school lesson. are you talking to a christian?
and why are we to trust tom fox's professed motivations as sincere and genuine any more than we should for bush?
lets expand on that: why should matters of state be separated from evangelical christians but not from quakers (who are really more like secular bible interpretationists rather than christians, anyway)?
Posted by: jummy at March 07, 2006 02:17 PM (Z81HX)
22
>>>why should matters of state be separated from evangelical christians but not from quakers
Because when Libs cry about "separation of church and state" they only mean CONSERVATIVE church and state. Their phoniness on that issue, as on countless other issues, should go without saying by now.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 02:21 PM (8e/V4)
23
and since you seem to be some sort of spokesperson, can you clue us in as to why it looks like the quaker sect of the social justice movement started preparing tom fox as a martyr prior to his capture?
Posted by: jummy at March 07, 2006 02:23 PM (Z81HX)
24
The record speaks for itself.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 07, 2006 04:09 PM (l4h/M)
25
well, the record looks like this: gulianna segrina with her 'handfulls of bullet casings', sussanne osthoff with her cut of the ransom, and, soon, tom fox caught holding the camera.
Posted by: jummy at March 07, 2006 04:26 PM (Z81HX)
26
Now, Carlos, you have spoken a mouthful there, my friend. Yes, indeed, go to just about any black church during the election cycle and you will see Democratic politicians in the pulpit every Sunday electioneering and collecting offerings in clear violation of election laws.
Have you heard a Democrat condemn it? Hell, no, and I know of a case where black churchgoers were allowed to vote on Sunday when the polls were closed to everyone else. What was done? Did the Democrats complain? Hell, no, the Democrats were the ones who opened the Courthouse, manned the voting machines, and allowed these people to vote in clear violation of election laws. Was anything done? You know the answer to that without me telling you.
Yes, Carlos, so much for the Democrats being for separation of Church and State! So much bullshit is what it is.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 07, 2006 04:35 PM (rUyw4)
27
I wanted to comment on a point raised by Shackleford, who wrote:
This video is the first in which such a request is made and confirms speculation that 'The Swords of Righteousness Brigade' is after money.
The group has been linked to the Islamic Army in Iraq. It is not uncommon in Iraq for 'insurgents' to use ransoms paid for hostages to fund their terroristic activities.
We have disputed this before, and I do not wish to revist this beyond citing
this AP report, which quotes the Iraqi Interior Minister as claiming Carroll's kidnappers are IAI, but makes no similar claim about the CPT4 kidnappers.
If there was a ransom demand that
is new. However, it is not clear how that can be concluded from the reports I have seen. If it was true that would be a cause for relief. If the kidnappers are now demanding money, one hopes they will be careful not to slaughter their golden geese.
Unfortunately, the absence of the American can mean any number of things, so I leave it unresolved for now.
"Too many people are willing to die to wage war, too few are willing to die for peace"
- Tom Fox
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 07, 2006 04:44 PM (l4h/M)
28
jesusland joe, its not up to the dems to condemn it. its up to you to 1) get on the mailing lst for your local antiwar group, 2) find out what churches they use, 3) hide a tape recorder or bring a camera to services during the upcoming election cycle, and 4) report any electioneering to the feds.
http://www.ratoutachurch.org/
Posted by: jummy at March 07, 2006 04:44 PM (Z81HX)
29
"Too many people are willing to die to wage war, too few are willing to die for peace."
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 05:52 PM (8e/V4)
30
Get a load of the guy in the middle picture. His schnoz just about hangs to the ground.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 06:02 PM (8e/V4)
31
that's because he's perpetuating a massive lie every time he lets tom fox video him as a "hostage."
Posted by: jummy at March 07, 2006 06:15 PM (kGfOr)
32
People who are willing to die for peace are called "American soldiers", whereas those who are willing to throw tantrums and commit hoaxes for publicity are called "liberal scum".
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 07, 2006 07:38 PM (0yYS2)
33
jummy, why should I have to do anything? The Democratic electioneering in black churches is all over the media every Monday during the election cycle. If they don't believe what they see with their own eyes Monday after Monday, then what would a tape recording I made prove to anyone. Bottom line, Carlos has it right, they only care when it is a conservative. It's called hypocrisy.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 07, 2006 07:52 PM (rUyw4)
34
i'm just suggesting something you can do to take action. did you visit the link?
