Christians for Peace march in Killeen
An article in the Killeen Daily Herald reports that a bunch of hippies from Austin and Waco descended upon Fort Hood and Killeen Texas this weekend. Of course, they began their silent march at the IVAW “Under the Hood” cafe. I don’t believe that a more naive bunch of people exist. It sounds to me like they think we’re the only people fighting this war;
“Our goal is to establish peace and end this war,” [Ray Johnson, retired chaplain] said. “The Creator has better things in store for this nation.”
The article doesn’t mention what this Ray Johnson was chaplain of, but they sure make it sound like he was in the military don’t they?
“Our silent march and vigil is not about ‘We,’ the good people, against ‘Them,’ the bad people. On the contrary, those of us here today must have a deep awareness that the soldiers at Fort Hood are people caught in the same trap of war making that we are. They want to earn money to care for their families. They work for their own dignity and self-respect. They work because they love their fellow human beings, their country, their God. The unspeakable tragedy is that their hard work is used to kill the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Throwing in the class warfare card is almost un-Christian, ain’t it?
Of course, it was a star studded event;
Victor Agosto, currently facing charges for refusal to go to Afghanistan, joined the group to march for peace. Agosto’s summary court-martial is scheduled for next week. After serving his sentence, he said he would probably be chaptered out of service. He has been in the Army for four years.
So we’ll be looking for accounts of Victor’s court martial this week.
But these “Christians for Peace” are new to me, so I had to look them up on the internet. There’s not much about them, really. No information on who supports them (although in the KDH article it mentioned some of them were also members of Code Pink) and their “About” page is pretty sparse. But here’s one little naive nugget to take with you;
Despite our exorbitant defense budget, we still feel insecure and threatened by a poor and improvised al-Qaida, so we build more systems, even a missile defense system which repeatedly fails.
I’m pretty sure the missile defense system isn’t intended to defend against al Qaeda, but there are a few countries that we do need to defend against. And calling al Qaeda “poor and impoverished” doesn’t make them any less dangerous or any more endearing.
Jesus teaches us to love our enemies (Matt 5:43-44), to forgive those who sin against us (Matt 18:21-22), and to deny ourselves, carry our cross, and follow him.
We believe that war is immoral. The idea that we can kill, we can choose who will live and who will die, to protect our way of life is not in accordance with Jesus’ teachings and life example. The powers of this world use war today, but as Christians our battle is not against flesh and blood, (not against other people) but against these powers (Eph 6:12). As Christians, we do not wage war as the world does (2 Cor 10:3-4).
I’m pretty sure than Jesus didn’t want us to march like lambs to the slaughter, though. But, like I said, some of these folks are in with Code Pink, and we know their agenda is just to make more money and be obnoxious. These Christians for Peace are cut from the same cloth. Clearly, their message if you look at their website, is based in the class warfare message – we’re all victims of greed and materialism. The US spends money on defense when it could be spent on unicorn farms, rainbow development and Skittles gardens.
If I were a church-going Christian, I’d be angry, for the same reason I’m angry at Veterans for Peace. Their group’s name insinuates that unless you belong to the group you are “for War”. We all want peace – it’s just that some of us have our feet on the ground. I wonder how much worshiping of Christ and spreading his teachings will get done if the Islamists get their way with us.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Code Pink, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Usual Suspects
Interesting post.
If they were Quakers I’d consider the source with, at least, some respect.
BTW, your closing sentence was way too short.
The list of those dimwits who appear to WANT the Islamists over here is quite long. The gay rights types… and even Code Pink, et al, wouldn’t last either. See Iran!
These faux-Christians conveniently forget about Christ cleaning out the money-changers from His temple. He could put on His righteous indignation when He wanted to. And He had a carpenter’s strong right arm to do it with, too.
What about “Pagans for Random Nudity and Violence”? WHat did they have to say about this march?
I was not there for this march, but I don’t think, even though they marched together that day, that they are the same group. I’ve met many different types of Code Pink ladies, so it is a very wide range of women. At least in the Austin Area. I have not met these Christians but if they are marching in in good faith with their beliefs, I can not disrespect that.
These so-called Christians are clearly moral relativists.
