Forgive me, Della, but this seems unusually callous. I agree that it is unreasonable to surrender one’s values in order to “send a message” to the President, but there are many reasons to believe that this war is unjust, and therfore a real issue worthy of consideration.This doesn’t surprise me. Of course people would much rather focus on a war that doesn’t really impact their lives instead of on issues that do, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research. They can vent the “righteous” anger at Bush and the war instead of look deep inside their own hearts about these other issues that will have a much more lasting effect on us and our children than the minor scuffle in Iraq that will only be a footnote in history.
With all due respect to Tony Perkins,who I knew of in his Politcal days down here, if perhaps he did join in starting to attack Republicans like everyone else the last year that might have not happen.he way the presidential campaign is shaping up, it looks like a continuation of November’s elections," when Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress, Perkins said. “It was a disaster for Republicans because they had lost their way on [conservative social] issues.”
the Holy Father and John Paul II both felt this war doesn’t meet the criteria for a just war
I supported the Intervention/Invasion into Iraq. However are we not at a different point now?but as Christians we value all life and if we believe this war or any war devalues life we are obligated to oppose it even if it as well as abortion and emryonic stem cell research
This is not the same question. Whether we should or should not have attacked Iraq is an **entirely different issue ** from whether we should stick around to clean up after ourselves.My questions is what is our responsibilty now.
Is an immediate withdrawal creating a power vacumn before they are ready to stand on their own immoral? In other words if we broke it do we have a responsibilty to make it right
I have friends in Iraq and they tell me 85 percent of the Country is doing pretty good. Do those people fall into our purview
What is our Responsibilty to the Kurds? Do we betray their trust again? Is it different there because they like us a WHOLE lot?
I am not convinced just a massive withdrawal at all is moral. I guess what I am saying is that just talking about if going into Iraq and either if it was moral or not is really not the question anymore. The argument we should be taling about is what our moral responsiblities are now. That is not so clear. But let me say that for those that are so confident that its the moral thing to bring every troop home I ma not so sure of that at all. At the very least I dont see that addressed.
Then it’s a moot point isn’t it? Whether you personally believe we should have gone in from the start or not, we are there now. The real issue is the now not the past. If we leave now, it wouldn’t be 3 months and the al queda and tailiban would take over and even more people would die.This is not the same question. Whether we should or should not have attacked Iraq is an **entirely different issue ** from whether we should stick around to clean up after ourselves.
I agree that, regardless of whether we should’ve invaded in the first place, the fact is that we’re the only thing keeping that nation from collapsing into utter chaos. It would be wrong for us to leave at this stage. Furthermore, even if the war itself were just, the outcome of our early departure could make it unjust in the long run.
Peace,
Dante
You don’t think it’s worth discussing whether we should’ve invaded Iraq in the first place? The centerpiece of the current administration’s policy?Then it’s a moot point isn’t it? Whether you personally believe we should have gone in from the start or not, we are there now. The real issue is the now not the past. If we leave now, it wouldn’t be 3 months and the al queda and tailiban would take over and even more people would die.
Oh Sure, I think that can be debated but at this point it is just an exercise. I guess what I was getting out is often I see arguments for withdrawal of Iraq coupled with the Vaticans Statements about the morality etc of the US invading. I guess what I am saying is that is not relevant to the current situation to what we doYou don’t think it’s worth discussing whether we should’ve invaded Iraq in the first place? The centerpiece of the current administration’s policy?
Peace,
Dante
So, what should we do?Abortion, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research are being pushed out of voter’s minds by the war. This article talks about how this trend is making social conservatives very nervous.
boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/07/conservative_activists_fear_war_dwarfing_social_agenda/
We are wrestling with it," said Connie Mackey, head of government affairs for the Family Research Council. “We have varying positions within the organization, but I think the bottom line if we were to take any position, it would be that we’ve got to do something to pay attention to the laws that are on the books right now, and then the second part is the hardest part: what to do about those people who are here now.”
Mackey said no consensus exists other than to be “compassionate but firm.” …Laura Esquivel, director of issues marketing for the liberal People for the American Way, said after the debate, “They’re in a real pickle here.”
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/28/MNGAJIGCAL42.DTLShe found it odd that the Family Research Council was refusing to take the position endorsed by 90 percent of its own members. “They’re in the same conundrum as the Republican Party,” she said. “They’ve made all these inroads, or have tried to, in the Hispanic community, and it is going up in smoke over this issue.”
bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/17057096.htmStem cell plan faces vote shortfall in Senate
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040701581.html?sub=ARTony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who talks frequently with the senator, said Brownback should address the concerns of religious conservatives, including beliefs that a large influx of undocumented workers undermines the social fabric and that many of them do not learn English or attempt to assimilate into the larger society.
Immigration reform
Land’s position on immigration – strong control of the borders and a process toward citizenship – separates him somewhat from the strong borders only crowd. The fact that he appeared on the same platform as Sen. Kennedy – one of the historic symbols of liberalism – must have sent chills up the spines of Dobson, and the Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
“[Congress needs], consistent with national sovereignty and with our security, to find a way to resolve this moral problem in a moral way consistent with the ideals of our nation,” said Land. “This is a profoundly moral issue, and it goes to the core of who we are as Americans.”
According to a Baptist Press report “Land read most of the SBC’s 2006 resolution on illegal immigration,” during the press conference. "That measure, approved by an overwhelming majority of the messengers, urged increased border security and enforcement of the laws, while encouraging Christian outreach to immigrants regardless of their legal status.
“For a year, Land has promoted an approach that includes controlling the borders, enforcing immigration laws inside the country and no amnesty for law breakers,” Baptist Press reported. “He also has said reform should consist of a ‘guest-worker’ program that calls for illegal immigrants to undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine, agree to pay back taxes, learn English and apply for permanent residence behind legal immigrants after a probationary period of years.”
Land acknowledged that he wasn’t supporting any particular bill yet, and he refused to see that his position was tantamount to supporting amnesty. Labeling a proposal that would require a person “to learn to read and write and speak English and … go through a series of processes to earn your way off sort of a probationary period to earn legal status and citizenship” amnesty is “to do violence to the English language,” Land said.
Also of note in this article(not my favorite source because of it bias but this article is straightforward)Land predicted a majority of Southern Baptists and other evangelicals will support reform that is truly comprehensive. “They will not embrace reform that is not [committed] to securing the borders,” Land told reporters after the news conference. “But if the government [shows] they are serious about securing the borders, they will embrace comprehensive reform.”
Land refused to sign on to the early-March letter Focus on the Family chairman James Dobson, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, and 23 other conservative evangelicals sent to the National Association of Evangelicals calling for the resignation of Richard Cizik, the organization’s vice president for governmental affairs. In late-March…The sharply-worded letter also claimed that Cizik – who maintains that dealing with global warming is central to the Christian mandate to care for creation – was not authorized to speak for the 30 million-member NAE. “If he cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues,” the letter read, “then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE.”
Land, who didn’t sign on to the Dobson letter and has not joined the Evangelical Environmental Network – a group of evangelicals working to show that global warming adversely affects the poor – pointed out that he “felt it [the letter] was not in any way a productive or redemptive way to deal with the issue.”
mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=187“First of all, I don’t think the way you treat people you disagree with is to publicly reprimand them and put their job in jeopardy,” Land said. “It’s not how Christians should treat each other.”