Posted by: jummy at March 07, 2006 08:21 PM (kGfOr)
35
JC:
Get a load of the guy in the middle picture. His schnoz just about hangs to the ground.
Res ipsa loquitur ... what else can be said? Thanks for being so clear?
RE I.M.
People who are willing to die for peace are called "American soldiers", whereas those who are willing to throw tantrums and commit hoaxes for publicity are called "liberal scum".
I don't agree with your second statement. I'm sure you have someone like Cindy Sheehan in mind when you say that... but it could just as easily be Mort Downey Jr. or Bill O'Reilly going for "tantrums" or "publicity hoaxes". I don't think sensationalism has a political affiliation. I would note the CPT4 are doing neither. And so your comment is not relevant to them.
I have more sympathy for the first part of your statement. What has distinguished the American soldier of the 20th century is his role as liberator, not of occupier. At least that is how we like to view ourselves. And I think it has merit, certainly from the soldier's point of view. I can't say the same for the policymakers. I think
Maj. General Smedley Butler spoke very eloquently to that... and I can't improve on anything he said.
But forget about foreign adventures. Look at what happens when we turn on ourselves. Maybe things are too close today to look at dispassionately, but we can look back a century and still see the same dynamic. The soldiers who fought for the Union believed they were fighting for the future survival of the Republic. The soldiers who fought for the Confederacy felt they were being true to the Founding Fathers. That break down in communication is why today people choose to visit either Antietam or Sharpsburg, but rarely both. It doesn't matter they are one and the same.
Same planet, different world.
That is why I am struck by how this situation gets reflected through people as they react to it. I think the prayers offered here for their safe return are genuine. I think some people here relate to and identify with the notion that a person can be motivated by their faith to do something bigger. I think most people here disagee with the choices these people made. But I think they understand them.
In contrast, liberals at dailykos embrace the CPT4 because they agree with their choices. But I don't think they really understand them. Dailykos is certainly not putting them front and center the way The Jawa Report has. The archives here are testimony to that fact.
I think many liberals are frankly uncomfortable with the notion of prayer. Not because they are soulless devil spawn. But because they feel alienated from it. If the sanctimonious platitudes of Pat Robertson are a standard, or the Elmer Gantry's of the mega-churches are a model, who can blame them? It's a shame because like people who only visit Antietam, they miss the message of Sharpsburg.
That's why I think the CPT4 inhabit a privileged space as liberals of faith. They defy the tribal boundaries of red state and blue state. Embraced by different tribes for different reasons, reviled by the same tribes for different reasons, ultimately confronting both tribes with the same challenge.
By "getting in THE WAY" they point to a morality and a responsibility for others that lays beyond the divisions of political systems and culture. Like Buddhist monks on fire they make their statement by their presence.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 07, 2006 10:02 PM (wqzld)
36
noise,
I agree. Liberal christians like these dummies don't fit in with anybody. Secular Libs hold them at arms length because of their religion, and conservatives christians do the same because of their politics. They tend to be irrelevant to the greater struggle for the soul of this country, so they're generally non-threatening in that way. If America is like a family, they are the retarded brother who just doesn't know any better. That's why we at Jawa don't hate them, we only think they're big dummies who are gonna get themselves killed, and maybe even others killed trying to rescue them.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 07, 2006 11:43 PM (8e/V4)
37
"If the sanctimonious platitudes of Pat Robertson are a standard, or the Elmer Gantry's of the mega-churches are a model, who can blame them?"
That's a big "if". Because they're not the standard and most other Christians give them a sideways glance as well as verbally denounce any outrageous behavior. Those who "feel uncomfortable" use the Pat Robertsons of the world as an excuse to condemn or reject the rest. It's convenient and intellectually lazy. There are a hundred thousand smaller churches from shore to shore in this country who do good things and don't engage in sensationalism. We just don't see them on cable TV or the news.
I don't claim any religion as my own, but I have the sense to know that the Pat Robertsons of the world don't speak for anyone but themselves nor act in anyone's interests but their own.
As to the Peacemakers:
I, like the rest here, don't wish that these gentlemen meet an untimely or violent end. But that does not preclude them from criticism. I think what they've done is stupid regardless of their motives. And all the talk in the world from anyone wishing to glorify their actions won't change my mind from what I see as plain old suicide.
Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 07:16 AM (YudAC)
38
I agree that Robertson is *not* the model... and I would even agree that a fair amount of the disdain for religion seen on the left is a sort of spiritual laziness.
However, you cannot ignore the fact that religion has become heavily politicized and that the Republicans have wrapped themselves in the glory of God just as tightly as they wrap themselves in the flag. It is obvious in discussions of the "Religious Right" ,"values voters", and "Bush's base". It was painfully obvious in the Supreme Court nominations of Meiers and Alito. It's obvious on shows like O'Reilleys "Factor"... how many other FOX talking heads were echoing the "war on Christmas" nonsense?
I wouldn't paint the whole lot with Robertson's stench, but the impact of Robertson, Ahmanson, Dobson,and Falwell are not trivial. Just look at the bigotry in this thread and you can see how deep that runs. Two of the biggest bigots are that Heckel and Jeckel team from "jesusland" ...
The flip side is seen when someone like Rev. Lowery gets up and delivers a eulogy at Coretta Scott King's funeral ...all of a sudden its a source of outrage. If that's a problem, all I can say is Cheney is lucky Whittington had thicker skin than George.
As to the Peacemakers:
The fact that no one in this administration has made any statement at all regarding them is stunning. However, it is consistent. In the run up to the invasion of Iraq George W Bush refused to meet with many church leaders who opposed the war. Even now, he refuses to meet with CPT directors.
I understand why people criticize them. However, those who have taken the time to understand their history, why they were there, and what they were doing have more credibility in my eyes than those who reflexively condemn them.
As for the "suicide" comment, there is a world of difference between these men and the utopian idealists who thought they were going to some sort of "human shield" protecting Iraq from invasion. These aren't romantics who think they can help wild Grizzlies find their inner Gentle Ben. Tom Fox certainly knew what he was walking in to and the only reason I focus on him is he wrote it down.
Maybe you think their actions are unwise, or untimely.
Maybe you think they are outside agitators.
Maybe you think they should stick to their own kind.
Maybe you think this is not their fight.
Those are the very reasons King wrote his
Letter from the Birmingham Jail. If you understand the model of non-violent campaigns laid out early in that letter, it is obvious how the CPT4 are actually being very consistent with their faith and that message.
Finally, I would point these people are not operating in a vacuum. They have been in Iraq for years. Fox organized Muslim Peacemaker Teams of Shi'ites and Sunnis working together to remove trash from Fallujah. It would be a hell of a lot easier for them to stay home and participate in street theater. It would have been easier for King to stay home too. But that is not a real option for someone moved to bear witness. In spite of their differences, I think men like
Desmond Doss ,
Alvin York and
Smedley Butler would understand that.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 08, 2006 09:37 AM (1bfAN)
39
The flip side is seen when someone like Rev. Lowery gets up and delivers a eulogy at Coretta Scott King's funeral ...all of a sudden its a source of outrage.
hahaha! a "eulogy", was it?
The GOP is only able to "wrap" itself in the glory that are christianity and the flag precisely because you Libs have avoided both like the bubonic plague. Blame yourselves for demonizing patriots and christians, not the GOP for giving them a voice.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 08, 2006 09:53 AM (8e/V4)
40
republicans don't own the flag, but progressives own flag burning. reconcile that. admit that progressives have contributed to their marginality, and maybe you can transfer some of this hatred of patriots towards making a difference among your peers.
republicans don't own god, but progressives own christian-bashing. in this fashion, progressives owe it to themselves to reconcile their hatred of evangelicals, catholics and orthodox jews for "claiming to own god" with the notion that christian doctrines which conform to "social justice" represent the
true word of christ.
there is no basis for quakers to claim gods own infallible rightiousness for themselves. the work done by a cpt when he's "getting in the way" is no more an act of god than the work done by the u.s. soldier he seeks to obstruct. these are the works of men. in the cpt's case, in which their works consist of providing false witness and cover for progressive groups like the farc, it is the work of men who historically have enslaved and murdered millions.