Augustine and others have penned just-war theories that coincide neatly with biblical teachings on the role of government. I take it these peace-nik believers have never read this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:%201-7%20;&version=31;
And I take it you’ve never read this:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
A friend of mine wrote this article:
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_05/smith-war.html
The article points out that Augustine’s just war theory was one which denied to the individual Christian the right to self-defense while insisting that Christians have a “duty to use force when a war has been authorized by a legitimate political ruler.” The author, George H. Smith, points out that it then took several centuries before Augustine’s “authority” in the matter of denying the right to self-defense was overthrown, which was accomplished by Thomas Aquinas.
Things are a lot more complex than can be resolved by simply throwing up a link to the Bible, which has been interpreted in different ways on this subject for thousands of years. And we don’t live in a theocracy.
Man, I don’t even know where to start with this. I guess I’ll start with the comments. B Woodman: Sorry, that’s just not true–it’s an assertion made based on a mistranslation in the King James Bible that scholars have known about for many, many years. It’s corrected in current translations. See, for example, NRSV’s account. It’s pretty specific on the fact that Christ hit the animals and not the people. Further, we have records that show that 3rd/4th century Christian bishops were very clearly aware of this distinction…for example, at a hearing dealing with a man’s assault on priests, he attempted to raise the Temple episode as a defense and was corrected in very strong terms by church officials along the lines described above. If you need a citation, I’ll dig it up. Richard: Are you a fan of the American revolution? Or the U.S. Declaration of Independence? The argument implicit in your citation of Romans 13 requires you to pick American founding ideals or Romans 13–you can’t have both. Further, plucking a chapter out of *the most explicitly anti-imperialistic book in the New Testament aside from Revelation* is intellectually dishonest. See the essay “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire” by N.T. Wright or The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder. Also: just war theory is not Christian dogma–you don’t have to believe it to be a Christian. It predates Christianity in the writings of Cicero and others. As for the content of the post, I’m only going to address the closing line: “I wonder how much worshiping of Christ and spreading his teachings will get done if the Islamists get their way with us.” All I will say about that is this: the Romans got their way with Christ, and then with the early Christians. I’d suggest taking a look at the writings of the early Christians on violence, political power, etc. I understand a strong disagreement with Christian pacifism based on your desire to make a difference in the world and struggling with how that would work within the constraints of pacifism. Just consider that people who believe… Read more »
Sorry for the second post–thought the citations mentioned above needed links:
Re: the Temple/whip episode and 4th-century authoritative debunking of the “Jesus whipped people” imagery, see The Politics of Jesus (http://bit.ly/50kdB) p. 42, footnote 37.
For the essay “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” see here: http://bit.ly/16NbTT
Things are a lot more complex than can be resolved by simply throwing up a link to the Bible, which has been interpreted in different ways on this subject for thousands of years. And we don’t live in a theocracy.
Did I say we live in a theocracy? Thanks for misinterpreting my comment and putting words in my mouth to boot. Two links to critics of the just way theory does not amount to a refutation — I can give a dozen links that show the opposite.
Don’t forget, that it’s not me who’s protesting the war and using biblical memes to provide justification.
In short, you’re barking up the wrong tree, Deb.
Richard: Are you a fan of the American revolution? Or the U.S. Declaration of Independence? The argument implicit in your citation of Romans 13 requires you to pick American founding ideals or Romans 13–you can’t have both
You’re simply reading far too much into my brief comment — my only point is that governments do have justification to ‘bear the sword.’
I think you’re engaging in intellectual dishonesty by ascribing to arguments that I did not make.
Try again.
Richard,
You obviously didn’t even click on the links I provided, much less understood what I wrote. The links I posted were to 1) The Declaration of Independence, and 2) an article on just war theory and libertarianism written by an atheist which DOES NOT refute just war theory. Nor do I. Nor am I an antiwar protester using biblical memes to provide justification.
It is way past my bedtime.
DC:
The Paul book is a fringe text, written by a far-left biblical scholar who is not in the mainstream. This explains your “imperial” smear of the Pauline text. You’re reading into the text what is not there.
