+++++++
One thing which has puzzled me about public opinion and the War On Terror, is why reasonable people so often seem to buy into lies and hysteria from the Left. Since very few people consider themselves Liberals these days, why would they buy into the Liberal version of Reality?
I went to my parents’ church this morning, and naturally the service was patriotic in theme. It struck me then, when during the organized prayer, the Associate Minister cautioned the congregation that perhaps we should reconsider going into places “with force and destruction, and then wondering why our reputation suffered”. Shortly after that, in a session recognizing Armed Services veterans and their families, the ministers made a point to note the sacrifices and service given in World War 2, in Korea, and in the Gulf War of 1990-1991, but were silent about veterans of the present conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. With or without the intent, the clergy implied that only certain veterans deserved respect and support. During the sermon, discussing the sin of Pride, the minister again made a point to claim that nations and leaders do not do well to act without considering the opinions of others. The Gospel According to Michael Moore, you see.
I do not mean to say that the United Methodist Church may not hold its own opinions on political matters and morality, nor that individual ministers may not speak out when they see what they deem sin in a leader. But I noted there was no balance to this Socialist Gospel; no mention of the millions of people freed in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor of their free elections, no mention of the effects the Bush Doctrine has had on Syria, on Lebanon, on Libya, and on all the rest of the Middle East. No attempt at all to express the matter in the broader context. Of course, the United Methodist Church was also silent when one of their own denomination, President Clinton, admitted to Adultery, even to lying under oath. Not our place to condemn opined the Serpents, no need to embarrass the man. No word of criticism about the foreign policy which left more than a hundred thousand dead in Rwanda, which excused the genocide in Bosnia, and which left dozens of tyrannical regimes unanswered, in power with the tacit approval not only of the Clinton Administration, but also of the Methodists. Lenin from a pulpit, n’cest pas?
There are many fronts in the war to renew American commitment to its ideals. Keeping the players honest, whether they wear a suit or robe, is a major part of that challenge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is the reason why I stopped going to my church. I'm considering St. Vincent's instead.
I linked this at Lifelike Pundits.
Did they mention Vietnam and if not where is your outrage at that?
Also,...Why is it that the author of this piece thinks that only Michael Moore thinks that a leader should give thought to the worlds perception of his actions? This all goes back to the "Global Test" line of the debates. While John Kerry is an ass and Global Test is a stupid phrase--Michael Moore and John Kerry were not the only ones to think that an explanation of action and consensus building were necessary.
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
This quote, which I am sure you and other conservatives would be quick to point out contains a reference to God also says that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind should be paid.
What is wrong with that?
Also, would the author of the piece have complained if the minister had said don't vote for a Democratic candidate because he or she was pro-choice?
Just asking...
Chris
Subtle and even not so subtle criticism of this Republican government's foreign policy and war-making from a Christian perspective is not very difficult.
Also, criticism of government policy is not criticism of the troops.
I would ask the minister if he had excluded Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq on purpose. He probably did not. A Serviceperson's sacrifices for his/her Nation are admirable, regardless of policy flaws and wrong-headed strategies. Most Americans since Vietnam know that. Although that was the classic mistake in Vietnam, i.e. blaming troops for the Nation's war policy.
Now, Dubya had a nice speech at Fort Bragg, NC. Coming from a draft-dodger (yes Sally, going into the Texas Air National Guard because you carry the name "Bush" was a way of avoiding Vietnam and possible combat), in which he implied that losing the war in Iraq would have something to do with the Troops. It will not. It will have all to do with his flawed policy, incompetent leadership, and ineffective strategy.
Post a Comment