"the way" they're getting in when they're getting in the way of counter-insurgency actions is the way of marx and wallerstein and gramsci and alinski and chomsky. none of these figures are christ. many of the "religious left" surely percieve such a mirage, but many others see an opportunity to camoflage alinsky in the blood of christ.
and so the cpt press release on the "hostages" veered off to take an incongruous swipe at evangelicals. and went on to condemn bush and the war and everything periferal to the situation except hostage-taking or mosque-bombing. cpts won't even show their faces in television interviews; they know that what they're doing wrong.
the fact is that "non-violence" is meaningless when it deploys itsself as an asset of violence. non-violence which sheilds mosque-bombers is no more non-violent than the getaway driver in a bank robbery is a non-theif. what the cpts are doing in iraq is not non-violence, it is not rightiousness and it is not right.
i don't agree that u.s. soldiers' ideal of themselves as liberators is all in their heads, as you contend. or maybe its in my head as well. it also seems to be in the heads of many of those who have been liberated by u.s. troops. its in the heads of the vietnamese who fled to the u.s. once progressives succeded in breaking america's promise and left the south to be brutally overtaken by secular butchers who proceded to slaughter 100,000 and intern millions more in prison camps.
it was at this point that quakers decided there was nothing to object to, that there was nothing to "get in the way" of. they have not revisited the situation in vietnam since, preferring to slur conventional christians and throw tantrums over whether or not they own the
true word of christ.
they make a poor case, and when they comphensate by spewing bible phrases, they sound like the charicature of evangelicals they are quick to deride; they sound like cynical demegogues who've learned the trick of religious-speak.
Posted by: jummy at March 08, 2006 11:29 AM (Z81HX)
41
i also don't recall bush being thin-skinned about lowery's remarks. he really just kinda sat patiently and absorbed the these attacks which lowery delivered over a woman's corpse.
Posted by: jummy at March 08, 2006 11:33 AM (Z81HX)
42
That's a hoot coming from you...
Democrats demonizing Christians?
You must have been listening to John Hostettler, R-Ind. Of course he had to
retract that hate-mongering.
sheeesh....
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 08, 2006 11:36 AM (lukak)
43
noise,
Rep. Hostetler just said what we all know to be true.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 08, 2006 12:07 PM (8e/V4)
44
"...Republicans have wrapped themselves in the glory of God just as tightly as they wrap themselves in the flag."
As if this wasn't what this country was built on? And I find it unconscionable that the very mention of God and country at any level these days is ripe for scorn and ridicule to many degrees.
I'll tell you what I fear most with this whole religious mess - the movement to remove religion from public discussion and from God having any connection to our government is that once this has been achieved, who exactly is it that has bestowed our rights on us if not God? And then who is it that can take them away?
Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 12:07 PM (rf0W8)
45
i'm missing the part where i said anything about democrats. could you quote me so i know what part of what i've written you're responding to?
also, that link is almost a year old and reports on essentially nothing. your rage must have a long and vivid memory.
Posted by: jummy at March 08, 2006 12:12 PM (Z81HX)
46
jummy....
I am glad to see you admit to listening to voices in your head.... now
HEY!!! out here in the real world someone is actually talking to you.... so
pay attention
First, where is it written that Quakers "claim God's own rightous infallibility for themselves"? Show me.... because I can show you plenty of examples where prominent Quakers have said
exactly the opposite.
For example, consider the public statement by Lucretia Mott at Thomas Garrett's funeral in 1871. After many lauded that well-respected Quaker for his many good deeds during his decades of service to the Underground Railroad, she was moved to comment on the constant references to his Quaker faith. William Still recorded her statement in "The Underground Railroad" thus:
"Lucretia Mott arose, and said she feared the claim might appear to be made that Quakerism alone held the great central principle which dominated this man's life; but she wished it understood that they recognized this "voice within" as leading and guiding all men, and they probably meant by it much the same as those differing from them meant by the Third person in their Trinity. She did not wish, even in appearance, to claim a belief in this voice for her own sect alone. "
Second, I never said the idea of liberator was all in the soldier's heads. I said
the opposite. Let me repeat it for you so you don't have to hurt yourself looking for it:
I think it has merit, certainly from the soldier's point of view. I can't say the same for the policymakers. I think
Maj. General Smedley Butler spoke very eloquently to that... and I can't improve on anything he said.
FYI... if you want to quote me out of context at least try it on a page where my black letter text isn't staring you in the face.
Third, What
are you babbling about with the "non-violence that shields mosque-bombers" non sequitor? Show me where CPT has aided either before, after or during the fact such an act.... this I gotta see.
Fourth, about your canard that Quakers "have not revisited the situation in vietnam since" the end of the war.... Google is your friend.