What you’ve done here is quite dishonest — you’ve parroted liberal theology without being honest about your position (you make it appear as if your position is the normal one) while excoriating those who hold differing views on the same subject. Your whole spiel is simply hand waving, nothing more.
This is not an intellectual exchange, but a way for you explain away your opponents and characterize them as immoral, ant-intellectual, or just plain backward.
Nor do I. Nor am I an antiwar protester using biblical memes to provide justification.
Again, did I say you were? I’m speaking of the anti-war Christian group who referenced scripture as foundational to their anti-war stance.
Perhaps it’s past both our bedtimes. Goodnight.
Of course that’s not to say I disagree with them.
Goodnight now…sweet dreams.
Favorite qoute:
“Our silent march and vigil is not about ‘We,’ the good people, against ‘Them,’ the bad people. On the contrary, those of us here today must have a deep awareness that the soldiers at Fort Hood are people caught in the same trap of war making that we are. They want to earn money to care for their families. They work for their own dignity and self-respect. They work because they love their fellow human beings, their country, their God. The unspeakable tragedy is that their hard work is used to kill the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Uhhhhhh, I volunteered to kill terrorists, not sure what these idiots are talking about.
Richard:
Nice try.
1) First, N.T. Wright is not in any way a “liberal” in the context of Biblical studies. Wright is actually *conservative* when it comes to the authority of the Bible, the historicity of the New Testament, etc. etc. etc. He falls to the right of a continuum that has on one end the Jesus Seminar and on the other conservative Evangelical in the U.S. He’s the Bishop of Durham. Calling him a “far-left fringe scholar” is just a silly argument hoping no one would know who we’re talking about. People who spend their time defending the historicity of the New Testament against folks like the Seminar are engaging in a conservative exercise.
2) Re: the Romans text–okay, fair enough, didn’t mean to ascribe an argument to you which you did not make. Thought you were using it in a particular way to make a larger argument. However, I still think you’re off on using that as a “justification for Christians to bear the sword.” There’s a whole section in that Yoder book I posted above, and I’d just refer you to that.
3) I never said anything about my position being the “normal” one. I just refuted a few things that were either a) factually incorrect, b) what I viewed as an incorrect use of scripture, or c) rhetorical questions that left out a nice fat chunk of early Christian history and writings that undercut the overall argument. To assert or imply that pacifist Christianity is the “norm” would be silly. Of course it’s not. That does not mean, however, that the norm is not a distortion of the intent of Christ or the early church.
DC, Paul is a liar, through and through. It was his hallucinations that led him to deify Jesus and concoct the whole “Christianity” business to start with. He basically was creating a “Judaism Light” for the Hellenic world. His “conversion” on the road to Damascus had more to do with his needing a job and a bad case of sunstroke. So Jesus was all about the “non-violence” then? Don’t try and pull that revisionist leftist crap about “whipping only the animals”. That’s a damned lie put out to help revise history and support a whacko agenda. Jesus also commanded his followers to “sell their possessions and purchase a sword” if they did not have one. Jesus created the whole Temple scene to start a riot, to get the people agitated and begin a revolution to throw out the Romans. he was NEVER about being the “son of God” he was a real Jewish revolutionary who wanted to remove the stain of Roman Imperialism from Israel and restore the legitimate Jewish House of David to the throne. That’s why he was there, you know? He was a descendant of David’s royal line. Jesus’ problem was that his organization fell apart. The Romans cent a cohort to arrest him. That’s 6 centuries of 480 men each. You don’t send that sort of strength to arrest an itinerant “carpenter” and preacher. He had a LARGE, armed group with him, and there was indeed a struggle before he was captured. He was then executed for being an enemy of Rome. But let’s keep your revisionist “Christianity” going, eh? You say that Jesus (and by the by, his name isn’t Christ. That’s a title, as in, Jesus the Christ, or Christ Jesus) was a pacifist, that the commanment says “Thou Shat Not Kill”, but it doesn’t say that. The original language, plus the Greek and Latin all interpret as “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” Quite a difference there, and one that falls neatly in line with all other law codes from that era. I am tired to death of idiot Christians blathering on about “Peace &… Read more »
In the past, every army went to war blessed by their priests and with the positive assurance that God was on their said. The great German statesman, Bismark assured his army of that with a little clarification. God is on the side of those who have the biggest cannons.
ciccio,
yes indeed, and their belt buckles still (I believe) bear the phrase “Gott Mit Uns”.