But since you are too lazy to look up facts that might get in the way of your mendacity (look it up)... here's some of what the American Friends Service Committee is doing in Vietnam through
their Quaker Service Vietnam (QSV) program:
Rural Development Program:
In Thanh Hoa province, QSV assists four or five communities (each with a population of 5,000 to 7,000) to achieve year-round food security. It also has provided credit to more than 5,000 people, primarily in families headed by women. This program includes an agriculture project, a Community development project, and an emergency relief project.
They also run a Vietnam International Affairs Program which amongst other things, includes helping Vietnamese and American individuals and organizations address the ongoing problem of unexploded ordnance and Agent Orange residue.
BTW....AFSC has been providing continuous assistance to both South Viet Nam (since 1966) and North Viet Nam (since 1969) for decades, and the QSV has been established as a stand alone operation on a continuous basis for 15 years. So I guess if they
never left it is technically correct to say they "have not revisted the situation." But we all know that is not how you meant it.
Finally, Let me make this clear enough so even you can understand it. Just because I think you act like a bigot doesn't mean I hate you. Before you try to tar me with your "hating patriots" crap I suggest you have a discussion with yourself in the mirror. That is precisely the sort of straw man projection spewed by the jesusland boys. It's lame.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 08, 2006 12:38 PM (qwh2Y)
47
Oyster you quote me
"...Republicans have wrapped themselves in the glory of God just as tightly as they wrap themselves in the flag."
Which is what I said, but then you go on to misinterpret my position.
As if this wasn't what this country was built on? And I find it unconscionable that the very mention of God and country at any level these days is ripe for scorn and ridicule to many degrees.
My point is that neither the flag, nor religion, nor the Constitution belongs to any one party. Period. Full stop. But the kind of venom you hear from Republicans like Hostettler, Falwell, Dobson, and others... and clearly embraced by people on this very thread.... pretends that all of those (God,flag,Constitution) are Republican property.
That's the sort of environment that allows people like Coulter to label 50% of the voters as "traitors". Your next point deserves comment
I'll tell you what I fear most with this whole religious mess - the movement to remove religion from public discussion and from God having any connection to our government is that once this has been achieved, who exactly is it that has bestowed our rights on us if not God? And then who is it that can take them away?
I think that would be a problem
if it was happening. Take the 10 Commandments case. When you go into court is that governed by the Constitution or the Bible? And even if you want to go with the idea that the Constitution is inspired by the Bible... which version of the 10 Commandments are we going to use? The Jewish version? The Catholic version? The Protestant version? There are real differences there.
That's the point of separation... we have a diversity of religious beliefs, but we share a common government. Look what Republicans in Missouri are trying to by legislating Christianity as the majority religion. If that is true why do you have to legislate it? You want an idea of where that leads... look at Israel.
You know the next step.... we've seen it right here in this thread. Apparently some people here think some Christians are better than others (e.g., Methodists are reasonable suspects of terrorism, Quakers aren't even real Christians.) You think that is unlikely... again look at Israel. There has been a long standing feud about "who is a Jew" and guess what... when it comes to political, and economic matters.. Conservative zealots get to decide. So if you are a Reform Jew, you don't count unless that conversion occurred IN ISRAEL.
Call me a revisionist, but I don't recall the Nazis putting Orthodox Jews in the showers and handing out Towelettes to the Reform Jews. By the same token, I don't recall the terrorists who attacked the WTC giving Democrats three steps head start.
The flag is merely a symbol of our national unity. The UNION is more delicate. It rests in the Constitution and everything that document inspires. That is what binds us. The flag and the constitution belong to no party. When someone wraps themselves in the flag they are by definition excluding others. That's a problem.
Where I think we have common ground is that religion is personal and inviolate. When a political party wraps itself in the mantle of God, they are likewise excluding others. That is a real problem. We have learned through bitter experience that if you mix politics and religion people get burned at the stake.
This will sound strange to you, and I don't expect you to believe it... but if Republicans stopped using the flag as a sword and religion as a cudgel, people would be a lot less nervous when they brandish them. Norman Rockwell captures that sentiment much more powerfully in
Prayer than he does in
Freedom of Worship
If you are talking about Norman Rockwell's "Prayer" we are on the same page. And so are most Americans, left, right and center. Those who oppose that have no standing and threaten our basic rights.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 08, 2006 01:27 PM (+qTZu)
48
This will sound strange to you, and I don't expect you to believe it... but if Republicans stopped using the flag as a sword and religion as a cudgel, people would be a lot less nervous when they brandish them.
noise,
You're right, I don't believe it. I spent most of my life trying to be a christian amongst Liberals back in my Lib days. Finally, I just got tired of apologizing for my faith. Finally, I realized that the myth of Liberal tolerance was just that-- a myth.
This may sound strange to you, and I don't expect you to believe it, but if Liberals stopped hating christianity and the flag, and looking down their nose at patriotism (a product of the maggot-infested hippie/vietnam era) the GOP wouldn't be able to brandish them as a cudgel anymore. You don't like it? Then stop being such a bigot and traitor.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 08, 2006 01:47 PM (8e/V4)
49
JC... oyster can speak for herself... you and your friend jj are dead to me.
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 08, 2006 02:16 PM (+qTZu)
50
>>>you and your friend jj are dead to me.
lmao! that was cute.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 08, 2006 03:20 PM (8e/V4)
51
After reading and sifting through the pontifications of the noice one now knows where the phrase educated idiot came from. I swear the Jabberwocky has left Wonderland and settled right here on The Jawa Report, and background noice is what he makes.
Posted by: jesusland joe at March 08, 2006 04:21 PM (rUyw4)
52
Yes JJ, it's amazing what passes for thinking these days. Oh well, at least they can still serve some purpose before its over; fertilizer or soylent green, perhaps.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 06:18 AM (0yYS2)
53
Background, that was a nice long dissertation, but you're evading the point. The fact is that this became an issue because of the attacks against those who wouldn't pray secretly or pretend they're anything but what they are. And the biggest culprit is the ACLU. It was never enough to ban "compulsory" prayer in school, it had to be banned completely. I agree it shouldn't be compulsory, but did it have to go this far? A kid is expelled for praying openly now. Parents complain about the level of sex education being taught now, with teachers teaching how to put rubbers on bananas, and ask that abstinence be taught. They're attacked because that's called a Christian value. Not common sense, mind you, but a "Christian" value.
It won't stop there and these are only two issues out of so many. So when others push back, they're called bigots. They're said to be wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming God as their own. How many times in the past have other politicians of both persuasions invoked God in their speeches? Too many to count for too many years. Who cared? No one. I guess it's no secret that 50% percent of the country hates Bush so when he talks about his faith, it's something else to beat him over the head with and when other republicans jumped to his defense (the democrats weren't going to) suddenly the republican party is a religious wingnut group. The harder one side pushes, the harder the other side pushes back.
I can't speak for Missouri. I don't know enough about what's going on there. And if Republicans in Missouri are going too far with legislation, then it should be addressed, but again it's painting everyone with a broad brush by implying the politicians in Missouri are indicative of those in every state. They're only pushing back, even if they are going too far. A line must be drawn, but that line must not be pushed so far back that everyone is afraid to whisper about their own beliefs.
Fascism can come from both sides, not just the religious side.
The point I'm making is that this had a beginning. And that beginning was fueled by people like Newdow, the ACLU and others who started with slapping labels on everyone and insisting they had a right not to be offended by someone's overt claim of faith.
We had a situation recently right here in my town. A gentleman applied for a permit this last Christmas season to erect a nativity scene next to the town square Christmas tree. His permit was rejected. However, right there in the town square was a twelve foot Menorah. He sued the city for rejecting his permit. And he won. And he should have, because of the ignorance of those who said there couldn't be any religious displays. They said the menorah wasn't indicative of any religion. That it was just a candle stick. The fact is that the Menorah is almost the equivalent of the Christian cross.
Frankly, I couldn't see the problem with having either display. In fact, I wrote a letter to the city and suggested they encourage others to make displays for the season and that the city should set aside space for exactly that. There's certainly enough room there. Why shouldn't religion be expressed, even celebrated? Why should anyone be scorned for expressing, in a peaceful manner, their beliefs?
You complain about those in Missouri using legislation wrongly. It goes both ways. There are those using legislation, even the Supreme Court to push legislation the other way. Hence my point about who has bestowed our rights on us if not something higher than mortal man. We're treading in dangerous territory here. The fact is that religion is under attack, not just Christianity. Christianity is just a scapegoat because it's the majority religion here. Once these insidious people get that taken care of, they'll go after the rest. And soon we're ripe for communism.