Napoleon, when asked which side he believed God supported, is said to have remarked that “God always supports the side with the bigger battalions”.
I rather believe that all of the Gods stay more or less out of the contest, unless they are feeling a bit petulant, or are favouring some hero or another. The Gods can be finicky, and what they do and why they do it is often beyond our comprehension.
To my mind, we mortals are pretty much an amusement to the Gods.
respects,
I think that the “GOD” argument is pretty irrevelant to this debate. Some people just refuse to beleive that ANYONE could EVER mean them any harm. Other people have no honor. this is an excellent example of what happens when you combine the 2 types. “GOD” is irrevelant to there argument except as a vehical for the bullshit they are spouting.
Sgt. D,
You hit square in the black. They are using their religion as a tool to support their own agenda, rather than as it was intended.
Stay safe, Sgt, and best wishes for you and yours.
AW1 Tim Says:
Whoa now. Re: the temple scene–I’m sorry, you are just factually incorrect. You are going to have a really hard time finding any scholar in the original language that agrees with you here. On top of that, you still have the citation I linked to above from early Christianity.
As for this:
” But let’s keep your revisionist “Christianity” going, eh? You say that Jesus (and by the by, his name isn’t Christ. That’s a title, as in, Jesus the Christ, or Christ Jesus) was a pacifist, that the commanment says “Thou Shat Not Kill”, but it doesn’t say that. The original language, plus the Greek and Latin all interpret as “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” Quite a difference there, and one that falls neatly in line with all other law codes from that era.”
Uh, friend, I didn’t say a word about the 10 commandments. That’s really not an argument I make. But your attempt to skirt around a substantial corpus of early Christian writing, including Paul’s letters, is pretty illustrative of who’s doing the revisionist history here. As for this:
“I am tired to death of idiot Christians blathering on about “Peace & Justice”. The whole lot have been corrupted bu centuries of false dogma, and noy by a socialist agenda. If you feel so strongly about your faith that you must needs serve it rather than this nation’s laws, then please bugger off and get the hell down to some socialist paradise like Venezuela or Cuba. You aren’t needed, nor wanted here.”
…socialism? What? Not following. You’re kind of having a meltdown here. But for the record (not that it will matter for you, Tim), my faith led me to nonviolence, not the other way around. Voted for Bush the first time, applied at the CIA when I graduated from college, cheered the initial Afghanistan invasion. Wrestling with my faith led me here, so you’re assuptions are a wee bit misplaced.
Not having a meltdown at all. I stand by every word I said.
This Jesus was a man, like you or me or anyone else. He was NEVER a God, anymore than Caesar or Alexander or Xerxes. A man, a Jew, a Rabbi, and the legitimate heir to the throne of Israel.
He lived, he married, he sired children, he tried to start a rebellion, and he was tried and executed for it. The Paul came along and started his flim/flam act and the rest is heresy, er, history, as it were.
You can take most of what passes for Christian research and toss it aside because it rests on less evidence of Jesus’ life than what we know of ancient Pharoahs. After the Council of Nicea, whatever chance there was for an honest look at the times and life of Jesus was destroyed in flames as wicked and petulant as those of the Nazi book-burnings in Germany.
90 percent of Christian “research” is on grounds less firm than quicksand, and kept afloat primarily by a blinded faith an an intolerant agenda.
Well, I would like to mention that the atheist author of the libertarianism and just war theory article that I posted the link to in post #6, George H. Smith, became a friend of mine a number of years ago not because I’m also an atheist (because I’m not), but because we share a common love for liberty. Among his many other writings, including three books on atheism, he also wrote an article for the Acton Institute on “Christianity and Liberty” in which he said:
“Throughout history, the love of liberty has transcended religious controversies. This is good news indeed. If an atheist who values liberty meets a Christian who values liberty, this common ground gives them a reason to value each other.”
The article is online at http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_article_66.php