Don't like Robertson? Expose him. Don't like Falwell? Expose what's wrong with him. Don't poke holes in your own ship because you don't like the direction the ship is going in.
Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 07:51 AM (YudAC)
54
The only reason libs are whining about the whole Missouri thing is that they want it to be islam that is codified as the official religion.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 09, 2006 07:56 AM (0yYS2)
55
Tom Fox is dead. His body was found this morning in Iraq. I think he was shot. This is proof they weren't faking their kidnapping. Here is the link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060311/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/hostage_killed
Posted by: Robert Savage at March 10, 2006 03:10 PM (CnDtU)
56
King Hussein's eulogy for Yitzhak Rabin was probably the finest I've ever heard. They seem appropriate now.
"We belong to the camp of peace... This is our camp. May God bless you with the realization that you must join it and we pray that He will, but otherwise we are not ashamed, nor are we afraid, nor are we anything but determined to fulfill the legacy for which my friend fell, as did my grandfather in this very city when I was with him and but a young boy. He was a man of courage, a man of vision and he was endowed with one of the greatest virtues that any man can have. He was endowed with humility... He had a commitment to peace, and standing here, I commit before you, before my people in Jordan, before the world, myself to continue with our utmost, to ensure that we leave a similar legacy. And when my time comes, I hope it will be like my grandfather's and like Yitzhak Rabin's."
"Nevertheless his story was not written out, and can only be hinted at...the appalling nature of his sufferings rendered the pen powerless, and made the heart too sick for the task."
- William Still
Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 10, 2006 03:37 PM (K5Ko+)
57
We Mourn the Loss of Tom Fox
10 March 2006
In grief we tremble before God who wraps us with compassion. The death of our beloved colleague and friend pierces us with pain. Tom FoxÂ’s body was found in Baghdad yesterday.
Christian Peacemaker Teams extends our deep and heartfelt condolences to the family and community of Tom Fox, with whom we have traveled so closely in these days of crisis.
We mourn the loss of Tom Fox who combined a lightness of spirit, a firm opposition to all oppression, and the recognition of God in everyone.
We renew our plea for the safe release of Harmeet Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember. Each of our teammates has responded to JesusÂ’ prophetic call to live out a nonviolent alternative to the cycle of violence and revenge.
In response to Tom’s passing, we ask that everyone set aside inclinations to vilify or demonize others, no matter what they have done. In Tom’s own words: "We reject violence to punish anyone. We ask that there be no retaliation on relatives or property. We forgive those who consider us their enemies. We hope that in loving both friends and enemies and by intervening nonviolently to aid those who are systematically oppressed, we can contribute in some small way to transforming this volatile situation.”
Even as we grieve the loss of our beloved colleague, we stand in the light of his strong witness to the power of love and the courage of nonviolence. That light reveals the way out of fear and grief and war.
Through these days of crisis, Christian Peacemaker Teams has been surrounded and upheld by a great outpouring of compassion: messages of support, acts of mercy, prayers, and public actions offered by the most senior religious councils and by school children, by political leaders and by those organizing for justice and human rights, by friends in distant nations and by strangers near at hand. These words and actions sustain us. While one of our teammates is lost to us, the strength of this outpouring is not lost to GodÂ’s movement for just peace among all peoples.
At the forefront of that support are strong and courageous actions from Muslim brothers and sisters throughout the world for which we are profoundly grateful. Their graciousness inspires us to continue working for the day when Christians speak up as boldly for the human rights of thousands Iraqis still detained illegally by the United States and United Kingdom.
Such an outpouring of action for justice and peace would be a fitting memorial for Tom. Let us all join our voices on behalf of those who continue to suffer under occupation, whose loved ones have been killed or are missing. In so doing, we may hasten the day when both those who are wrongly detained and those who bear arms will return safely to their homes. In such a peace we will find solace for our grief.
Despite the tragedy of this day, we remain committed to put into practice these words of Jim Loney: “With the waging of war, we will not comply. With the help of God’s grace, we will struggle for justice. With God’s abiding kindness, we will love even our enemies.” We continue in hope for Jim, Harmeet and Norman’s safe return home safe.
Posted by: FriendofTom at March 10, 2006 11:14 PM (BW0Au)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
